Preston C. Green III John and Carla Klein Professor of Urban Education

1. An Analysis of the Policy, Research, and Legal Issues Surrounding the Exclusion of Charter Schools from the Teacher Evaluation Revolution Preston C. Green III John and Carla Klein Professor of Urban Education Professor of Education and Law University of Connecticut

2. Charter Schools Basics • 2013: 6,440 charter schools; 42 states and DC • Many are publicly funded, but privately operated • Autonomy from many rules and regulations in exchange for increased accountability

3. Differences between Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools

4. Are Charters Public? Or Private? • Green, P., Baker B., & Oluwole J., (2013). Having It both ways: How charter schools try to obtain the funding of public schools and autonomy of private schools. Emory Law Journal, 63, 303-37. • “Public” for purposes of funding (state constitutions) • “Private” for purposes of teacher and student rights (federal statutes and constitution) • Emphasizing private nature in state law might make charter schools ineligible for funding (state constitutions)

5. Charter Schools and Teacher Evaluation Policies • Green, P., Donaldson, M., & Oluwole, J. (forthcoming). An analysis of the policy, research, and legal issues surrounding the exclusion of charters schools from the teacher evaluation revolution. Journal of Law and Education. • Legal argument: If charter schools are exempted from revised teacher evaluation policies, then… • They might become ineligible for public funding • Because they fall outside of an “efficient” or “uniform” system of public schools

6. Claim: Charter Schools Are “Public” Because They Must Follow Same Standards as Traditional Public Schools • “Charter schools are also held accountable to state and federal academic standards, ensuring a high-quality education for their students” (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools). • “They must meet the same academic standards that traditional public schools must meet” (North Carolina Alliance for Public Charter Schools).

7. Wilson v. State Board of Education (1999) • California appellate court held that charter schools are part of “uniform” system. • Teachers comply with same minimum requirements as other public school teachers • Assessments for measuring student progress was same as in traditional public schools

8. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Board of Education (2006) • Ohio Supreme Court held that charter schools are part of “thorough and efficient” system • Charter students had to pass same graduation tests as students from other public schools. • Exemptions to rules were “picayune in nature.” • Charters could create alternative accountability requirements To serve targeted populations.

9. Teacher Evaluation Revolution Source: National Council on Teacher Quality. (2013). Connecting the dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice.

10. Arguments for Excluding Charter Schools from Teacher Evaluation Revolution • Charter schools are already developing innovative teacher evaluation programs that are performance-based and aligned with their educational missions. • Federal government policy might hinder innovation by forcing charter schools to adopt alternative evaluation frameworks

11. Studies That Have Examined Teacher Evaluation Practices of Charters • Podgursky, M., & Ballou, D. (2001). Personnel policy in charter schools. Report for Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. • Morelock, M. (2008). Investigating promising practices of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California. • Donaldson, M. (2012). “Feedback is a gift”: Teacher evaluation in four-high performing charter schools. Paper presented at the Annual Conference for the University Council for Educational Administration.

12. Charter States with Policies That Emphasize Achievement, Use Standardized Tests; and Are Used in Tenure and/or Dismissals Source: National Council on Teacher Quality. (2013). Connecting the dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice.

13. Charter States with “Uniformity” and “Efficiency” Provisions with Revised Teacher Evaluation Policies

14. What If Exclusion of Charter Schools Were Challenged on “Efficiency” or “Uniformity” Grounds?

15. Why Examine Charter School Exemption in Ohio under Ohio Congress Case? • Ohio Congress decision came three years before teacher evaluation revolution; • Ohio requires that student achievement to be a preponderant factor; • Ohio requires evaluation system to use objective measures; • Ohio requires teacher evaluations to to be used in layoff decisions; and • Ohio grants exemptions to charter schools that do not receive Race to the Top funding.

16. Exclusion of Charter Schools under Ohio Congress Analysis • Picayune in nature? • Are concerns about teacher quality picayune? • Providing educational opportunities to students in alternative settings • Legislative goal: Provide educational opportunities for students in lowest-performing urban school districts.

17. Ohio 2012-13 Report Cards: Grades of D or F in “Big 8” Urban Districts Thus, excluding Ohio charter schools from the state’s revised teacher evaluation system might be a violation of “thorough and efficient” clause.

18. Conclusion • Charter schools might unwittingly make themselves ineligible for funding by exempting themselves from revised teacher evaluation policies.