Company

LOGO

Georgia Charter Schools Commission: Lessons from 2009 Cycle

2010 Georgia Charter Schools Association ConferenceMarch 11-12, Marietta, Georgia

Dr. Ben Scafidi; Andrew W. Broy

Growth of Charter Sector

Types of Charter Schools

•Start-up (Traditional or LEA Start-up)•Conversion•System Charters

Locally Approved

•State Chartered Special Schools

State Approved Charters

•Start-up Schools authorized by Georgia Charter Schools Commission

Commission Approved

Georgia Charter Commission

HB 881

• Creates 7-member “Charter School Commission”• Members appointed by State Board of Education on recommendation of Governor, Lt. Governor, and Speaker of the House• Commission given power to authorize charter schools• Commission authorized to award “full” funding to approved charter schools

• Calculated on allotment sheet

HB 881 Authorizing Process

• Requires petitioners seeking commission authorization to file with a local school district first; commission can only act 60 days after submission to local district• Exception for charter school proposing to enroll students from five or more districts

• State Board can overturn the decision of the Commission with a supermajority vote (2/3 of members)

Georgia Charter Commission

HB 881 Existing Charter Schools

• State Chartered Special Schools: Can seek commission authorization at end of current charter term or sooner if State Board allows.

• Start-Up Schools: Can seek commission authorization at end of current charter term or sooner if State Board and local board allow.

• Conversions, Charter Systems: Cannot seek commission authorization.

Commission Applications

•Commission application on Department of Education website

Application

•Due August 1, 2010 to Commission•Make sure to comply with all requirements listed on application•Number of copies, length, etc.•Nonconforming applications

Deadline

•Received 125 letters of intent for start-up charter schoolsInterest

Charter Period

Initial Charter

•Five to Ten Years

Renewal

•One to Ten Years

Application Process

1. Review of application legal compliance, educational plan,

governance framework

2. Interview Process Used to determine capacity of school

leadership team to carry out plan

3. Recommendations Communication from the Commission staff to

the full Commission explaining recommendation and rationale

Application Process

ApplicationLocal denial issueRevisions to submitted applicationLaw requires “joint submission” and does

not permit the Commission to act until 60 days after local submission SBOE Rule requires a school to respond in

writing to the reasons for local denial Explanation should be organized to respond

to each concern raised by local board

Application Process

After Submission

• Once applications are submitted, they will be reviewed for completeness by Commission staff

• Only complete applications will be reviewed• After review, applicants will be contacted in writing about status of

application and interview process

Interview Process

Leadership Team:

• Founder (principal)• Board Chair• CFO• Additional Team Members

Interview Allows the panel to:

• Determine the capacity of the leadership team• Ask clarifying questions about the application• Judge the effectiveness of the proposed leader• Determine whether the school will be able to serve students well

Key to Success:

• Capacity and plan• Can the school handle LEA status?

Interview Process

•Curriculum•Assessment Plan•Performance Goals

Academic Plan

•Financial plan, including facilities•Local support for enrollment•Cash flow, timing of funding

Capacity

•Governance structure and board•Teacher quality and school leadership•Relationship with EMO/CMO

Business Plan

Recommendation and DOE Role

Panel recommendatio

ns

Commission consideration and vote

Possible SBOE

reconsideration

What is innovation?

• Characteristics of Georgia Charter Schools

• Uniforms: 34• Extended day: 28• International Baccalaureate: 8• Single gender classes or

school: 8• Career academy: 6• Range of annual facilities

costs: $0 - $1,350,211

Commission Considerations

Quality, Quality, Quality

• Geographic location of Charters• Rural districts and districts with exceptional need• Urban areas with no start up charter schools (Macon, etc.)

• High Schools• Multi-district schools• Truly unique models• New management company• Theme offerings

• Performing arts, military themed, single-gender, dual language

Charter Commission Lessons

Sound financial management Strong student performance goals Leadership (effective principal) Quality teachers A realistic facilities plan Effective governing board High levels of local support Stable/increasing student population Focus on academic outcomes Organizational and governance vision

Commission Applicant Mistakes

1. Weak student performance goals Imprecise, not targeted, not set out by year Not sufficiently rigorous No use of norm referenced in addition to CRCT

2. Inconsistencies in the application Poor writing, lack of attention to detail

3. Power imbalance between management company and governing board

4. No understanding of waivers

5. Unrealistic budget assumptions

Commission Applicant Mistakes

1. Examples from actual applications Management company contract terms inconsistent with

budget Lack of connection between waivers sought and

curricular approach Student goal baseline set below district average Goals included for three of five years of proposed

charter No goals for all five years of term Attendance zone not explained 3% Commission withhold, TRS contributions, and

health care costs not included in budget

Race to the Top

• Stimulus (ARRA Funding)• $787 Billion in additional

funding• Roughly $120 Billion

devoted to education• Most allocated through

existing formulas and state fiscal stabilization

• $5 billion reserved for Innovation

• $4 Billion for Race to the Top for states

• $650 million for Investing in Innovation Fund (50, 30, 5)

Race to the Top

4 Assurances: Teacher quality and distribution State data system Turning around low performing schools Standards and assessments link to college,

work ready standards and benchmarkedOther considerations

Legal ability to link state assessment systems with individual teachers and schools

No cap on charter school authorization Common core standards

Company

LOGO

Georgia Charter Schools Commission: Lessons from 2009 Cycle

2010 Georgia Charter Schools Association ConferenceMarch 11-12, Marietta, Georgia

Dr. Ben Scafidi; Andrew W. Broy