Title: Maryland Public Charter School Authorizer Orientation Workshop September 25, 2003
1Maryland Public Charter School Authorizer
Orientation WorkshopSeptember 25, 2003
- Hosted by the Maryland State Department of
Education in cooperation with the Maryland
Association of Boards of Education the Maryland
Charter School Network
presented by the National Association of Charter
School Authorizers
2About Our Sponsor
- NACSAs development of this workshop was funded
by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. - We thank them for their support but note that the
presentation content and related materials
represent NACSA work products and do not
necessarily reflect the opinions of the
Foundation.
3What are Charter Schools?
- Like all public schools . . .
- Open to all students (or subgroup targeted under
state law) - Non-selective
- Must meet all civil rights, special education,
health and safety, due process, open meeting and
other generally applicable laws for public
schools - Funded according to the per pupil funding formula
4What are Charter Schools? (cont.)
- Different from traditional public schools . . .
- Created by application to the district
- May be sponsored by private non profit entities
- Evaluated on outcomes based on terms of a written
charter agreement - No students assigned to the school
5Spread of Charter School Laws
6Growth of Charter Schools
7Percentage of Elementary Students by
Race/Ethnicity (1999-2000)
Source U.S. Department of Education, NCES,
Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000.
8Percentage of Elementary Schools with 75-100 of
Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-priced Lunch
(1999-2000)
Source U.S. Department of Education, NCES,
Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000.
9Authorizer Basics
- Authorizers are entities charged with licensing
(i.e., chartering), overseeing, and deciding
whether to renew individual charter schools. - Statutory terms include
- authorizer
- sponsor
- approver
- granter
Authorizers charter schools primarily to provide
additional student choice options. Source
Fordham Report, May 2003
10Authorizer Basics
- Entities with chartering authority include
- School districts (almost everywhere)
- State departments of education (e.g., AZ, DE, PA,
MA, NC) - State charter boards (AZ, DC)
- Colleges and universities (FL, IN, MI, MN, MO,
NY, OH, WI) - Non-profit organizations (MN, OH forthcoming)
- Cities/Mayors (IN, WI)
11Authorizer Data
- More than 600 active authorizers are responsible
for overseeing the nations nearly 2,700 charter
schools. - The vast majority of authorizers charter 1-2
schools.
Sources Fordham Report on Charter School
Authorizing, May 2003 Center for Education
Reforms 2003 Directory.
12Charter Opportunities and Responsibilities
- Adopting a New Schools Strategy
Overview of Charter Authorizer Responsibilities
13Traditional Paradigm
Board
Charter Schools
Central Office
County Schools
GOALS
14Changing Views of Chartering
- New paradigm chartering as
- Strategic tool for local boards to achieve goals
15New Paradigm
Board
Central Office
County Schools
GOALS
Charter Schools
16A Different County-School Relationship
- County is not responsible for making the school
succeed - County is responsible for holding the school
accountable for its success or failure
17How LEAs Use Chartering
- Drive changes in instruction learning
environment - Create small schools (Chicago)
- Meet needs of specific groups of students
(programmatic focus, learning style, special
education) (Miami-Dade) - Encourage different and innovative educational
programs or teaching methods (New York City)
18How LEAs Use Chartering
- Tap into educators motivations
- Increase commitment effort through ownership
(Chula-Vista, CA) - Give great principals the chance to thrive
(Milwaukee)
19How LEAs Use Chartering
- Meet new federal and state requirements
- Provide choices required under NCLB (many
districts) - Deal with chronically low-performing schools (in
the future)
20But Why Use Chartering?
- Increased influence through the charter
- Value of starting fresh
- Power of ownership
- Bring outside resources into the system
- Money
- Time / commitment
- Community connections
21Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
22Application Process
- Timeline (often framed by law but some have
discretion) - Application Requirements (many hold training
sessions) - Specify selection criteria, which may include
education plan, governance, budget, business
plan, and performance goals. - Review Process
- Often involves interviews, use of external
reviewers, due diligence (e.g., background
checks) and public hearings. - Decisions / Appeals
- If denied provide feedback specify conditions
for contingent approvals or appeals (if
applicable).
23Criteria Cited by Authorizers in Decisions to
Issue Charters
MEAN (Based on 4-point Scale)
- Accountability Provisions 3.89
- Mission and Goals of the School 3.84
- Curriculum 3.82
- Health Safety Issues 3.81
- Finances 3.81
- Assessment 3.77
- Governance Management 3.76
- Special Education Services 3.65
- Admission Procedures 3.58
- Instructional Strategies 3.57
Source SRI International, A Decade of Public
Charter Schools, 2000-2001 Evaluation Report,
2002 (Lee Anderson)
24Performance Contracting
- Contracts (and/or a separate Accountability
Plan) may cover - Purpose of charter (mission and strategic
approach) - Charters term and conditions for renewal
- Laws regulations the school must satisfy
- Resource flow and financial management (including
relationships with EMOs/CMOs) - Target population and strategies for addressing
deficiencies in student learning as well as
parent appeal procedures - Performance measurements and reporting
requirements and - Authorizer options for corrective action,
revocation, etc.
25Common Methods Used to Measure and Report
Progress
PERCENTAGE
- Academic Achievement 96
- Student Attendance 90
- Staff Performance and/or Attendance 86
- Student Behaviors 85
- Promotion or Graduation 84
- Parent Satisfaction 78
- Parent Involvement 67
Source SRI International, A Decade of Public
Charter Schools, 2000-2001 Evaluation Report,
2002 (Lee Anderson)
26Ongoing Oversight Evaluation
- Compliance
- Monitoring school operations using multiple
quality indicators. - Information Gathering
- May involve annual reports, student assessment
results, fiscal audits, site visits, school
self-reviews and parent surveys. - Should post data (e.g., annual reports, score
results) via web. - Corrective Action
- Should operate from a menu of possible responses
to poor performance and noncompliance (e.g.,
technical assistance, written warnings,
probation, revocation, non-renewal).
27Accountability Areas Monitored by Charter School
Authorizers
PERCENTAGE
- Student Achievement/Statewide Assessments 95
- Financial Recordkeeping 91
- Compliance with Federal or State Regulations 90
- Enrollment Numbers 87
- Student Achievement/Other Standardized Tests 75
- Student Performance on Performance-Based Tests 72
- Alignment of Curriculum to State Standards 72
- School Management or Leadership 68
-
Source SRI International, A Decade of Public
Charter Schools, 2000-2001 Evaluation Report,
2002 (Lee Anderson)
28Renewal Decision-making
- Decision-making Data
- Objective measures from multiple sources.
- But, will also involve some level of professional
judgement. - Decision-making Procedure (Transparency)
- Clarify data to be used timetable benchmarks
for renewal, probation, revocation and
non-renewal and the process for challenging and
appealing the authorizers ruling. - Policies and Procedures for School Closure
- Orderly transfer of student records, counseling
for parents and students on school options,
disposition of assets.
29Reasons For Revoking, Not Renewing, or Imposing
Sanctions
PROBATION
NON-RENEWAL
- Financial Viability or Management 100 70
- School Management/Leadership 83 69
- Progress Toward Academic Goals 64 50
- Enrollment Numbers 64 16
- Growth in Student Performance 50 37
- Actual Student Performance Levels 36 44
Source SRI International, A Decade of Public
Charter Schools, 2000-2001 Evaluation Report,
2002 (Lee Anderson)
30Putting it All Together
Clear expectations for school performance
Performance contracting
Evidence about progress toward goals
Ongoing oversight
Decisions based on expectations evidence
Renewal decision-making
31Putting it All Together
Accountability Relationship (contract) (oversight)
(decision-making)
Application Process (outreach) (criteria) (review)
(decisions)
High-quality chartered schools
32Authorizer ResponsibilitiesPart I
- Application Process and Performance Contracting
NYCs Chartering Strategy
33Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
34Application Process
- Opportunity
- for authorizers and school organizers
- to create excellent schools
- through a rigorous, high-quality process
- Process
- consider multiple stages
- as a chance for applicants to improve their plans
- and for authorizers to charter sound schools
- Key step
- basis of school development and charter agreement
35Application Process
- Sample timeline
- Pre-application - Questions to consider
- How will the authorizer interact with potential
applicants? - What guidance will the authorizer provide for
potential applicants? - What specific information will the authorizer
provide for potential applicants? - Post-application Decision process after
application submitted - Review process begins possible steps
- interviews, expert reviews, public hearings,
opportunities to refine and resubmit - Application approved/denied decision within 120
days (requirement under MD charter law)
36Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application Process
37Application Process ? Outreach
- What kind(s) of outreach will help the authorizer
achieve its strategic goals? - Basic outreach
- clear accessible information about application
requirements and process - Active outreach
- training for potential applicants
- individualized guidance on application
development - Targeted outreach
- Target specific educational programs
- Target specific sponsors (e.g., community groups)
38Application Process ? Criteria
- Submission requirements
- Elements required by state law
- Guidance
- How will the application be evaluated?
- Balance
- Critical information for decision-making
- Formulate strong plans
- Expectations for applicants
- Benefit from the work of other authorizers
39Application Process ? Review
- Multi-step process
- Letter of intent, prospectus, full application
- Application review strategies
- Interviews between applicant and sponsor
(staff/board) - External reviews
- Community input (applications for public review,
public hearings) - Transparency
40Application Process ? Decision
- Application decision considerations
- As mandated by state application guidelines
- As determined by criteria outlined in application
(ensure fairness and consistency)
41Summary
- Purposes of the application process
- Quality
- Fairness
- Transparency
42Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
43From Approval to Opening
- Sample timeline
- Chartering process begins possible steps
- Organizer refines plans outlined in application
- Charter agreement is negotiated and signed
- Prepare for school opening possible steps
- Organizer further develops plans (e.g.,
transportation, food services, health, special
education, etc.) - Organizer executes plans
- Authorizer conducts pre-opening visits with clear
checklist
44Performance Contracting Accountability Planning
- Definitions
- Why important
- Why challenging
- Components of charter agreement
45Definitions Performance Contract
- Performance contract, aka charter, aka
charter agreement - An agreement between an authorizer and school
that specifies
46Definitions Performance Contract
- Expectations school must meet to secure renewal
(or avoid revocation) - results
- compliance
- Expectations authorizer must meet
- autonomy
- resources
- services
47Definitions
- Accountability Planning
- The process
- by which the authorizer and the school come to
agreement - about the expectations for which the school will
be held accountable
48Performance Contracting
- Components of a charter agreement
- Common elements
- School-specific elements
- Services agreements
- Performance goals
49Performance Contracting
- Why is the charter agreement important?
- Defines legal relationship b/w authorizer
school - Defines how the authorizer will hold school
accountable - Sets framework for authorizer responsibilities
(oversight, decision-making) - (Ideally) helps school launch with clear mission,
purpose goals
50Performance Contracting
- Why is performance contracting challenging?
- High stakes decision
- How good is good enough?
- How bad is too bad?
- Focusing on results
- Meshing with federal state requirements
51Accountability Planning
- Three tracks of accountability planning
- Externally mandated indicators
- Federal (e.g., AYP)
- State (e.g., state assessment system)
- Charter law (e.g., fiscal compliance)
- Authorizer-initiated indicators
- E.g., Parent satisfaction measures
- School-initiated indicators
- Mission-specific goals
52Accountability Planning
- School-initiated goals indicators
- Application the starting point
- Refinement process
- Clarify mission goals
- Select/develop measures
- Note refinement takes time
- Final plan negotiated with authorizer
53Expectations How Definitive?
Straight Formula
Pure Judgment
WHY? Clarity is vital Need basis for tough calls
WHY? Performance is complex Importance of
intangibles
54One Approach Performance Matrix
- Defines a set of indicators of success
- Defines levels of performance on indicators
- Does not include a formula for renewal
- Creates some clarity
- Gives structure and rigor to evaluation
- Preserves authorizers discretion
55Summary
- Steps for performance contracting
accountability planning - Identify externally-mandated indicators
- Define authorizer-initiated indicators
- Negotiate school-initiated indicators
- Determine how definitively to set expectations
56Authorizer ResponsibilitiesPart II
- Ongoing Oversight
- Renewal Decision-making
A View from the Inside
57Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
58Ongoing Oversight Evaluation Overview
- Role of Oversight in Chartering
- Components
59Role of Ongoing Oversight
- Period between signing the charter agreement
(performance contract) and renewal decisionmaking - Potential Uses of Oversight
- Monitor compliance with terms of the charter
agreement - Highlight schools strengths and weaknesses
- Aid schools development
- Reveal information about practices that may be of
value for other schools - Provide parents and the public with information
they need to make good, informed decisions
60Oversight of Charter vs. Non-charter Schools
- District schools
- District owns and operates
- District directly responsible for day-to-day
activity - District intervenes when problems arise
- Charter schools
- Charter school has school-based management
- District responsible for accountability under
charter agreement - District intervenes in severe cases of breach of
agreement
61Components of Oversight
- Information Gathering Aligned with Accountability
Plan - Externally mandated indicators
- Authorizer-initiated indicators
- School-initiated indicators
- Monitoring
- Information and Assistance
- Evaluation and Corrective Action
- If performance lags, how does the authorizer
respond? - Escalating responses
62Monitoring
- Question How will the authorizer use the
information to make judgments about a schools
progress toward meeting goals? - Example Evaluating readiness to open
- Pre-opening checklist
- Verification of readiness
63Monitoring
- Reporting Tools
- Avoid duplication of efforts is the information
already compiled to an existing source? - Student assessment data (consider types and
methods in addition to annual standardized test
scores, e.g., study of student performance over
time - value-added analysis) - Surveys of parents and school staff
- Compliance reports (e.g, attendance reports,
governance reviews, financial reviews)
64Monitoring
- Reporting Tools (continued)
- School self-evaluation (D.C. Public Charter
School Board requires during schools first year
of operation program, standards, goals,
assessment methods, school/classroom climates,
management/governance, and parent/community
involvement) - Site visits formal and informal (Chicago Public
Schools, State University of New York,
Massachusetts Department of Education,
Indianapolis Mayors Office) - External reviews surveys, on-site reviews, data
analysis (Central Michigan University,
Indianapolis Mayors Office)
65Information and Assistance
- Question Can the authorizer make reporting and
compliance easier for charter schools? - Examples
- Provide information e.g., calendar of reporting
requirements, handbook (Indianapolis Mayors
Office, Central Michigan University,
Massachusetts Department of Education) - Provide training/guidance e.g., training on
health, safety, welfare, issues and/or
permissible uses of funding - Facilitate reporting systems - clear, simplified
format or electronic reporting - Meetings with charter school leaders
66Evaluation and Corrective Action
- Internal vs. External problems
- Charter- or law-related issues (e.g., financial,
governance, performance, etc.) - Internal management issues (e.g., parent
complaints, employment issues) - Response to low performing schools
- Requirements under No Child Left Behind
- Parent notification (required under No Child Left
Behind) - Probation or other intermediate steps
- Procedures for taking action
67Corrective Action Strategies
- Table of Remedies (D.C. Public Charter School
Board) - Notice of concern (letter to schools board,
Performance Improvement Plan recommended) - Notice of deficiency (Performance Improvement
Plan negotiated with specific improvement
objectives, technical assistance requirements,
and timetable for improvement) - Notice of probationary status (PIP imposed with
technical assistance team possible external
monitor) - Full charter review (determines whether to
commence revocation proceedings recommendation
to revoke, not to revoke, or to impose lesser
sanctions)
68Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
69Renewal Overview
- Why the Renewal Decision is Important
- Why the Renewal Decision is Challenging
- Role of the Authorizer
70Why Renewal is Important
- Affirms importance of performance for students
and families - Gives the Board a form of control / authority it
typically lacks - Credibility of charter accountability system
rests on it
71Why Renewal is Challenging
- Systems often too weak to support
- Performance is complex, not simple
- Schools build up a constituency
- Legal considerations
72Role of the Authorizer in Renewal
- Adopt a clear process for renewal decisions
- Timing
- What the school will submit
- What options the authorizer has
- probation?
- reconstitution?
- Steps in the decision process
- Planning for the worst school closure policies
- Stick to the process
73Discussion Question
- What can we do NOW to set the stage for viable
renewal decisions THEN?
74Open Dialogue
Suggested Next Steps
75Additional Resources
- National Association of Charter School
Authorizers - www.charterauthorizers.org
- Authorizer Resource Library
- U.S. Charter Schools
- www.uscharterschools.org
- Accessing Federal Programs A Guidebook
- U.S. Department of Education
- www.ed.org
- Grants Contracts