Georgia Charter Schools Commission: Lessons from 2009 Cycle

1. Georgia Charter Schools Commission: Lessons from 2009 Cycle 2010 Georgia Charter Schools Association Conference March 11-12, Marietta, Georgia Dr. Ben Scafidi; Andrew W. Broy

2. Growth of Charter Sector

3. Types of Charter Schools

4. Georgia Charter Commission

5. Georgia Charter Commission

6. Commission Applications

7. Charter Period

8. Application Process • Review of application • legal compliance, educational plan, governance framework • Interview Process • Used to determine capacity of school leadership team to carry out plan • Recommendations • Communication from the Commission staff to the full Commission explaining recommendation and rationale

9. Application Process • Application • Local denial issue • Revisions to submitted application • Law 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

10. Application Process

11. Interview Process

12. Interview Process

13. Recommendation and DOE Role

14. 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

15. Commission Considerations

17. 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

18. Commission Applicant Mistakes • Weak student performance goals • Imprecise, not targeted, not set out by year • Not sufficiently rigorous • No use of norm referenced in addition to CRCT • Inconsistencies in the application • Poor writing, lack of attention to detail • Power imbalance between management company and governing board • No understanding of waivers • Unrealistic budget assumptions

19. Commission Applicant Mistakes • 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

20. 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)

21. 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 benchmarked • Other considerations • Legal ability to link state assessment systems with individual teachers and schools • No cap on charter school authorization • Common core standards

22. Georgia Charter Schools Commission: Lessons from 2009 Cycle 2010 Georgia Charter Schools Association Conference March 11-12, Marietta, Georgia Dr. Ben Scafidi; Andrew W. Broy