alabama public charter school presentation

7/26/2019 Alabama Public Charter School presentation

1/65


2/65


3/65

Note: A local board must become aregistered authorizer in order to convert a s


4/65

Authorizers Commissio

Apply to department to be a registered authorizer.

Serves as an appellate body.

Issue a Request for Proposals for public charter school applicants(start-up).

Evaluate and review PCS charter applicants consistent with nationally recognizedprinciples and standards for quality authorizing.

Approve or deny charter applications.

Upon approval, execute a charter contract.

Convert a non-charter public school to a public charter school.

Issue a Request for Proposal for education service provider (conversion).

Identify an education service provider to manage the conversion school andnegotiate a performance contract.


5/65


6/65


7/65


8/65

Subject to State Ethics Law.


9/65

Alabama Open Meetings Act and public records laws.


10/65


11/65


12/65

Start-Up Initial Year FundingEnrollment Funding Meth

Fully fund all students who areenrolled at the time of school

opening would include any student

who was enrolled in a public, private,

or home school the previous

academic year.

Apply existing Current U


13/65

Foundation Funding EXAMPLYear 1 Start-Up Current Unit

Total Foundation Program Less Textbooks $$$

Per Unit Amount Total Foundation Program Less Textbooks/Foun

Enrollment Current Year Minus Previous Year Enrollment Total, Where Previous Year = 0

Number of Units Based on Enrollment Enrollment/Divisor = Units

Multiply Number of Units by Per Unit Amount Units * Per Unit $ =Total Allocation


14/65

Conversion Year FundingEnrollment Funding Meth

Fully fund all students who areenrolled at the time of school

opening would include any student

who was enrolled in a public, private,

or home school the previous

academic year.

Receive Foundation Prog

allocation and other pub

Education Trust Fund Ap

Also eligible to receive C

under the current calcula

growth experienced in A

previous school year.


15/65

Foundation Funding EXAMPLConversions and Year 2 Start-U

Public Charter School Attendance Zone Birmingham City

Public Charter School Authorizer Birmingham City BOE

Public Charter School K-3 School

Resident LEAs

*Foundation

Program

ETF

**Residence

LEA ADM

Residence LEA

Per Student

***Public

Charter

School

ADM

Birmingam City $$$ ADM $/ADM PCS ADM

Midfield City $$$ ADM $/ADM PCS ADMHoover City $$$ ADM $/ADM PCS ADM

Jefferson County $$$ ADM $/ADM PCS ADM

Total PCS ADM

* Foundation Program ETF Annual LEA Foundation Program Report

**Residence LEA ADM Where the student resides, not where they were previously enrol

***PCS ADM Students currently enrolled in public charter school


16/65


17/65


18/65


19/65

Commitment and Capacity

Poor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective

A. ClearMission for

AuthorizingCharterSchools

The authorizers mission for chartering schools isbroad or it has no mission.

The authorizers vision for chartering is vague, withno defined priorities and no strategic goals.

The authorizers governing board designates allcontract decisions to staff and/or accepts contractdecision- making recommendations with only a cursoryreview, taking action perfunctorily as part of routinebusiness.

The authorizer states a clear mission forauthorizing charter schools.

The authorizer articulates a broadvision for chartering, with broad goalsover an undefined period of time.

The authorizers governing board typicallydesignates contract decisions to staff,which provides the board with generalrecommendations for which contracts toapprove. Decisions are typically made withlimited information provided by the staffand without consideration of theauthorizers broad vision

The authorizer states aclear mission for quality

authorizing.

The authorizer articulatesand implements a visionand plan for chartering,including general goals andtimelines for achievement.

The authorizers governingboard, while formally makinall contract decisions, reliesupon their staff to carefullyreview and recommend

contract decisions alignedwith their chartering visionand plan.


Poor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective Exe


20/65

p

B. Self-Evaluation &Improvement

The authorizer rarely examines its workto ensure it is meeting its Alabamaauthorizing obligations and applicablelaws.

The authorizer does not examine itsoperations for the purpose ofimprovement.

Does not evaluate self as an authorizer.

The authorizer sporadically examines itswork to ensure it is meeting its Alabamaauthorizing obligations and applicablelaws.

The authorizer occasionally looks toimprove its operations, but does not followa structured process

The authorizer regularlyexamines its work to ensure itis meeting its Alabamaauthorizing obligations andapplicable laws.

The authorizer follows adefined improvement processto evaluate its work against itsgoals and outcomes.

The authorizer uses the findingsfrom its self- evaluation whenmaking improvements in itspractices



21/65


C. DefinedRelationshipsIn Practice

Beyond what is stated in the contr act, the authorizercannot explain the distinction in roles andresponsibilities between the authorizer staff and thecharter schools it authorizers.

While not documented beyond what is inthe contract, the authorizer is able toexplain in general terms how the rolesand responsibilities differ between itsstaff and the charter schools itauthorizers.

The charter schools it authorizers do not

understand the responsibilities of theauthorizer.

While not documentedbeyond what is in thecontract, the authorizer hasand is able to clearly explainthe roles andresponsibilities of its staffrelative to those of thecharter schools it

authorizers.

The charter schools itauthorizers generallyunderstand theresponsibilities of theauthorizer.




22/65

D. Conflictsof InterestIn Practice

Schools chartered by the authorizer have limited orno autonomy.

Numerous conflicts of interest exist between theauthorizer and the charter schools it authorizes. [e.g.,staff and boards may overlap, authorizer may requireschool to purchase services from authorizer, schoolsmay not be afforded appropriate autonomy, funds maybe co-mingled, etc.]

Decision making is not transparent; it is unclear whator if criteria are being used by the authorizer to makedecisions.

Charter schools are improperly offered incentives bythe authorizer and/or required by the authorizer to

make choices that may not be in their best interest.[e.g., may only contract with the authorizer for variousservices, contract services from authorizer inexchange for reduced chartering fee, etc.]

Evidence of conflicts of interest existsbetween the authorizer and the charterschools it authorizes. [e.g., theauthorizing districts superintendent fillsthe role of the charter schoolssuperintendent with no accommodationsfor independent oversight of his/her role

as charter school superintendent.]

Decision making is not transparent and

the criteria used to make them areinconsistently applied and not fullyunderstood by authorizer staff.

In some instances, the authorizersdecisions are improperly influenced by a

management company or a charterschools governing authority. [e.g., forexample, a management company withmultiple affiliated schools implies actionrelated to one school will impact theothers.]

No conflicts of interest(both in staffing andfunding) exist betweenthe authorizer and thecharter schools itauthorizers.

While decision making istransparent to charterschools and appears to be

based upon merit, theprocess and criteria for

making decisions are notfully transparent to thepublic.

Commitment and CapacityPoor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective


23/65

E. StaffExpertise

Deep under-standing ofessentialprinciples,gained throughtraining and/orseveral years

working in thefield andmastering theprinciples.

The authorizers dedicated staff member(s)have little to no experience working in orauthorizing charter schools. At least one staffmember is trained in school finance, but haslimited experience applying the knowledge.

No external sources are sought in educationrelated areas for which the authorizing stafflacks expertise. These areas include:

o Charter schools;o Curriculum, instruction and

assessment;o Special education and ELL instruction;o School accountability;

o School facilities;o School law;o School finance; and,

o School governance.

The authorizer has at least onededicated staff member with less thantwo years of experience working in orauthorizing charter schools, and amember who is trained and has limitedexperience working in the area ofschool finance.

Other staff have limited trainingand limited experience working inthe following areas:o Curriculum, instruction and

assessment;o Special education and ELL

instruction;o School accountability;

o School facilities;o School law;o School finance; and,o School governance.

When existing staff do not have therange of expertise needed, the

authorizer sometimes contracts withexternal sources to completeparticular aspects of work.

The authorizer has at least onededicated staff member with two omore years of experience workingin or authorizing charter schools,and a member who is trained andexperienced in the area of schoolfinance.

Other staff are certified and haveexperience working in thefollowing areas:o Curriculum, instruction

and assessment;o Special education and ELL


o School facilities;o School law; and,o School finance; and,o School governance.

When existing staff do not have therange of expertise needed, the

authorizer contracts with externalsources to complete particularaspects of work.




24/65

F. StaffProfessionalDevelopment

Authorizer staff rarely participates in professionaldevelopment, internally or externally provided.

PD shows no alignment with the authorizersfunctions.

Authorizer staff sporadically participatesin professional development internallyor externally provided, and typically onlywhat is required by ALSDE.

PD shows some alignment with theauthorizers functions or in response toneeded corrections.

Authorizer staffregularly participates inprofessionaldevelopment, internallyor externally provided,and beyond what isrequired by ALSDE.

PD is aligned withauthorizer functions and

takes into accountidentified needs (asdetermined by its self-improvement process).

Authorizer staff attendsnational conferences withPD focus (e.g., NACSA,etc.)




25/65

G. Allocationof Resources

Resourcesincludehuman andfinancialcapital.

Resource decisions are not data driven.

The authorizer has inadequate staff (or contractedservices) to adequately carry out its roles andresponsibilities.

No evidence that the authorizer has examined andallocated its resources to fulfill its authorizerobligations.

Some resource decisions are datadriven.

The authorizer sporadically examines itsneeds and allocates its resources to fulfillits statutory requirements.

Resource allocations are notcommensurate with the scale of itsportfolio of charter schools.

Most resource decisionsare data driven.

The authorizer examinesits portfolio of schoolsneeds and allocates itsresources to improveschool performance and itsresponsibilities as anauthorizer.

Application and Decision MakingPoor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplary


26/65

A. ApplicationProcess,Timeline, &Clarity ofDirections

The authorizer has noformal applicationprocess no writtenapplication.

The authorizersapplication

timeline is not defined

Application guidance isabsent or undocumentedand varies dependingupon which staff memberresponds to questions by

the public.

The application processdoes not include

interviewing applicants.

The authorizer has an applicationprocess; however, it is undocumentedand loosely defined.

Timelines are loosely defined.

Applications are accepted close to thestatutory contract adoption date,leaving little time for contractnegotiations.

The application is not readilyavailable to the public.

The application provides limiteddirections on the content and formatexpected of applicants.

The authorizer does not documentthe criteria it uses to evaluate its

applications.

The application process may

include an interview withapplicants.

The authorizer follows and explains asystemic application process; however, it isnot fully documented.

The authorizer typically follows a definedtimeline for reviewing charter applications.The planning stage is at least six monthslong.

The application is readily available tothe public.

The application provides generaldirections on content and format expectedof applicants. (e.g., does not includeresources or references to assist theapplicant.)

The authorizer documents the generalcriteria it uses to evaluate its applications.However, these criteria are not publicizedas part of the application process.

The application process includesinterviewing final applicants.

Thedocapp

Theopethequaschadeand

Thedocto twesub

elecass

Theon

The

comuse

App

cha The

app

Application Process and Decision Making

Poor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplary


27/65

B. Application

Depth The authorizer does not

have a written application. The application includes few

questions.

The questions are very broad innature and do not provide enoughdata to thoroughly evaluate theapplicants educational andbusiness plans and capacities.

General application questions, covering four

main areas of school planning and operations[education plan, governance, finance(including market research) andaccountability] along with suggestedattachments, provide adequate data foranalyzing an applicants plans and capacities.

For example:Describe the demographics of the students thatyour school will serve and of the charter in whichthe school will be located. Why are you proposingthis school in this location?

Generally describe your schools curriculum planand provide an overview of the instructionaldesign and program to be emphasized by theschool.

Co

quare[ed(inacrigpla

For exaDescribtarget nincludinacademcharterExplainschool mDescriband proof the p

Explainto the A

instruct

the currfollow tcurricul


Poor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective Exempla


28/65

C. RigorousCriteria forNewApplicants

The authorizer may requireapplicants to outline some ofthe following:

-an educational program;

-staffing plan;-a business plan;-governance; and/or

-management structure.

Application criteria are minimal

and focus mainly on meetingstate and federal statutoryrequirements.

The authorizer requires allapplicants to describe in generalterms some of the following:

-a mission and vision;

-an educational program;-staffing plan;-a business plan;-governance; and/or

-management structure.

The authorizer requires all applicantsto present in detail all of the following:

-a mission and vision;

-an educational program;-staffing plan;-a business plan (including market

research);- governance and management

structure; and-capacity to carry out its plan.

The applicant must explain any never-opened, terminated, or non-renewedschools.

(Market research includes examining thetypes of schools and students in the area; itdoes not include an examination of theneeds of the charter.)

Tpd

-a c

-a q- a

m- an

m-sta

kf

- cle

Tosc

(Chartproximschoo

such afocus.



D Rigorous No additional criteria are While no additional criteria are required Authorizer requires the Autho


29/65

D. Rigorous

Criteria forExisting CharterSchoolOperators /Replicators

Whicheverschool is beingreplicated, it

must have beenin operation fortwo or moreschool years.

No additional criteria are

required of existing schooloperators and/or replicatorsof existing schools.

Authorizer does not look forany evidence of past successor the capacity for growth.

While no additional criteria are required,

the authorizer completes a cursory lookof the current schools academic successor a consideration for the schoolscapacity to expand.

Authorizer requires the

applicant to meet thefollowing criteria:o Clear evidence of capacity to

operate a new schoolsuccessfully whilemaintaining quality in existingschools;

o Document educational,organizational, and financialperformance records based

on all existing schools;o Must explain any never-

opened, terminated, or non-renewed schools;

o Must present a growth plan,business plan, and mostrecent financial audits; and

o Meet at least one of thefollowing indicators ofeffectiveness to earn approvalfor replication: highacademic, organization,and/or financial success to

earn approval for replication.

Autho

meeto

o

o

o

o

Examples auditable education



E Rigorous No additional criteria are required of While no additional criteria are While no additional criteria Au


30/65

E. RigorousCriteria forCharterSchoolsChangingAuthorizer/Assignment ofContract

(if applicable)

No additional criteria are required ofthe existing school seeking to be sw itchauthorizers.

Authorizer does not look for anyevidence of past success or thecapacity to operate successfully.

While no additional criteria arerequired, the authorizer completes acursory look of the current schoolsacademic success or considers theschools capacity to operatesuccessfully.

While no additional criteriaare required, the authorizerreviews the existing schoolsfinancial audits (whereavailable), academic successand the schools capacity tooperate successfully, meetingand/or exceeding itperformance targets.

The application process

may include either a face toface interview with theapplicant or contact withthe schools currentauthorizer.

The authorizer does notconsider contracting with acharter school that is beingnon-renewed by its currentauthorizer.

Auprofinevsucits

Thfaccoau

Thvisbo

Thcobeau

Thauis p



F. Reviewer Review team members have little The authorizer has at least one The authorizer has at least one Ma


31/65

Expertise

Deep under-standing ofessentialprinciples,gained throughtraining and/or

several yearsworking in thefield andmastering theprinciples.

to no experience working in orauthorizing charter schools. Atleast one review team member istrained in school finance, but haslimited experience applying theknowledge.

No external sources are soughtin education related areas forwhich the review team

members lack expertise. Theseareas include:o Charter schools;o Curriculum, instruction




dedicated reviewer with limitedexperience (less than two years)working in or authorizing charterschools, and at least one otherreviewer who may have limitedknowledge in one or more of thefollowing areas:o Curriculum, instruction



o School facilities;o School law;o School finance; and/oro School governance.

When existing reviewers do nothave the range of expertise needed,the authorizer sometimes contractswith external sources to completeparticular aspects of the applicationreview.

dedicated reviewer with two or moreyears of experience working in orauthorizing charter schools.

Other reviewers are certified (whereappropriate) and have experienceworking in the following areas:o Curriculum, instruction and

assessment;o Special education and ELL



When existing reviewers do not have therange of expertise needed, theauthorizer contracts with externalsources to complete particular aspects ofthe application review.

chyecefolo

o

o

o

oo

o

Wh

of cocoap



G Protocols No defined selection Selection criteria are Evaluation includes a careful review of the Ev


32/65

G. Protocolsand Training

No defined selectioncriteria or protocols are

used to evaluateapplications.

Review team memberssimply review the writtenapplication and only askclarifying questions.

Reviewers receive

no training.

No process is followed toensure that all internaland external reviewers donot have a conflict ofinterest with theapplicants they arereviewing.

Selection criteria aredocumented, but are broad or

vague.

Review team members receivelimited training on the selectioncriteria.

If a protocol is used to evaluateapplications, limited evidence isdocumented to support whether or

not the applicant meets theselection criteria.

Applicants are not interviewed.

All internal and external reviewersare responsible for identifying if aconflict of interest exists with theapplicants they are reviewing.

The reviewer initiates their ownremoval from reviewing anapplication if he/she feels aconflict of interest exists.

The authorizer does not require aformal written conflict of intereststatement to be signed by eachperson reviewing the applications.

Evaluation includes a careful review of thewritten application, a brief interview of all

applicants to clarify points in the writtenapplication, and a careful review of theapplicants experience and capacity.

While not always documented in protocols, allnew review team members are trained on theselection criteria and protocols prior toreviewing applications for approval.

The review team documents evidence tosupport whether or not the applicant meets

the selection criteria. Review team members who have previously

reviewed applications for the authorizerreceive refresher training on the selectioncriteria and protocols prior to reviewingapplications for approval.

The authorizer requires a formal writtenconflict of interest statement to be signed byevery internal and external reviewer ofapplicants.

The authorizer initiates removal of an internalor external reviewer from evaluating anapplication.

Evthe

intbaex

Aponprogureqdo

sel Th

evap

Ancointa rthe

Thcoby ap

Thremfroco

Application Process and Decision MakingPoor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplary


33/65

H. RigorousDecisionMaking

Rigorousdecisions arebased upon athoroughanalysis of a

com-prehensive

body ofobjectiveevidence.

Almost allapplicants thatapply areapproved,regardless of thestrength of theapplication.

Preliminaryagreements are

made withschools thathad previouslyclosed and/orwere non-renewed bytheir previous

authorizer.

The majority of applications that meet ageneral framework of criteria areapproved.

Preliminary agreements are made withcharter schools that meet one or more ofthe following criteria:o Fail to clearly demonstrate the

capacity to successfully operate(e.g., lack of staffing, lack ofresources, questionable

governance, history of poorperformance, etc.);

o Little or no market research datato support the schools opening;

o Little or no data to support asuccessful educational model;

o Questionable business plan andlimited resources to support theschools launch (e.g., reliance onunsecured loans and/ormanagement company financialsupport); or

o Were previously closed and/or non-

renewed by their previousauthorizer.

Applicants that meet the majority of thecriteria are approved.

Enters into preliminary agreements withschools that meet most of the followingcriteria:o Clear capacity to successfully operate

a new school (e.g., lack of staffing,lack of resources, questionablegovernance, history of poorperformance, etc.);

o Researched data shows strongmarket demand for the proposedschool (e.g., mission, location,grades served, proximity of highquality public & private schooloptions)

o Quality educational program;o Solid business plan and a start-up

budget to support the schoolslaunch and sustained earlyoperations; and,

o The school has not been recycled:previously closed or non-renewed by

its previous authorizer.

Only athe criminor contra

Only eschooo

o

o

o

o

Performance Contracting

Poor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplar

A. Most contracts include: Most contracts include: All contracts may include the following: All cont


34/65

A.

ContractStudentPerformanceMeasures

Most contracts include:

o Vague measures ofstudent performance,such as local report cardratings or statewideassessments.

o No specific metricsand targets for school-wide performance

(e.g., 80% proficiencyin 3rd grade readingand math OAA)

Most contracts include:

Multiple measures of studentperformance , which may includethe following:

ostatewide assessments,

oattendance, oroif applicable, graduation rates.

Metrics and targets for school-wide performance are vague (e.g.,meet state standards)

Targets are for the all studentsgroup; they do not includesubgroups of students.

All contracts may include the following:

multiple measures of student performance,

such as proficiency rates on state

assessments if applicable, student academic

growth,o if applicable,

graduation rates,

o attendance, ando if applicable, post- secondary enrollment

after high school.

Metrics and targets for school-wideperformance are specific (e.g., 80%proficiency in 3rd grade reading, meet orexceed value added, etc.)

Targets include all students and subgroups ofstudents.

All cont

studentoproostu

ograoatto if a

eno if a

otla

o Merig

o Tasu

o Atcopesimsa

o Miincme



B Contract Contract renewal is Contract renewal is essentially Authorizer contracts regularly specify a All


35/65

B. ContractTerms forHigh-Stakesand OngoingReviews

Aperformance

review uponwhich

renewaldecisions aremade.

Contract renewal isessentially automatic andcontract language mayspecify automatic renewalas the default.

Authorizer contracts rarelyspecify a high-stakes reviewto take place prior tocontract renewal.

Contract renewal is essentiallyautomatic and contract languagemay specify automatic renewal asthe default.

Authorizer contracts occasionallyspecify a high- stakes review totake place prior to contractrenewal, but at least every 5 yearsfor extended contracts.

Authorizer contracts regularly specify arequired high-stakes review to take place priorto contract renewal, but at least ever y 5 yearsfor extended contracts.

Allhigcoye

C. ContractTerms forRenewal andNon-renewal

Contracts rarely definethe performancestandards and criteria andconditions for renewal.

Contracts rarely define theconsequences for meetingor not meeting standardsand conditions.

Most contracts broadly definethe performance standards andcriteria and conditions forrenewal.

Most contracts broadly define theconsequences for meeting or notmeeting standards and conditions.

Most contracts define the performancestandards and criteria and conditions forrenewal.

Most contracts define the consequences formeeting or the consequences for not meetingstandards and conditions.

Allpeco

Allcocoan




36/65

D. Contractterms forAmendmentsand Updates

All/mostauthorizershave boiler-

plate languagenoting that

amendmentsmay be madeto allcontracts.

No specific conditions foramendment ormodifications are noted inthe contract.

Authorizer does not modifythe terms of a contract,even when it is renewedwith the school.

General conditions foramendment or modifications arenoted in the contract.

Authorizer regularly assessescontract language to ensureconsistency with changes in stateand/or federal law.

Authorizer has an updated

contract template that it uses as itauthorizers new schools; however,old contracts are not updated toreflect the more rigorous contract

terms until the existing contractexpires.

General conditions for amendment ormodifications are noted in the contr act.

Authorizer regularly assesses contractlanguage to ensure consistency with changesin state and/or federal law.

Authorizer regularly updates all or most of itsexisting contracts to reflect changes in stateand/or federal law.

If an authorizer updates its performanceframework to support higher achievementand ensure better compliance in the newschools it authorizers, old contracts are not

updated to reflect this new framework untilthe existing contract expires.

Gemo

Aulanch

Aupehig

co

Auof ch

ne

Oversight and Evaluation



37/65

A. System ofOversight &Evaluation

The authorizers oversightand evaluation system isreactive, focused only onthe schools compliancewith laws.

The authorizer rarelyenforces consequences forfailing to meet compliance

requirements orperformance expectations.

The authorizers oversight andevaluation system is minimal;focusing mainly on the schoolscompliance with laws and withlimited examination of academicperformance.

The authorizer occasionallyenforces consequences for failing

to meet compliance requirementsor performance expectations.

The authorizers oversight and evaluationsystem is proactive, collecting and/oraccessing and reviewing and/or analyzing dataon the schools compliance with laws andagainst performance targets stated in thecontract. Combined, these sources of datainform contract renewal, termination, andintervention decisions.

The authorizer regularly enforcesconsequences for failing to meet compliancerequirements, and sometimes performanceexpectations.

Thcoacsycoinfante

Thintcoartcopereq




38/65

B.Transparencyof Process

The authorizers majoroversight and evaluationprocesses forapplication, renewal andclosure are nottransparent.

The authorizers major oversightand evaluation processes forapplication, renewal and closureare not transparent; however, thetimelines are communicated.

The authorizers major oversight andevaluation processes for application,renewal and closure are transparent -clearly communicated to schools throughcontract and documented guidance andacknowledging that some aspects ofoversight necessitate flexibility (e.g., atesting investigation).

Thprcoscgutimpeac

ovtes



C. Enrollmenti i l

The authorizer rarelyh ll d

The authorizer minimally reviewsh ll d f l

The authorizer reviews and provides monthlyf db k h ll d f l

Th


39/65

& FinancialReviews

reviews the enrollment andfinancial records of eachschool. When or ifreviewed, the authorizerprovides few details andfeedback that is rarely ofvalue to the school.

No consideration is givento the qualifications of

the individual performingthe review on behalf ofthe authorizer.

the enrollment and financialrecords of each school, andprovides occasional feedback withlimited details and that are oflimited use to the school.

Some consideration is given toappropriate qualifications of theauthorizers reviewer.

feedback on the enrollment and financialrecords of each school.

All revenue sources are consideredagainst the schools annual budget.

Consideration is given to the qualificationsof the authorizers reviewer respectingschool financial reviews.

mofin

Thboschalspro

Al

ag

Thtrefinfo

o

o

o

o



D. Financial When it receives timely When it receives timely notice and When it receives timely notice and the school Wh


40/65

Audit Follow-up

notice and the schoolagrees to the meeting, theauthorizer never attendsthe schools closing auditconference.

The authorizer eitherrarely follows-up withschools on issues identifiedin a schools annual audit

by the Auditor of State oris excessive in its follow-upand direction to theschool.

the school agrees to the meeting,the authorizer never or rarelyattends less than half of theschools closing audit conferences.

The authorizer may follow-up onlegal compliance issues identifiedin a schools annual audit by theAuditor of State.

agrees to the meeting, the authorizer attendsthe majority of the schools closing auditconferences.

The authorizer addresses the majority ofissues identified in a schools annual audit bythe Auditor of State, including findings forrecovery, issues of material non-compliance,and so on.

If the authorizer requires the school toengage in a Corrective Action Plan, theauthorizer monitors the schoolsimplementation of the plan.

schauclo

Thissbyforcoev

meau

Exampinclude

o adredadup

o theschcitAu

o themeenavCo



E. Site Visit During an onsite review, During an onsite review, data are During an onsite review, data are collected Du


41/65

E. Site VisitProtocols &Training

During an onsite review,data are collected from aschool employeeavailable at the school onthe day of the review.

The authorizers onsitereviewers receive verylittle training on the sitevisit process and no

protocols are used.

During an onsite review, data arecollected from a schoolemployee available at the schoolon the day of the review.

The authorizer has an onsitevisit protocol; however, itsonsite reviewers are not trainedon the tool; and therefore,

There is no evidence of consistentuse of the protocol acrossreviewers.

During an onsite review, data are collectedfrom school administrators and a sample ofinstructors.

The authorizers onsite reviewers are trainedon and regularly use observation andinterview protocols.

There is evidence of consistent use of the

protocols across reviewers.

Data may be collected through a variety ofmeans and throughout the school year.

Ducostachmestuma

Refo

crico

Adnelaw

Dame

Oversight and EvaluationPoor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplary

F. Site VisitReviewer

Site visit reviewers have little orno experience working in or

At least one dedicated site visitreviewer has limited experience

The authorizer has at least one dedicated sitevisit reviewer with two or more years of

Macha


42/65

Expertise

Deep under-standing ofessentialprinciples,gained throughtraining and/or

several yearsworking in thefield andmastering theprinciples.

authorizing charter schools.At least one review team memberis trained in school finance, buthas limited experience applyingthe knowledge in reviewingcharter school compliance datagathered from the site visit.

No external sources are sought

in education related areas forwhich the authorizing staff lacksexpertise. These areas include:o Charter schools;o Curriculum,

instruction andassessment;

o Special education andELL instruction;

o School accountability;

o School facilities;o School law;o School finance; and,

o School governance.

(less than two years) working inor authorizing charter schools,and at least one other site visitreviewer has limited trainingand limited experience orknowledge in one or more ofthe following areas:o Curriculum,

instruction andassessment;

o Special education andELL instruction;

o School accountability;

o School facilities;o School law;o School finance; and/oro School governance.

When existing staff do nothave the range of expertiseneeded, the authorizersometimes contracts with

external sources to completeparticular aspects of the sitevisit review.

experience working in or authorizing charterschools.

Other reviewers are certified (whereappropriate) and have experience working inthe following areas:o Curriculum, instruction and

assessment;o Special education and ELL instruction;o School accountability;

o School facilities;o School law; and,o School finance; and,o School governance.

When existing reviewers do not have the rangeof expertise needed, the authorizer contractswith external sources to complete particularaspects of the site review.

yeacerfolo

o

o

o

o

o

o

If t

(e.droschthe

Whrancon

comrev

Oversight and EvaluationPoor or Underdeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplary

G. Site VisitReports

Based upon information fromsite visits, the authorizer may

d h h l h

Based upon information fromsite visits, the authorizer

d h h l h

Based upon information from site visits, theauthorizer provides the school with a written

h h l d h f ll

Bath


43/65

provide the school with awritten report but which fails toprovide any relevantinformation about the schools

operations.

There is no follow-up.

provides the school with awritten report of generalfindings, may include areasneeding improvement.

There may or may not befollow-up for improvementareas.

report which includes the following: the information collected;

and areas needing improvement.

Ongoing, the authorizer requests andreviews status updates from the schoolpertaining to any areas needingimprovement.

prowh

Onrevpe

im

H.Communica-tion with theCharter School

The authorizer fails tocommunicate with theschools Governing Authority;or

The authorizer isinappropriately overlyinvolved in the schoolsoperations, directing it ormaking decisions on thegoverning authoritys behalf.

The authorizerscommunication with theschools governing authority islimited, vague and/orinconsistent.

The authorizers communication with theschools governing authority is frequent,specific and informative regarding theschools operations.

Thfreregincgo



I. RespectingGoverning

The authorizer isinappropriately overly involved

The authorizer isinappropriately slightly

The authorizer has limited involvement in theday-to-day operations of the schools it

Thsch


44/65

gAuthorityAutonomy inOperations

pp p y yin the day-to-day operationaldecisions of the schools itauthorizers and/or operatesmore as a program of theauthorizer.

Regardless of demonstratedsuccess, all schools havelimited or no autonomy over

decision-making.

The authorizer collects data ina manner that is burdensometo the school, without thoughtto protect students and publicinterests.

The authorizer never examinesits own compliancerequirements to possiblyminimize burden and increasethe autonomy of its schools.

pp p y g yinvolved in the day-to-dayoperational decisions of theschools it authorizers.

The authorizer collects data ina manner that is burdensometo the school, without thoughtto protect students and publicinterests.

Authorizer may or rarely (nomore than once every twoyears) examines its owncompliance requirements topossibly minimize burden andincrease the autonomy of itsschools.

y y pauthorizers, targeting those that havedemonstrated poor performance or non-compliance.

The authorizer collects data in a manner thatminimizes administrative burden on theschool, and protects student and publicinterests.

Authorizer occasionally (once or twice everytwo years) examines its own compliancerequirements to possibly minimize burdenand increase the autonomy of its schools.

opcoint

Ththathepu

Thcotheaustrco



J.Intervention

The authorizer is unaware of itsobligation to intervene in

The authorizer is generally aware of itsobligation to intervene with a charter

The authorizer establishes andmakes known to the school in

Thkn


45/65

gaccordance with Alabama law.

The conditions that triggerintervention are never articulatedby the authorizer to its schools.

The authorizer never or rarelyprovides schools with timelynotice of contract violations and/or

provides little to no information onperformance deficiencies.

There is no evidence that theauthorizer (based upon its ownoversight or evidence fromALSDE that a compliance issue(s)exist), intervenes or follows-up onissues with schools in whichcompliance problems areidentified.

gschool in accordance with Alabama law.

The charter school contract states theconditions that may trigger intervention.

The authorizer occasionally providesschools with timely notice of contractviolations, and/or minimal notice ofperformance deficiencies.

There minimal or limited evidence that theauthorizer intervenes with problemsrelated to compliance which are identifiedduring its own oversight or when identifiedby an external agency, such as the ALSDE.

When intervention occurs, it is usually veryprescriptive in nature and/or the authorizerdefaults to another entity, such as theALSDE, for intervention guidance.

the contract the conditions thatmay trigger intervention andthe types of actions andconsequences that may ensue.

The authorizer provides timelynotice of contract violationsand performance deficiencies.

There is evidence that theauthorizer almost alwaysintervenes in the charterschools operations to correctcompliance issues or problemsin the schools overallperformance, based upon theauthorizers oversight, orevidence from ALSDE.

intcoantha

Thadnope

Th

chmaspepe

Thtimno

Intschidewituna d



K O i ht & P id t P id t t h h l P id t t h h l P


46/65

K. Oversight &EvaluationReport toSchools

Provides a report, verybroad in nature, whencompliance problemsarise that must beaddressed by the school.

Provides a report to each school,summarizing fiscal and operationalcompliance.

Provides a report to each school,summarizing its performance andcompliance to date.

Prsucoof im

L. AnnualReport to thePublic

The authorizer providesthe general public andALSDE with a very briefreport on the schoolscompliance with the lawsfor each of the schools it

authorizes.

The authorizer produces anannual report for each of theschools that it authorizes. Thesereports provide limitedinformation on the schoolscompliance with the laws and

meeting the terms of its contract.

The authorizer produces an annual report onthe individual schools that it oversees. Thesereports include informative data on theschools compliance with the laws andmeeting the terms of its contract.

Threpeit oscpe

ac

Termination and Renewal Decision Making


A. ContractTermination

The criteria forterminating a schools

The criteria for terminating aschools contract during its

The criteria for terminating a schoolscontract during its charter term are clearly

Thco


47/65

Terminationoccurs whenthe authorizerchooses toclose a charterschool prior tothe expirationdate/term of

the charterschoolcontract.

Non-renewal ofa contractoccurs at theend of a charterschoolscontract term.

contract during its charterterm are defined in thecontract.

The authorizer does nothave a written policyexplaining the grounds fortermination, nor theprocedures to be followed if

termination is required.

Even when evidence isbrought before it that anegregious violation of lawhas occurred, the authorizernever terminates a schoolscontract during its charterterm.

The authorizer relies uponthe states closure law.

charter term are defined in thecontract.

The authorizer does not have awritten policy explaining thegrounds for termination, nor theprocedures to be followed iftermination is required.

The authorizer does not seekevidence that might result intermination of a schools contractduring its charter term, but willconsider evidence brought beforeit.

The authorizer seldom terminates aschools contract when there is anegregious violation of law such asclear self-dealing (e.g., funnelingschool resources to family & friendsof school board members and/or

staff); falsifying data (financial orstudent)

defined in the contract.

The authorizer has a written policyexplaining the grounds for termination andthe procedures to be followed if terminationis required.

The authorizers ongoing oversight andevaluation provides evidence for these

decisions to be made.

The authorizer may terminate a schoolscontract during its charter term when there isevidence of some or all of following:o unacceptable academicperformance;o egregious violations of law;o extreme financial mismanagement

leading to the schools demise; oro unfaithfulness to the terms of the

contract (e.g., clear mismatch betweenschools mission and its actual

program).

de

Thextercoproausch

Thcois cfolo

o

o

o



B Evidence Contract renewal is almost The contract renewal decision is The contract renewal decision is based upon Th


48/65

B. EvidenceBasedRenewal

Contract renewal is almostalways assumed or madebased upon factors other

than school performance.

The contract renewal decision isbased upon a limited body ofacademic and operational

evidence (e.g., recent financialaudits, recent compliancemonitoring reports, or the schoolsmost recent state accountabilityreport card).

The contract renewal decision is based upona substantial body of evidence of legalcompliance and performance. These data

inform renewal decisions.

Evidence may include at least two of thefollowing:o multiple years of student

achievement;o multiple measures of student

achievement, including statewideassessments and measures;

o financial audits; oro site visit reports and/or other

compliance reports.

Thanan

obpeco

Evof th

o

o

o

o



C Renewal The authorizer grants The authorizer inconsistently The authorizer grants renewal to schools that Th


49/65

C. Renewaland Non-RenewalDecisions

The authorizer grantsrenewal to all schoolsregardless of failure tomeet the terms andacademic achievementtargets in their contract,fiscal or organizationalproblems, or compliancewith the law.

The authorizer inconsistentlygrants renewal to schools, eventhose that have failed to meet theterms and academic achievementtargets in their contract; havefiscal or organizational problems;or have been out of compliancewith the law.

Note: This approach to renewal decisionsis evident regardless of the strength of theperformance framework.

The authorizer grants renewal to schools thatare fiscally and organizationally viable andthat meet most of the following criteria: achieve their contractual academic

standards and targets; or faithful to the terms of their

contract.

Note: Even in the absence of a strong performanceframework, the authorizer consistently applies

performance-based criteria in making renewaldecisions.

Thscorin wita

Note: it uses a p

specific



D.Cumulative

Does not provide thecharter school a report on

May annually provide the charterschool with a report, but it does

Annually provides each charter school with areport of its performance;

Aspro


50/65

Report onPerformance

Note: Providedeach year tothe schoolsgoverningauthority, thecumulative

report builds arecord of theschoolsperformanceover the charterterm.

The cumulativereport is usedas part of theevidence basedrenewaldecisions

described inIndicator B.

its cumulative performance,other than the AuthorizersCompliance Review reportsubmitted annually to thedepartment.

not relate to the schoolsperformance against its contract;and/or

When a report is given, it does notinclude multiple years ofperformance data against itscontract term.

The report includes multiple years but maynot include the schools entire charter term.

thepeschchsuschren



E. The authorizer does not The authorizer may have an The authorizer has an application process Th


51/65

TransparentRenewalApplicationProcess

have an applicationprocess for contractrenewal.

yapplication renewal process, butdoes not consistently requireschools to follow the process,

nor does it specify criteria forrenewal.

pp pand requires all schools seeking renewal toapply through a renewal application.

The guidance regarding the renewal process isnon-specific as to criteria, content and/orformat;

The process may allow a school to presentadditional evidence regarding itsperformance.

prsere

Thavregfocri

ap

Thopresthadpe




52/65

F. PromptNotificationandExplanationof Reasonsfor theRenewalDecision

The authorizers writtennotification of renewaldecision rarely includes anexplanation of the reasonsfor the decision.

Parents and students havealmost no time and no

information to makeinformed choices for thecoming school year.

The authorizers writtennotification of renewal includes avery limited explanation of thereasons for the decision.

Parents and students have littletime and limited information tomake informed choices for the

coming school year.

The authorizer promptly notifies eachschool of its renewal decision, including awritten explanation of the reasons for thedecision.

Parents and students have enough time andinformation to make informed choices forthe coming school year.

Thscspfostathco

Paanchsc



G. ClosureProcess

The authorizer isunaware of its obligationto o ersee school clos re

The authorizer is aware of itsobligation to oversee schoolclos re ho e er it lacks the

The authorizer is aware of its obligation tooversee school closure.

ThobTh


53/65

to oversee school closure.

In the event of a schoolclosure, the authorizer hasno formal policy orprocedure for schools tofollow. The closing schoolmight default to theALSDE guidance.

The authorizer does notoversee the closureprocess.

closure; however, it lacks thecapacity to oversee; when aschool has closed, the authorizermay or may not have submittedthe Closing Assurances toALSDE.

In the event of a school closure,the authorizer has no formal policy

or procedure for schools to follow.The closing school might defaultto the ALSDE guidance.

The authorizer does ensure thatstudent records are returned tothe home school district.

The authorizer may have a formal policy,but at a minimum follows ALSDEsguidance.

In the event of a school closure, theauthorizer oversees the schools governingboard and leadership in carrying out aclosure process that:

o informs parents,o transitions student records to the

home school district,o disposes of school funds, property,

and assets in accordance with law; ando submits Closing Assurances to

ALSDE

Thov

In auschcathao

o

o

o

Thcaclogopro

Technical Assistance and Authorizer Requirements in Rule and Law


A. OngoingTechnicalAssistance to

Technical assistance, ifprovided to schools, isreactive to problems that

Most technical assistanceprovided by the authorizer isreactive to problems.

The authorizer routinely provides timelycomprehensive technical assistance inresponse to issues, problems and concerns

Thcores


54/65

Schools

Note: theprovision oftechnicalassistance does

not mean thatthe authorizerdoes work forthe school; theauthorizerprovidesguidance,includinginformation

aboutresources; butthe authorizerdoes not do the

work.

parise.

The authorizer does notassess the technical

assistance needs of theschools it authorizes.

p

The authorizer occasionally solicitsinformation about the technicalassistance needs of the schools it

authorizes.

The authorizer sporadicallyprovides the technical assistance

identified as needed by theschools.

p , pidentified by either the authorizer or the

school.

The authorizer regularly assesses or solicits

information about the technical assistanceneeds of the schools it authorizes.

The authorizer routinely provides thetechnical assistance identified as neededby the schools.

The authorizer regularly solicits feedback onthe quality and impact of the technicalassistance that it provides to the schools.

ide

sch

Almpro

fro

Th

soassau




55/65

B. OngoingUpdates ofLegal andPolicy Changes

The authorizer never orrarely updates schools onchanges to rule and lawthat impact the schoolsoperations.

The authorizer sporadicallyupdates schools on changes to ruleand law that impact the schoolsoperations, but has no process fordoing so.

The authorizers updates may

include directing schools toanother credible source for thisinformation.

The authorizer has a process that it uses toat least annually, informs schools onchanges to rule and law that impact theschools operations.

The authorizers updates may includedirecting schools to another credible source

for this information.

Thscof thscne

Thdirso



C. OngoingProfessional

The authorizer neverprovides information about

The authorizer sporadicallyprovides information about PD

The authorizer shares information about PDopportunities for its schools, which may or

Thmu


56/65

Development(PD) forSchools

pPD opportunities for itsschools.

popportunities for its schools.

Or

Is prescriptive or mandating thatits schools participate in certainPD, excepting a topic specifictraining that is a requirement of

the contract.

pp , ymay not be charter school specific.

The authorizer may provide PD directly on

certain topics (e.g., annual meeting forupdates)

While the authorizer shares information aboutPD opportunities, it is the schools

independent decision as to whether or not itparticipates, excepting a topic specific trainingthat is a requirement of the contract.

op

Or

Ththsc

Wprindit ptraco

Poor or Underdeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

D. EffectiveWorkingRelationships

with SchoolsGoverning

Beyond what is stated in thecharter school contract, theauthorizer has no written

policy and no explanationthat differentiates its roles

While not documented beyond what isstated in the charter school contract,the authorizer is able to explain in

general terms how its roles andresponsibilities differ from the schools

While not documented beyond what is stated in thecharter school contract, the authorizer and theschools governing authority describe roles and

responsibilities that are understood and respectedby both parties.

Beconaut

dogo


57/65

Authorities and responsibilities fromthose of the charter schoolsgoverning authority. In the

absence of clarity, bothparties frequently havemisunderstandings and their

mutual respect is low.

The authorizer rarely works to

maintain a solid relationshipwith their assigned schools

governing authority members(e.g., rare communication; noattendance at board

meetings).

The authorizer provides littleguidance to its governingauthorities.

governing authority. However, bothparties may view the roles andresponsibilities differently.

While the authorizer tries to maintaina solid relationship with their assigned

schools governing authoritymembers, differing opinions and

misunderstandings between the

authorizer and governing authoritiesoccasionally leads to a lack of respect

between both parties (e.g., limitedcommunication, sporadically or notattending board meetings).

The authorizer regularly works to maintain a solidrelationship with their assigned schools

governing authority members (e.g., regularcommunication, attending at least two boardmeetings annually for each school).

autun

Tha ssch

freexa

as

aborev


58/65


59/65


60/65


61/65


62/65


63/65


64/65


65/65

There are many training resources available, and it is up to the

authorizer to determine them. The conference options below

are from national organizations.

PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL CONFERENCES

National Alliance for Charter Schools- Nashville, TN- June 26-

29, 2016

www.publiccharters.org

National Association of Charter School Authorizers-Atlanta, GA-

Oct 24-27, 2016

www.qualitycharters.org
http://www.publiccharters.org/http://www.qualitycharters.org/http://www.qualitycharters.org/http://www.publiccharters.org/

alabama public charter school presentation

Documents