Maryland Public Charter School Authorizer Orientation Workshop September 25, 2003

1. . Maryland 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

2. . About Our Sponsor � NACSA�s 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.

3. . What 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

4. . What 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

5. . Spread of Charter School Laws

6. . Growth of Charter Schools

7. . Percentage of Elementary Students by Race/Ethnicity (1999-2000)

8. . Percentage of Elementary Schools with 75-100% of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-priced Lunch

9. . 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 Authorizer Basics

10. . Authorizer 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)

11. . Authorizer Data More than 600 active authorizers are responsible for overseeing the nation�s nearly 2,700 charter schools. The vast majority of authorizers charter 1-2 schools.

12. . Charter Opportunities and Responsibilities Adopting a New Schools Strategy

13. . Traditional Paradigm

14. . Changing Views of Chartering New paradigm � chartering as: Strategic tool for local boards to achieve goals

15. . New Paradigm

16. . A 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

17. . How 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)

18. . How LEAs Use Chartering Tap into educators� motivations Increase commitment & effort through �ownership� (Chula-Vista, CA) Give great principals the chance to thrive (Milwaukee)

19. . How 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)

20. . But 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

21. . Core Authorizer Responsibilities

22. . Application 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).

23. . Criteria Cited by Authorizers in Decisions to Issue Charters 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

24. . Performance Contracting Contracts (and/or a separate �Accountability Plan�) may cover: Purpose of charter (mission and strategic approach); Charter�s 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.

25. . Common Methods Used to Measure and Report Progress 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

26. . Ongoing 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).

27. . Accountability Areas Monitored by Charter School Authorizers 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

28. . Renewal 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 authorizer�s ruling. Policies and Procedures for School Closure Orderly transfer of student records, counseling for parents and students on school options, disposition of assets.

29. . Reasons For Revoking, Not Renewing, or Imposing Sanctions 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

30. . Putting it All Together

31. . Putting it All Together

32. . Authorizer ResponsibilitiesPart I Application Process and Performance Contracting

33. . Core Authorizer Responsibilities

34. . Application 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

35. . Application 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)

36. . Core Authorizer Responsibilities

37. . Application 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)

38. . Application 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

39. . Application 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

40. . Application Process ? Decision Application decision considerations: As mandated by state application guidelines As determined by criteria outlined in application (ensure fairness and consistency)

41. . Summary Purposes of the application process: Quality Fairness Transparency

42. . Core Authorizer Responsibilities

43. . From 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

44. . Performance Contracting & Accountability Planning Definitions Why important Why challenging Components of �charter agreement�

45. . Definitions: Performance Contract �Performance contract�, aka �charter�, aka �charter agreement� An agreement between an authorizer and school that specifies:

46. . Definitions: Performance Contract Expectations school must meet to secure renewal (or avoid revocation) results compliance Expectations authorizer must meet autonomy resources [services]

47. . Definitions �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

48. . Performance Contracting Components of a charter agreement: Common elements School-specific elements Services agreements Performance goals

49. . Performance 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

50. . Performance 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

51. . Accountability 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

52. . Accountability 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

53. . Expectations: How Definitive?

54. . One Approach: Performance Matrix

55. . Summary Steps for performance contracting & accountability planning: Identify externally-mandated indicators Define authorizer-initiated indicators Negotiate school-initiated indicators Determine how definitively to set expectations

56. . Authorizer ResponsibilitiesPart II Ongoing Oversight Renewal Decision-making

57. . Core Authorizer Responsibilities

58. . Ongoing Oversight & Evaluation Overview Role of Oversight in Chartering Components

59. . Role 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 school�s strengths and weaknesses Aid school�s 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

60. . Oversight 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

61. . Components 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

62. . Monitoring Question: How will the authorizer use the information to make judgments about a school�s progress toward meeting goals? Example: Evaluating readiness to open Pre-opening checklist Verification of readiness

63. . Monitoring 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)

64. . Monitoring Reporting Tools (continued) School self-evaluation (D.C. Public Charter School Board requires during school�s 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 Mayor�s Office) External reviews: surveys, on-site reviews, data analysis (Central Michigan University, Indianapolis Mayor�s Office)

65. . Information 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 Mayor�s 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

66. . Evaluation 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

67. . Corrective Action Strategies Table of Remedies (D.C. Public Charter School Board) Notice of concern (letter to school�s 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)

68. . Core Authorizer Responsibilities

69. . Renewal Overview Why the Renewal Decision is Important Why the Renewal Decision is Challenging Role of the Authorizer

70. . Why 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

71. . Why Renewal is Challenging Systems often too weak to support Performance is complex, not simple Schools build up a constituency Legal considerations

72. . Role 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

73. . Discussion Question What can we do NOW to set the stage for viable renewal decisions THEN?

74. . Open Dialogue Questions & Answers

75. . Additional 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]