charter school commission meeting materials
TRANSCRIPT
Charter School Commission Meeting MaterialsApril 30, 2013
Overview
AUTHORIZING ROLE
The Master sees things as they are, without trying to control them. He lets them go their own way, and resides at the center of the circle.
The Charter Bargain
The Authorizing Process
The purpose is to improve the educational options available to children and families by…
Approving only strong, demonstrably viable applications
Renewing schools only if they meet or exceed performance expectations
National Charter Trends
• Focus on performance • “U” Performance Curve • Replication/Scale Up • Distance Learning • Statewide response to
underperformance (RSD, ASD, EAA)
APPLICATION DECISION-MAKING Prevent trouble before it arises. Put things in order before they exist.
National Trends in Application Approval Rates
NACSA Decision Management • Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
– 10 application cycles (as of summer 2011) – Total applications: 136 – Approval Rate: < 40%
• Florida Schools of Excellence Commission – 1 cycle – 52 applications – Approval Rate: 6%
• Orleans Parish (LA) School Board – 2011, 2012 – Approval Rate: 14%
• Jefferson Parish Public School System – 2011 – Approval Rate: 18%
• Tennessee Achievement School District – 2011, 2012, 2013 – Approval Rate: 25%
Commission Responsibilities
• Give priority to serving at-risk populations or students from low- performing public schools
• Approve quality applications that meet identified educational needs and promote a diversity of educational choices
• Deny weak or inadequate applications
Process Steps
Evaluation Team Composition
• Team Lead • Reviewers
– Internal – Local – National
Special Applicant Types
What Do Operators Care About?
• Funding • Facilities • Multiple Approvals • Charter Term • Autonomy • Stability/Predictability • Potential Impact
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
The Master remains serene in the midst of sorrow… Because he has given up helping, he is people’s greatest help.
Commission Responsibilities
performance expectations • Monitor in accordance with the contract • Produce annual reports including portfolio
performance • Decide renewal, nonrenewal, and
revocation
Charter Closure Rates Inside and Outside Renewal (fall 2008–spring 2011)
20
Atlanta Public Schools
Orleans Parish School Board
Nevada Public Education Authority
Ball State (IN) University
New Mexico Public Education Commission
Michigan Education Achievement Authority
Set performance expectations attached to the contract
Monitor Performance
Intervene (if necessary)
Decide Renewal
FRAMEWORK ELEMENTS
Financial • Is the school financially viable?
Organizational • Is the organization effective and well- run?
Framework Components
Student Achievement
Measures General means to evaluate an aspect of an indicator
Proficiency on State Assessments
Percentage of students achieving proficiency on specific exams
Ratings Cutpoints set to categorize charter performance
Meets Standard
Target Threshold that signifies “meeting the standard” for a specific measure
70 % of students achieve proficiency on state assessment
Academic Framework
ACADEMIC FRAMEWORK
Student Achieve-
Mission- Specific Goals
Additional Obligations
How does autonomy get compromised? • Constraints on Time • Constraints on money • Constraints on people
NACSA Authorizer Development Support • Planning & Evaluation • Board & Staff Training • Resource Development &
Implementation • Process Management
Authorizers may look and work differently, but they share a common goal—giving more children the chance to attend a great school. Join hundreds of authorizers and education leaders from across the country for the 2013 NACSA Leadership
Conference as they explore the many approaches to ensuring high-quality charter schools.
100%
For more information, visit www.qualitycharters.org/conference
of survey respondents said participating in the conference was valuable for advancing their organizational goals
95% of survey respondents said they were likely to use what they learned at the conference within their own organizations
Discussion www.qualitycharters.org
Robin J. Lake
program – in exchange for accountability (limited term contract,
subject to testing, health, safety and civil rights laws) – each state defines specific terms
• May not discriminate in admission • Must be non-sectarian and tuition free • Multiple providers (teachers, for-profits, non-profits,
unions, parents, etc.) • Approved and overseen by a school district or other
public agency
HOPES FEARS
Accountability for results (perform or die) Undermining power of unions
Proliferation of successful, mission- driven models
Lack of accountability
Pressure on districts to compete Loss of school district funding, control
Diverse public school parent choice
From the Margins to the Mainstream
• 1991: Minnesota passed law • Now 42/50 states have adopted enabling laws • More than 2M students served (approx. 4% of all
public school students) • Mainly an urban phenomenon • In some cities, charter schools are majority
mode of school provision. In most, they serve a niche purpose (e.g. at-risk populations)
What We Know About Academic Outcomes Finding Citations Results vary by state and city and by type of school
Raymond (CREDO); Gleason et al; Betts and Tang, Ferguson et al
Many states and cities get consistently good results (Boston, New York, Indianapolis, New Orleans, etc.)
Hoxby, Raymond (CREDO), Kane et al, Angrist et al
Low-income and urban students benefit most.
Betts and Tang, Raymond (CREDO)
Promising results on graduation and college going rates
Booker et al, Tuttle et al
Students perform better the longer they attend
Raymond (CREDO)
Betts and Tang, National Consensus Panel on Charter school Achievement
What about other outcomes?
• Charters serve high proportions of minority students (58% in charters vs. 45% in district schools)
• Some struggle to serve students with intensive special needs
• 30+ major school districts actively partner with charter schools
• Long waitlists, extremely popular with parents
• Accountability depends on parent satisfaction and the capacity of government agencies that sponsor and oversee
What We Know About How Charter Schools Become Effective
• Schools need to start with, not grope toward, an instructional approach
• Leadership stability and building a core teaching staff are key
• Governing boards make or break a school • Outside supports help school heads focus on instruction,
assessment, climate (back office services, incubators) • Organizational models offer trends, not guarantees
– CMOs vs EMO vs independent – Virtual schools vs brick and mortar vs blended – Conversion vs new
Quality is Not a Guarantee
Distribution of math test-score effect size after two years (Mathematica Policy Research and CRPE, 2012)
Size of KIPP Impacts in Math After Three Years
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Characteristics of Effective Charters Finding Citations Mission focused on academic performance and core subjects
Hoxby et al 2009, Angrist et al 2011
Intensive assessment and intervention for students and teachers
Hoxby et al 2009, Dobbie and Fryer 2011
Differentiation and individualized instruction
Strict policies focused on discipline and comportment
Hoxby et al 2009, Angrist et al 2011, Ferguson et al 2011
Culture of high expectations Dobbie and Fryer 2011
Extensive teacher coaching and feedback Ferguson et al 2011, Dobbie and Fryer 2011
Increased instructional time Hoxby et al 2009, Angrist et al 2011, Dobbie and Fryer 2011
What We Know About Good Implementation
• Authorizers must learn to steer, not row and must close schools that don’t work out.
• Charters need real autonomy and equitable resources to be successful.
• State and local ecosystems are needed to support quality at scale. – Special education co-ops, risk pools – Help developing economies of scale – Access to facilities, start-up funds – Excellent talent for teaching and governance – District-charter partnerships
Access to Resources is a Barrier to Scale-up
17% 33% 33% 39%
50% 58% 60% 61%
Opposition from teachers’ union
District or state opposition
Lack of per-pupil funding/revenue
Lack of philanthropic support
• Outperformed only by New Orleans two selective admissions public schools
• 85% free/reduced lunch, 97% minority
• Most students arrive at least 3-4 grade levels behind
Aspire Public Schools
Rocketship Education
The charter network’s schools are within the top 10 schools serving low-income students in their county:
*Mateo Sheedy Elementary - API of 892 *Sì Se Puede Academy - API of 859 *Los Sueños Academy - API of 839
90% qualify for free / reduced meals ~75% English as second language
Bottom Line
• Charter schools are simply a new public school “space” for unleashing new ideas, energy, results on behalf of students whose futures are otherwise bleak
• Outcomes are only as good as the authorizers make them
• With the right support and oversight charters can – Provide a free and effective alternative for needy
students – Provide evidence that all students can succeed – Push government agencies to manage performance,
not programs
crpe.org
Charter School Authorizer Fee -- Possible Impact of Sliding Scale Calculations Under SBE Proposed Rule
Total Payment per Student FTE Student FTE Estimated
Allocation Estimated 4% Oversight Fee
Estimated Oversight Fees for 10 Schools of the Same
Size
Fee
Next Steps Communicate Commission’s Position
to State Board How and When
Charter School Commission Rulemaking Steps Designate Rules Coordinator Identify Subjects Requiring
Rulemaking Timeline for Adoption of Rules
Effective in September Process for Drafting Rules
Potential Subjects for Immediate Rulemaking Performance framework – 28A.710.130(1)(b)(ii);
28A.710.170
Define “demonstrated academic achievement” – RCW 28A.710.130(4)(a)
Potential Subjects for Future Rulemaking Corrective Action Procedures – RCW
28A.710.180
Termination protocol framework – RCW 28A.710.210
Timelines for Rulemaking Preproposal Filing (CR-101)
State Register Publication Date
First date Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Can Be Filed (CR-102) 30 days from Pub Date
CR-102 Filing Deadline for Publication -- 30+ pages
CR-102 Filing Deadline for Publication -- 11-29 pages
CR-102 Filing Deadline for Publication -- up to 10 pages
Use Code Reviser's OTS -- no page limit-- some cost
State Register Publication Date
First Adoption Date
5/1/2013 5/15/2013 6/14/2013 6/26/2013 -------------------------- -------------------------- 8/7/2013 8/27/2013 9/24/2013
5/22/2013 6/5/2013 7/5/2013 7/10/2013 7/24/2013 7/24/2013 8/7/2013 8/27/2013 9/24/2013
Authorizing Orientation: Washington State Public Charter School Commission
The U.S. Charter School Sector: Lessons from Research
SBE Rules
Overview
AUTHORIZING ROLE
The Master sees things as they are, without trying to control them. He lets them go their own way, and resides at the center of the circle.
The Charter Bargain
The Authorizing Process
The purpose is to improve the educational options available to children and families by…
Approving only strong, demonstrably viable applications
Renewing schools only if they meet or exceed performance expectations
National Charter Trends
• Focus on performance • “U” Performance Curve • Replication/Scale Up • Distance Learning • Statewide response to
underperformance (RSD, ASD, EAA)
APPLICATION DECISION-MAKING Prevent trouble before it arises. Put things in order before they exist.
National Trends in Application Approval Rates
NACSA Decision Management • Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
– 10 application cycles (as of summer 2011) – Total applications: 136 – Approval Rate: < 40%
• Florida Schools of Excellence Commission – 1 cycle – 52 applications – Approval Rate: 6%
• Orleans Parish (LA) School Board – 2011, 2012 – Approval Rate: 14%
• Jefferson Parish Public School System – 2011 – Approval Rate: 18%
• Tennessee Achievement School District – 2011, 2012, 2013 – Approval Rate: 25%
Commission Responsibilities
• Give priority to serving at-risk populations or students from low- performing public schools
• Approve quality applications that meet identified educational needs and promote a diversity of educational choices
• Deny weak or inadequate applications
Process Steps
Evaluation Team Composition
• Team Lead • Reviewers
– Internal – Local – National
Special Applicant Types
What Do Operators Care About?
• Funding • Facilities • Multiple Approvals • Charter Term • Autonomy • Stability/Predictability • Potential Impact
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
The Master remains serene in the midst of sorrow… Because he has given up helping, he is people’s greatest help.
Commission Responsibilities
performance expectations • Monitor in accordance with the contract • Produce annual reports including portfolio
performance • Decide renewal, nonrenewal, and
revocation
Charter Closure Rates Inside and Outside Renewal (fall 2008–spring 2011)
20
Atlanta Public Schools
Orleans Parish School Board
Nevada Public Education Authority
Ball State (IN) University
New Mexico Public Education Commission
Michigan Education Achievement Authority
Set performance expectations attached to the contract
Monitor Performance
Intervene (if necessary)
Decide Renewal
FRAMEWORK ELEMENTS
Financial • Is the school financially viable?
Organizational • Is the organization effective and well- run?
Framework Components
Student Achievement
Measures General means to evaluate an aspect of an indicator
Proficiency on State Assessments
Percentage of students achieving proficiency on specific exams
Ratings Cutpoints set to categorize charter performance
Meets Standard
Target Threshold that signifies “meeting the standard” for a specific measure
70 % of students achieve proficiency on state assessment
Academic Framework
ACADEMIC FRAMEWORK
Student Achieve-
Mission- Specific Goals
Additional Obligations
How does autonomy get compromised? • Constraints on Time • Constraints on money • Constraints on people
NACSA Authorizer Development Support • Planning & Evaluation • Board & Staff Training • Resource Development &
Implementation • Process Management
Authorizers may look and work differently, but they share a common goal—giving more children the chance to attend a great school. Join hundreds of authorizers and education leaders from across the country for the 2013 NACSA Leadership
Conference as they explore the many approaches to ensuring high-quality charter schools.
100%
For more information, visit www.qualitycharters.org/conference
of survey respondents said participating in the conference was valuable for advancing their organizational goals
95% of survey respondents said they were likely to use what they learned at the conference within their own organizations
Discussion www.qualitycharters.org
Robin J. Lake
program – in exchange for accountability (limited term contract,
subject to testing, health, safety and civil rights laws) – each state defines specific terms
• May not discriminate in admission • Must be non-sectarian and tuition free • Multiple providers (teachers, for-profits, non-profits,
unions, parents, etc.) • Approved and overseen by a school district or other
public agency
HOPES FEARS
Accountability for results (perform or die) Undermining power of unions
Proliferation of successful, mission- driven models
Lack of accountability
Pressure on districts to compete Loss of school district funding, control
Diverse public school parent choice
From the Margins to the Mainstream
• 1991: Minnesota passed law • Now 42/50 states have adopted enabling laws • More than 2M students served (approx. 4% of all
public school students) • Mainly an urban phenomenon • In some cities, charter schools are majority
mode of school provision. In most, they serve a niche purpose (e.g. at-risk populations)
What We Know About Academic Outcomes Finding Citations Results vary by state and city and by type of school
Raymond (CREDO); Gleason et al; Betts and Tang, Ferguson et al
Many states and cities get consistently good results (Boston, New York, Indianapolis, New Orleans, etc.)
Hoxby, Raymond (CREDO), Kane et al, Angrist et al
Low-income and urban students benefit most.
Betts and Tang, Raymond (CREDO)
Promising results on graduation and college going rates
Booker et al, Tuttle et al
Students perform better the longer they attend
Raymond (CREDO)
Betts and Tang, National Consensus Panel on Charter school Achievement
What about other outcomes?
• Charters serve high proportions of minority students (58% in charters vs. 45% in district schools)
• Some struggle to serve students with intensive special needs
• 30+ major school districts actively partner with charter schools
• Long waitlists, extremely popular with parents
• Accountability depends on parent satisfaction and the capacity of government agencies that sponsor and oversee
What We Know About How Charter Schools Become Effective
• Schools need to start with, not grope toward, an instructional approach
• Leadership stability and building a core teaching staff are key
• Governing boards make or break a school • Outside supports help school heads focus on instruction,
assessment, climate (back office services, incubators) • Organizational models offer trends, not guarantees
– CMOs vs EMO vs independent – Virtual schools vs brick and mortar vs blended – Conversion vs new
Quality is Not a Guarantee
Distribution of math test-score effect size after two years (Mathematica Policy Research and CRPE, 2012)
Size of KIPP Impacts in Math After Three Years
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Characteristics of Effective Charters Finding Citations Mission focused on academic performance and core subjects
Hoxby et al 2009, Angrist et al 2011
Intensive assessment and intervention for students and teachers
Hoxby et al 2009, Dobbie and Fryer 2011
Differentiation and individualized instruction
Strict policies focused on discipline and comportment
Hoxby et al 2009, Angrist et al 2011, Ferguson et al 2011
Culture of high expectations Dobbie and Fryer 2011
Extensive teacher coaching and feedback Ferguson et al 2011, Dobbie and Fryer 2011
Increased instructional time Hoxby et al 2009, Angrist et al 2011, Dobbie and Fryer 2011
What We Know About Good Implementation
• Authorizers must learn to steer, not row and must close schools that don’t work out.
• Charters need real autonomy and equitable resources to be successful.
• State and local ecosystems are needed to support quality at scale. – Special education co-ops, risk pools – Help developing economies of scale – Access to facilities, start-up funds – Excellent talent for teaching and governance – District-charter partnerships
Access to Resources is a Barrier to Scale-up
17% 33% 33% 39%
50% 58% 60% 61%
Opposition from teachers’ union
District or state opposition
Lack of per-pupil funding/revenue
Lack of philanthropic support
• Outperformed only by New Orleans two selective admissions public schools
• 85% free/reduced lunch, 97% minority
• Most students arrive at least 3-4 grade levels behind
Aspire Public Schools
Rocketship Education
The charter network’s schools are within the top 10 schools serving low-income students in their county:
*Mateo Sheedy Elementary - API of 892 *Sì Se Puede Academy - API of 859 *Los Sueños Academy - API of 839
90% qualify for free / reduced meals ~75% English as second language
Bottom Line
• Charter schools are simply a new public school “space” for unleashing new ideas, energy, results on behalf of students whose futures are otherwise bleak
• Outcomes are only as good as the authorizers make them
• With the right support and oversight charters can – Provide a free and effective alternative for needy
students – Provide evidence that all students can succeed – Push government agencies to manage performance,
not programs
crpe.org
Charter School Authorizer Fee -- Possible Impact of Sliding Scale Calculations Under SBE Proposed Rule
Total Payment per Student FTE Student FTE Estimated
Allocation Estimated 4% Oversight Fee
Estimated Oversight Fees for 10 Schools of the Same
Size
Fee
Next Steps Communicate Commission’s Position
to State Board How and When
Charter School Commission Rulemaking Steps Designate Rules Coordinator Identify Subjects Requiring
Rulemaking Timeline for Adoption of Rules
Effective in September Process for Drafting Rules
Potential Subjects for Immediate Rulemaking Performance framework – 28A.710.130(1)(b)(ii);
28A.710.170
Define “demonstrated academic achievement” – RCW 28A.710.130(4)(a)
Potential Subjects for Future Rulemaking Corrective Action Procedures – RCW
28A.710.180
Termination protocol framework – RCW 28A.710.210
Timelines for Rulemaking Preproposal Filing (CR-101)
State Register Publication Date
First date Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Can Be Filed (CR-102) 30 days from Pub Date
CR-102 Filing Deadline for Publication -- 30+ pages
CR-102 Filing Deadline for Publication -- 11-29 pages
CR-102 Filing Deadline for Publication -- up to 10 pages
Use Code Reviser's OTS -- no page limit-- some cost
State Register Publication Date
First Adoption Date
5/1/2013 5/15/2013 6/14/2013 6/26/2013 -------------------------- -------------------------- 8/7/2013 8/27/2013 9/24/2013
5/22/2013 6/5/2013 7/5/2013 7/10/2013 7/24/2013 7/24/2013 8/7/2013 8/27/2013 9/24/2013
Authorizing Orientation: Washington State Public Charter School Commission
The U.S. Charter School Sector: Lessons from Research
SBE Rules