Arizona Charter Schools Association

1. Arizona Charter Schools Association Association Update Eileen Sigmund March 14, 2011

2. Arizona Charter Schools Association AGENDA Legislative Bills Charter Student Funding Arizona Republic

3. Legislative Bills • H2197: CHARTER SCHOOLS; AGE RESTRICTED COMMUNITIES • The statute governing the placement of charter schools is amended to prohibit a charter school from being located on commercial or residential property in an age restricted community in an unorganized territory • H2587: SCHOOLS; MILITARYRECRUITING; FORM • The Dept of Education is required to provide a form to school districts and • charter schools that allows students to request that directory information not • be released. A person wrongfully denied access to directory information • or access to school property may notify the Dept of Education, which in turn • must report the alleged violation to the U.S. Dept of Education • H2710: STUDY COMMITTEE;OUTCOME-BASED FUNDING • Establishes a 13-member Joint Legislative Study Committee on • Outcome-Based Education Funding to develop legislation that will transition • public school funding from a system based on instructional hours to a • system based on student achievement. Report to the Governor and the Legislature by December 31, 2011. Self-repeals October 1, 2012. • Immigration; School Finance; etc. http://www.azcharters.org/legislativeupdates • BUDGET IS FOCUS Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students District Students 10% 92,843 Students Charter Students 80% 74,452 Students Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students

4. Charter Student Funding

5. MISINFORMATION ON STUDENT FUNDING State Funding Formula for 2008-09 School Year District vs. Charter (Source AZ Association of School Business Officials) District Charter Elem. H.S. Elem. H.S. Basic student count amount * $3,859.10 $4,225.68 $3,811.46 $4,173.52 Group B Special Ed. Varies by category Charters get 1.25% less Capital Outlay Revenue Limit * $225.76 $267.94 N/A N/A Soft Capital $225.00 $225.00 N/A N/A Transportation ** $232.00 $232.00 N/A N/A Additional Assistance N/A N/A $1,474.16 $1,718.10 Total Funding Level *** $4,541.86 $4,950.62 $5,285.62 $5,891.62 Note: Not included in the formula amounts are those items that come to school districts from local property taxes such as budget overrides, desegregation dollars, and other items outside the Revenue Control Limit (RCL) and funding provided by the School Facilities Board.  

6. INNOCUOUS FOOTNOTE EXPLAINED Revenues Unavailable to Charter Schools Desegregation $211,896,784.00 Adjacent Ways $132,424,913.00 Excess Utilities $115,139,070.00 Small School Adjustment $24,633,161.00 Dropout Prevention $5,834,540.00 Career Ladder $48,619,217.00 M&O Overrides $374,605,060.00 Capital Overrides $88,064,443.00 K-3 M&O Overrides $58,017,684.00 K-3 Unrestricted Overrides $655,300.00 Capital Debt Service $764,883,369.00 School Facilities Board Debt Service $79,000,000.00 Total: $1,903,773,541 Average Per Pupil: $2,069

7. Arizona Charter Schools Association

8. STUDENTINEQUITIES Not a district versus charter story: AFFECTS ALL STUDENTS “Education is a precondition to survival in America today,” Marian Wright Edelman, Children’s Defense Fund District Students 10% 92,843 Students Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students District Students 80% 742,743 Students District Students 10% 92,843 Students Charter Students 80% 74,452 Students Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students

9. $7.5 Billion StudentInequities District Students 10% 92,843 Students Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students District Students 80% 742,743 Students District Students 10% 92,843 Students Charter Students 80% 74,452 Students Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students

10. ARIZONA REPUBLIC I am writing to request that The Arizona Republic (Republic) provide the Arizona Charter Schools Association with the underlying data, analysis and methodology used to write March 6th A1 story, “Questions Arise Over Big Gains on Aims”  (Big Gains). Although you indicate that the Republic does not intend to release the data because you believe we can conduct the same analysis as the Republic, we believe that it is most important to understand how you arrived at your conclusions related to the data.  We cannot conduct the same analysis without seeing your data, analysis and methodology.  The Association represents Arizona’s robust charter movement, and our student analysis data did not reveal the same red flags inferred by the Republic. We have no other option but to conclude and caution that the Republic reported information that is inaccurate or leads the reader to inaccurate conclusions. We believe you have a public responsibility to be free from erroneous or imprecise information whenever possible.  In all instances, your credibility dictates that you correct factual errors of the record.  We would ask that you no longer report the Big Gains information until it can be verified.  At the very least, we are requesting a meeting so you may provide us the methodology that assisted your efforts.    For these reasons, the Association respectfully requests the Republic’s data, analysis and methodology for the March 6th A1 story, “Questions Arise Over Big Gains on Aims.” Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students District Students 10% 92,843 Students Charter Students 80% 74,452 Students Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students

11. NEED FOR REPUBLIC DATA • We cannot conduct the same analysis without seeing the Republic’s data, analysis and • Methodology for the following reasons: •   The Republic did not identify the methodology used, rather they state "...found using • a methodology widely recognized by mathematicians and testing experts" (pg. A1). • The Republic indicates that the "data analysis used by the Republic and USA TODAY • is similar to the one used by the Florida Department of Education used to identify schools with • unusual gains." (pg. A6) Since the Republic did not replicate the Florida analysis exactly, the • Association does not know what modifications were made to their analysis and cannot use the • Florida model to help guide our work. • The Republic states they "calculated mean test scores for each grade in each school. They then • used statistical methods to compare how students in each grade performed one year with how the • same group performed the next year." Many different statistical methods can be used to compare • test results. • In the description of the schools' profiles, the Republic refers to "percentiles" compared to how • other students did in Arizona; however, the limited explanation of the Republic’s methodology • references comparing the overall percentages of students’ scores by grade and school. • The use of the term "percentile" makes the interpretation of the results unclear- did the Republic • use a growth model such as The Arizona Growth model where percentiles are calculated for all • students in the state? Percentages and percentiles are not the same thing. Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students District Students 10% 92,843 Students Charter Students 80% 74,452 Students Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students

12. NEED FOR REPUBLIC DATA • The number of students is not reported for any of the schools. While it was reported that no • schools with fewer than 20 students were included we would like to review the data, especially • for those small counts. Given the potentially small numbers of students who can be tracked from • one year to the next - and in one referenced school, the Republic connected five years of data – • the changes in percentages can be volatile and swings can be large simply due to the size of • the sample. • The other alarming data reported comes from transitions between elementary to middle school. • This drop in student performance statewide has been chronicled in the Republic for years. • Arizona students do poorly in middle school math due to the increased expectation in the • content standards, a more rigorous expectation and more difficult cut scores. • Another possible explanation for the changes reported in elementary school between grades • three to four is the impact of ELL students reaching proficiency. Since most of the data is math, • this can still be significantly impacted on language proficiency. Not knowing how many of these • students reached language proficiency in fourth grade makes it difficult to interpret the results; • however, this pattern of change is consistent in analyzing ELL students’ scores. Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students District Students 10% 92,843 Students Charter Students 80% 74,452 Students Charter Students 10% 9,307 Students

13. THANK YOU! Please contact us at 602.944.0644 with any questions or visit our website at www.azcharters.org