building charter school quality in...

BuildingCharter School Quality

in ColoradoJanuary 2011

Building Charter SChool Quality

the national alliance for Public Charter Schools, the national association of Charter School authorizers, the Colorado league of Charter Schools, and the Center for research on education outcomes at Stanford university would like to thank the many individuals who contributed their time, perspectives, and expertise to produce this report. these individuals include:

• Vincent Badolato, Colorado league of Charter Schools

• nora Flood, Colorado league of Charter Schools

• Jim griffin, Colorado league of Charter Schools

• Stacy rivera, Colorado league of Charter Schools

• taishya adams, national alliance for Public Charter Schools

• todd Ziebarth, national alliance for Public Charter Schools

• alex Medler, Ph.d., national association of Charter School authorizers

• doug thaman, ed.d., national association of Charter School authorizers

this report was written by Sean Conlan, Ph.d., director of research and evaluation, national association of Charter School authorizers; Jason Callegari, Public affairs associate, Colorado league of Charter Schools; Jennifer douglas, director of new School development, Colorado league of Charter Schools; and Jody ernst, Ph.d., director of research and evaluation, Colorado league of Charter Schools.

this work is part of a larger four-year project entitled, “Building Charter School Quality: Strengthening Performance Management among Schools, authorizers, State Charter Support organizations and Funders,” which was supported by a national activities grant from the u.S. department of education.

aCKnoWledgeMentS

Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 3

table of Contents

introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

a Snapshot of Colorado Charter Schools . . . 5

Charter School Policy gap analysis . . . . . . . 8

Charter School authorizer Practices gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Support Services for Charter Schools gap analysis. . . . . . . . . . . 17

Public education data System gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

appendix a: analysis of Colorado’s Charter School law . . . . . . . . . 38

4 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado

to address this challenge, four leading organizations came together to spearhead the Building Charter School Quality (BCSQ) project as a force for improving the performance of charter schools nationwide. the convening partners were the Colorado league of Charter Schools (the league), the Center for research on education outcomes (Credo) at Stanford university, the national alliance for Public Charter Schools (the alliance), and the national association of Charter School authorizers (naCSa).

as part of the BCSQ project, the convening partners chose Colorado as one of the project’s target states. over the past four years, the BCSQ project’s activities in Colorado have included the development of the Colorado growth Model, the denver Public Schools accreditation model, and a number of authorizer tools, as well as research informing benchmarks for alternative education students which has influenced the development of an alternative accountability framework in the state. in addition, the BCSQ initiative has supported the development and implementation of several performance management training opportunities in Colorado, including a two-day Performance Management institute, several half-day Performance Management for Board trainings, and a full-day authorizer Summit for sharing of best authorizer practices. as a result of these activities, the league has provided its member schools with a more robust set of performance management tools and other critical services.

as a finale to the project, the BCSQ team has performed a series of gap analyses in each of the BCSQ target states, including Colorado. this report provides an overview of the state’s charter school landscape and offers gap analyses of the charter school policies, charter school authorizer practices, support services for public charter schools, and the public education data system policies in Colorado.

the overarching purpose of this report is to guide improvement in the Colorado charter school sector, which, in turn, will lead the way to improving the performance of all public schools and the students they serve.

Eighteen years after the nation’s first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1992, more than 4,900 charter schools

currently serve approximately 1.6 million public school students in 39 states and the District of Columbia. As

the charter school movement continues to grow, one of its key challenges is the wide range in charter school

quality. While a growing number of charter schools rank among the country’s best schools, a notable minority are

chronically poorly performing.

introduction


Currently,163 charter schools across 170 campuses serve approximately 70,000 students in Colorado. Charter school enrollment represents about 8.6% of the entire Colorado K-12 public school student population. as of the 2010-11 school year, 47 of the state’s 178 school districts authorize at least one charter school; the Charter School institute, the state’s only non-district chartering authority, authorizes 18 charter schools.

Charter School Demographics

the ethnic breakdown in charter schools nearly mirrors that of the traditional public schools in Colorado as shown in the chart below:

Colorado Charter SChoolS (2009-10)

traditional PuBliC

SChoolS (2009-10)

White (not Hispanic) 60.86% 60.85%

Hispanic 26.19% 28.50%

African-American (not Hispanic) 7.75% 5.80%

Asian or Pacific islander 4.12% 3.68%

American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.08% 1.17%

the distribution of charter school students, by grade level, is as follows: 1% Pre-K; 53% elementary (K-5); 24% Middle School (6-8); and 22% high School (9-12).

Charter School Growth

the charts below illustrate both the growth in the number of charter schools each year and the growth in charter school enrollment since the first schools opened in 1993.

FiGure 1. Number oF ColoraDo Charter SChoolS that have opeNeD SiNCe 1993

Cumulative Total*New Schools

020406080

100120140160180

2010

-11

2009

-10

2008

-09

2007

-08

2006

-07

2005

-06

2004

-05

2003

-04

2002

-03

2001

-02

2000

-01

1999

-00

1998

-99

1997

-98

1996

-97

1995

-96

1994

-95

1993

-94

* Thetotalcumulativenumberdoesn’tmatchthe170numbercitedinthisreportbecausesomeschoolsarecountedbythestatemultipletimesbasedonthenumberofactualchartercontracts(e.g.aK-12schoolmighthavethreechartercontracts:oneforelementary,oneformiddleschool,andoneforhighschool).

FiGure 2. Charter SChool eNrollmeNt

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

2010

-11

2009

-10

2008

-09

2007

-08

2006

-07

2005

-06

2004

-05

2003

-04

2002

-03

2001

-02

2000

-01

1999

-00

1998

-99

1997

-98

1996

-97

1995

-96

1994

-95

1993

-94

Over the last two decades, public charter schools have become an increasingly accepted component of the public

school system across the nation, as well as in Colorado. In general, the charter school movement in Colorado is

strong. However, some gaps in the public charter school sector still exist and need to be addressed.

a Snapshot of Colorado Charter Schools


academic resultsevidence of the strong academic performance of Colorado charter schools is provided by both federal and state measures of student achievement.

adequate Yearly progressin 2009, Colorado’s charter schools outperformed the state’s non-charters in the percentage of schools that made adequate yearly Progress (ayP). Specifically,

• 85% of charter elementary schools made ayP, compared to 73% of non-charter elementary schools.

• 81% of charter middle schools made ayP, compared to 49% of non-charter middle schools.

• 36% of charter high schools made ayP, compared to 34% of non-charter high schools.

Colorado Growth modelin 2010, 59 percent of the charter school grade levels (i.e., all elementary, middle, and high school grades served within charters) meet or exceed the state’s median growth percentile in mathematics, 61 percent meet or exceed the state median growth in reading, and 63 percent meet or exceed the state median growth in writing.

PerCent of Charter SChoolS, By Grade level, to Meet or exCeed the State Median Growth PerCentile (50th) 2009-2010

0

16

32

48

64

80

All

Gra

des

Hig

h

Mid

dle

Elem

All

Gra

des

Hig

h

Mid

dle

Elem

All

Gra

des

HIg

h

Mid

dle

Elem

MATH READING WRITING

2009 2010

Between 2009 and 2010:

• the percentage of charter elementary schools to meet or exceed the state median growth percentile increased in all three subject areas.

• the percentage of charter middle schools to meet or exceed the state median growth percentile increased in mathematics and writing.

• the percentage of charter high schools to meet or exceed the state median growth percentile increased in reading.

adequate Yearly Growthin 2010, Colorado introduced a new measure by which to rate schools on their effectiveness at reaching all students—the median adequate growth percentile. the median adequate growth percentile for a school represents the growth that is needed by the “typical” student in a school to reach proficiency within three years or by 10th grade, whichever comes first. the figure below illustrates the percentage of schools across the state, and for charters alone, whose actual median growth percentiles were equal to or greater than the median adequate growth percentiles needed to bring their students to proficiency.

PerCent of SChoolS to Meet or exCeed their 2010 Median adeQuate Growth PerCentile, all State* and all Charter

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Charter State

Hig

h

Mid

dle

Elem

Hig

h

Mid

dle

Elem

Hig

h

Mid

dle

Elem


* Charterschoolsareincludedinthefiguresforthewholestate.


the percentage of schools, both statewide and by charters alone, to meet or exceed adequate median growth in reading was quite impressive. at all grade levels, at least 70 percent of schools met the median adequate growth percentile for reading, with charter middle schools achieving this 90 percent of the time.

the state as a whole appears to have struggled more to meet adequate growth percentiles in both math and writing. in each of these subjects, however, a higher percentage of charter schools met their adequate growth percentiles than all schools in the state—with the exception of high school level writing.

CSaps: percent proficient or advancedWhile not as good an indicator of school effectiveness as growth, the percent of students in a school to score proficient or better on the Colorado Student assessment Program (CSaP) is an important snapshot of how students are performing academically in the state.

2010 PerCent ProfiCient or advanCed for all State and all Charter SChoolS, By SuBjeCt and Grade level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Charter State

Hig

h w

/o A

ECs

Hig

h

Mid

dle

Elem

Hig

h w

/o A

ECs

Hig

h

Mid

dle

Elem

Hig

h w

/o A

ECs

Hig

h

Mid

dle

Elem


in 2010, the overall proficiency results among charter schools closely mirrored those for the entire state (including charter schools). Charters are outperforming the state average for percent proficient and advanced in all subjects at the elementary and middle school levels. When looking at charter high schools it seems that they have lower percentages of students reaching proficiency and above; however, when alternative education Campus (aeCs)1 are removed from the analysis (both charter and non-charter aeCs), charters are performing as well as the state at the high school level for the subjects of reading and writing.

While Colorado charter schools as a whole are doing well by many measures, a number of schools are still struggling to meet academic growth expectations. Continued efforts need to be made towards improving the quality of individual public charter schools in Colorado so they can play a central role in raising achievement and closing the state’s achievement gap.

Colorado is at a critical time in the evolution of its public charter school sector. using momentum from the development of the Colorado growth Model and a positive state and national political environment, Colorado should focus on continuing targeted efforts towards addressing the gaps that still exist in its charter school policies, its charter school authorizer practices, its support services for charter schools, and its public education data system policies. these gaps are outlined in this report.

1 alternative education Campus (aeC) is Colorado’s designation for schools that serve predominantly high-risk students.


to identify areas for improvement, this section focuses on weaknesses or omissions in Colorado’s charter school law. this report will focus on the 12 (out of 20) essential components of the model charter school law that receive the greatest weight in the rankings report’s scoring system. these 12 components received either a “4” or a “3” (on scales where “4” was the highest and “1” was the lowest) in the rankings report’s scoring system:

Weight: 4• transparent Charter application, review, and

decision-making Processes.

• Performance-Based Contracts required.

• Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and data Collection Processes.

• Clear Processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions.

Weight: 3• no Caps.*

• Multiple authorizers available.

• authorizer and overall Program accountability System required.

• Fiscally and legally autonomous Schools, with independent Public Charter School Boards.

• automatic exemptions for Many State and district laws and regulations.

• automatic Collective Bargaining exemption.

• equitable operational Funding and equal access to all State and Federal Categorical Funding.

• equitable access to Capital Funding and Facilities.

* Coloradoreceivedthehighestscorepossibleforthiscomponent,sothisanalysisexcludesit.

each bullet point above represents a key policy area that the national alliance for Public Charter Schools addresses in the model law. the model law details each bullet point and suggests provisions for each one, often times containing multiple options or best practice initiatives that have gained traction in other state legislatures and operating environments. interested parties should refer to the model law for more information (www.publiccharters.org/modellaw).

this policy gap analysis only provides recommendations on areas that the national alliance for Public Charter Schools weighted most heavily; readers should look closely at all of the gaps between Colorado’s law and the model law’s 20 essential components. the 20 essential components of the model law offer a strong framework to guide comprehensive improvement of Colorado’s law to support growth of quality charter schools. See appendix a of this report.

the following is a summary of Colorado’s policy deficits and recommendations for how to remedy those deficits.

In January 2011, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools published the second edition of its rankings of

states based on how their charter laws match the Alliance’s model charter school law. Colorado was listed as one

of the top ten states for creating the strongest policy environments for public charters, ranking 4th out of 40 and

receiving 130 of the 208 possible points2.

Charter School Policy gap analysis

2 See MeasuringUptotheModel:ARankingofStatePublicCharterSchoolLaws, (January 2011).


transparent Charter application, review, and Decision-making processesCurrent Colorado score: 8 points out of 16 possible

Colorado currently lacks many of the model law’s provisions that ensure that authorizers follow clear, rigorous and transparent charter application, review and decision-making processes. the model law’s provisions are necessary to make certain that only the most qualified, viable and capable applicants are approved to operate a public school.

reCommeNDatioNS

Colorado should amend its law to include provisions for quality application review and decision-making processes by all authorizers.

a. the law should specify application content requirements and data requests specific to proposals involving educational service providers and proposals involving school replications.

B. the law should require authorizers to thoroughly evaluate each application, using the naCSa standards3 or current industry best practice models.

performance-based Contracts requiredCurrent Colorado Score: 8 points out of 16 possible

Colorado lacks many of the model law’s provisions for performance-based charter contracts. these provisions are essential to ensure that the outcomes for which public charter schools are accountable, as well as the autonomies to which they are entitled, are mutually agreed upon and set forth in a legally binding contract. these provisions should ensure that public charter schools are held to standards demonstrating their academic and financial viability.

reCommeNDatioNS

Colorado should amend its law to include enhanced provisions for charter contracts:

a. the law should require contracts to clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of public charter schools and authorizers.

B. the law should require that charter contracts define, based on nationally recognized industry standards, academic and operational expectations by which the school will be judged, based on academic performance that includes measures and metrics for, at a minimum, student academic proficiency and growth, achievement gaps, attendance, recurrent enrollment, post-secondary and workforce readiness (high school) and operational performance inclusive of financial viability and board stewardship (including compliance).

C. the law should require a term of five academic years and, in cases where this term is extended, periodic high-stakes reviews should occur.

d. the law should recognize the uniqueness and demands of virtual charter schools and provide the foundation of guidance and regulatory structure to ensure high-functioning schools.

Comprehensive Charter School monitoring and Data Collection processesCurrent Colorado Score: 12 points out of 16 possible

Colorado lacks a small number of the model law’s provisions for comprehensive public charter school monitoring and data collection by authorizers. these provisions are necessary to ensure that all authorizers collect and are able to appropriately utilize the comprehensive body of evidence needed to drive high-stakes public charter school evaluations. Such processes can also be used to inform the public of charter school performance and provide schools a fair opportunity to make the changes needed to meet all of the performance standards mutually-agreed upon in their contracts.

3 naCSa Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School authorizing (2010). www.qualitycharters.org > authorizer Quality.


reCommeNDatioNS

Colorado should amend its law to strengthen authorizers’ monitoring and data collection processes by doing the following:

a. the law should explicitly empower authorizers to conduct or require oversight activities other than annual data collection.

B. the law should require authorizers to produce and make public annual school performance reports that build upon the state level reports and are inclusive of financial performance, compliance and other school specific measures.

C. the law should require authorizers to notify their schools of perceived problems and to provide schools with opportunities to remedy such problems in a timely manner.

Clear processes for renewal, Nonrenewal, and revocation DecisionsCurrent Colorado Score: 8 point out of 12 possible

Colorado does not meet all of the model law’s provisions for clear, merit-based renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decision processes. these provisions are essential to ensure that authorizers provide a fair, transparent, evidence-based process for making high-stakes decisions, as well as protect student and public interests in the event of school closure.

reCommeNDatioNS

Colorado should amend its law to improve authorizers’ renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation processes in the following ways:

a. the law should require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose contract will expire the following year.

B. the law should require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

C. the law should require authorizers to ground renewal decisions based on evidence regarding the school’s performance over the term of the charter contract (in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract) and grounded in school accreditation law.

multiple authorizers availableCurrent Colorado Score: 6 points out of 12 possible

Colorado meets the model law’s provisions for the availability of multiple authorizers in some but not all cases. these provisions are necessary because they ensure that all charter applicants have the opportunity to seek approval from a conscientious and well-motivated authorizer. Currently, Colorado law allows all local school boards to authorize charter schools and gives the Charter School institute (CSi) statewide chartering authority, except in districts granted “exclusive chartering authority” by the state board of education. in Colorado, any district enrolling fewer than 3,000 students automatically receives exclusive chartering authority; however, other districts may apply to receive exclusive chartering authority from the state board of education. the state board of education can remove exclusive authorizing authority at any time if authorizers do not meet expectations.


reCommeNDatioNS

a. Colorado should amend its law to increase access to alternative authorizers and remove the right to exclusive authorizing authority.

authorizer and overall program accountability System requiredCurrent Colorado Score: 6 points out of 16 possible

Colorado currently lacks many of the model law’s provisions which provide a level of commitment and accountability for authorizers and strengthen the charter program as a whole. these provisions are essential to ensure that public accountability for authorizers exists, that authorizers are committed to charter law, that the state is involved in evaluating the implementation and outcomes of its charter school programs, and that this evaluation informs future improvements.

reCommeNDatioNS

Colorado should amend its law to increase authorizer and overall program accountability by doing the following:

a. the law should require a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest and commitment to quality authorizing.

B. the law should require authorizers to develop an annual report of all of their authorizing activities based on naCSa standards as well as the performance of their portfolio of public charter schools.

C. the law should require a regular review process by an authorizer oversight body.4

d. the law should strengthen the authorizer oversight body’s authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of the authorizer’s right to approve schools.5

Fiscally and legally autonomous Schools, with independent public Charter School boardsCurrent Colorado Score: 9 points out of 12 possible

Colorado lacks a few of the model law’s provisions for fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent public charter school boards. the provisions are essential to ensure that schools, via their independent governing boards, have the authority to receive and disburse funds, enter into contracts, and sue and be sued in their own names.

reCommeNDatioNS

Colorado should amend its law to strengthen its fiscal and legal autonomy with independent public charter school boards by doing the following:

a. the law should require that charter schools incorporate rigorous conflict of interest policies and procedures into their application, by-laws, and ongoing governance structures.

automatic exemptions for many State and District laws and regulationsCurrent Colorado Score: 9 points out of 12 possible

Colorado has many but not all of the model law’s provisions which provide for automatic exemptions from many state and district laws and regulations. these provisions are essential for ensuring the school-level flexibility that is needed to develop and implement unique and inventive programs.

reCommeNDatioNS

a. Colorado should amend its law to increase automatic exemptions for many state and district laws and regulations. For example, currently Colorado law requires charter school teachers be certified unless a waiver is granted in the charter. this would ideally be an automatic waiver.

4 in Colorado this could be done by the Colorado department of education (Cde), a group of stakeholders including but not limited to members of the Colorado league of Charter Schools, district representatives, charter administrators, and school board representatives; or a team from naCSa.

5 a charter school, a charter school applicant, or an organization that represents charter schools may request revocation of a local board of education’s exclusive chartering authority only on the grounds that the local board has demonstrated a pattern of failing to comply with one or more of the provisions of the Charter Schools act 22-30.5-101, but not on the performance of the authorizer’s portfolio of charter schools.


automatic Collective bargaining exemptionCurrent Colorado Score: 9 points out of 12 possible

Colorado currently has yet to directly address the issue of collective bargaining exemptions; however, the law has been interpreted to exempt public charter schools from district collective bargaining agreements. these provisions are essential to ensure the school-level flexibility that charter schools demand.

While the model law recommends having an automatic collective bargaining exemption, the lack of such an exemption has not been problematic in Colorado (in 17 years and across almost 200 schools) and, therefore, no recommendation is offered here.

equitable operational Funding and equal access to all State and Federal Categorical FundingCurrent Colorado Score: 6 points out of 12 possible

Colorado state law includes some of the model law’s provisions for equitable operational funding and equal access to state and federal categorical funding for charter schools. these provisions are essential to ensure that charter schools receive funding equal to any traditional public school and that they receive these funds in a timely manner.

reCommeNDatioNS

Colorado should amend its law to provide equitable funding to public charter school students in the following ways:

a. the law should require that all funds, including locally raised funds (bond and mill levy overrides), be shared equally with public charter schools.

B. the law should provide equal access to all applicable categorical federal and state funding, and clear guidance on the pass-through of such funds, for public charter schools.

equitable access to Capital Funding and FacilitiesCurrent Colorado Score: 9 points out of 12 possible

Colorado law includes many of the model law’s provisions for equitable access to capital funding and facilities. these provisions are essential to ensure that public charter schools have appropriate facilities in which to educate their students and that their disparate operational costs do not preclude them from successfully educating students.

reCommeNDatioNS

Colorado should amend its law to provide equitable access to capital funding and facilities for public charter schools in the following ways:

a. the law should provide a per-pupil facilities allowance thatannuallyreflectsactualaveragedistrictcapitalcostsand may be used for a wide variety of facilities-related needs.

B. the state should maximize every opportunity to increase capital funding opportunities to charter schools, including credit enhancement, loan programs, etc.

C. the law should provide a right of first refusal for a closed, unused, or underused public school facility or property.

d. the law should prohibit facility-related requirements for public charter schools that are stricter than those applied to traditional public schools and don’t recognize and accommodate the unique needs of charter schools.


the policies and practices of the eight authorizers described below fall into five functional areas in charter school authorizing:

a. review of applications.

B. Contracting with charter schools.

C. oversight and monitoring.

d. renewal decision-making.

e. Commitment and capacity.

Successfully accomplishing the required tasks in each of these five functional areas requires well-developed practices and a qualified, professional staff. this report focuses on a small number of key issues within each functional area.

recent actions to Strengthen authorizing in Coloradoa variety of activities in Colorado have aimed to strengthen authorizing in the state. these include:

1. a recent state law creating a commission to develop proposed standards for charter school authorizing and charter schools.

2. an ongoing collaboration between the Colorado department of education (Cde), the league, and the Charter School institute (CSi) has produced materials for application processes and contract language. this collaboration and the resulting materials6 have the potential to leverage change in authorizers across the state.

3. authorizers in Colorado have been participating in naCSa’s in-depth evaluations of authorizers. the interest in these evaluations and the resulting planning for improvement by these authorizers are a strong indication of the willingness among a core set of authorizers in the state to improve their practices.

4. denver Public Schools and naCSa have worked closely on a multi-year effort to strengthen authorizing in the state.

as a result of these activities, Colorado has benefited from previous work to improve authorizing, and the state is poised for wide-spread dissemination of strong practices that have been developed to fit Colorado’s context. data from the survey of authorizers in the state indicate both strengths and weaknesses in current practice.

review of applicationsa quality charter school authorizer implements a comprehensive charter application process. Colorado charter school authorizers appear to have many of the basic components in place for a comprehensive charter application process. however, some areas of practice are stronger than others.

a comprehensive charter application process includes an annual request for charter school applications issued by the charter school authorizer. in Colorado, two of seven responding authorizers reported that they issue annual requests for new charter applications. thirty percent of charter school authorizers nationally report issuing an annual request for new charter applications.

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) conducts an annual survey of charter school

authorizers. Responding authorizers provide information about their current authorizing policies and practices

as well as information about their work over the last year (e.g. the number of applications reviewed). Using data

collected from its 2010 survey, NACSA can report on the policies and practices of eight responding Colorado

charter school authorizers. These eight authorizers collectively oversee 49% of the charter schools in Colorado

during the 2010-2011 school year (84 of 170 campuses).

Charter School authorizer Practices gap analysis

6 available online at www.startacoloradocharter.org.


a comprehensive charter application process includes an interview with each charter applicant. Face-to-face interviews offer an opportunity for authorizers to evaluate an organizing team’s understanding of their proposal as well as their capacity to implement that proposal. in Colorado, 63 percent of the charter school authorizers surveyed reported that their organization interviews each charter applicant. nationally, 81 percent of charter school authorizers report conducting interviews with charter applicants.

through discussions with charter school authorizers nationally and its direct work with charter school authorizers, naCSa has found that quality charter school authorizers employ panels of experts to evaluate charter school applications. these panels should include external experts. including external experts is important for two reasons. First, successfully operating a charter school requires an experienced team with diverse sets of skills and abilities such as financial management, non-profit governance, school leadership, and curriculum development. expert panels with members experienced in different subject areas are necessary to evaluate applications in those diverse domains. Second, including external experts helps insulate the application review from the political influence of applicants and other factors separate from the operation of a successful school. all surveyed authorizers in Colorado report that they employ expert panels, but only five of eight authorizers report that those panels include experts external to the authorizing organization. nationally, 38 percent of charter school authorizers employ panels that include external experts.

a rigorous application process must be selective. authorizers must only grant charters to the most qualified of charter applicants. one proxy for application process rigor is an authorizer’s application approval rate. all of the Colorado authorizers surveyed reported receiving and evaluating charter applications during the 2009-2010 school year. on average, Colorado authorizers approved 29 percent of the charter applications they received. this rate is

below the national average (37 percent), suggesting that Colorado authorizers may be more selective than authorizers nationally.

reCommeNDatioNS

a. Colorado authorizers, Cde and the league should should collaborate to create a pool of trained application reviewers available to authorizers around the state.

B. all Colorado authorizers should establish a transparent application process based on the Standard application developed collaboratively by the Cde, CSi and the league. the application process and required materials should include timelines and be posted publicly on the authorizer’s website.

C. When an authorizer receives a charter application, the authorizer should conduct interviews with members of the planning team, including prospective board members, to assess the applicant’s experience and capacity to implement the proposed program effectively.

Contracting with Charter Schoolsa quality charter school authorizer signs contracts with schools that describe the rights and responsibilities of the authorizer and the school. this section discusses two basic components of a quality charter school contract: the existence of a contract distinct from an application and a five-year charter term.

the contract, separate from the charter application, is an essential document to hold schools accountable, uphold school autonomy, and protect student and public interests. having a contract distinct from a charter application ensures that the material terms and performance expectations are explicitly and formally described and agreed upon, something difficult to do in a charter application. a contract distinct from the charter application also ensures that the charter school is not held accountable at renewal for statements in their charter application extraneous to those central performance expectations. all of the surveyed authorizers in Colorado report signing contracts


with each charter school overseen. every surveyed authorizer reported signing contracts separate from the submitted charter applications. nationally, 88 percent of charter school authorizers sign contracts with each charter school, and 73 percent of those authorizers sign contracts that are distinct from the charter application.

a quality charter school authorizer grants charter contracts for a term of five operating years, or longer only with periodic high-stakes reviews every five years. a term of five years allows a school to develop beyond the initial startup phase and produce a sufficient performance record and body of data necessary for high-stakes decision making. naCSa recommends five-year charter terms. in the event that contract terms are longer than five years, authorizers should ensure that schools undertake a high-stakes review of their academic performance that is similar in its rigor and scope to the review that schools undergo at the end of a charter term. three of the seven responding Colorado authorizers reported charter terms of five years. the remaining four authorizers reported either charter terms of less than three years or longer than five years with frequent high-stakes reviews. nationally, 59 percent of charter school authorizers report five-year terms. Surveyed Colorado authorizers report the basic components of a quality charter school contract, though several authorizers may want to consider longer charter terms.

reCommeNDatioNS

a. all Colorado authorizers should institute performance-based charter contracts that include objective performance criteria for both academics and operations.

B. all Colorado authorizers institute contracts for a five-year period unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.

oversight and monitoringa quality authorizer conducts oversight that competently evaluates performance and monitors compliance, ensures a school’s legally entitled autonomy, protects student rights, informs high-stakes decision-making, and provides annual public reports on school performance.

the quality of intervention strategies reported by Colorado authorizers varies. Six of seven responding Colorado authorizers report providing underperforming schools, in writing, a description of the unsatisfactory performance (91 percent nationally). Five of seven responding Colorado authorizers report requiring the school to submit a plan for improvement designed by the school and approved by the authorizer (86 percent nationally). Both of these intervention strategies appropriately balance accountability and school autonomy.

however, some interventions threaten both accountability and autonomy by becoming involved in the operation of charter schools. three of seven responding Colorado authorizers report that when a school performs unsatisfactorily, they provide the school, in writing, suggestions for how to improve (62 percent nationally). Four of seven responding authorizers report that they create plans for improvement in partnership with the underperforming school (54 percent nationally). Becoming involved in the operational choices of a school may result in the authorizer sharing responsibility for the school’s performance, making evaluation during renewal more difficult.

reCommeNDatioNS

a. all Colorado authorizers should provide their public charter schools with annual written performance-based feedback. in providing this feedback, authorizers should avoid offering prescriptive remedies, but rather focus on expected outcomes and timelines.


renewal Decision-makinga quality charter school authorizer regularly reviews its charter schools for renewal and bases the renewal process and renewal decisions on thorough analyses of a comprehensive body of objective evidence defined by the performance framework in the charter contract.

responding Colorado authorizers appear to have the basic components of a quality renewal process. regular high-stakes review of charter school performance (once every five years) is essential to fostering excellent schools and protecting student and public interests. during the 2009-2010 school year, responding Colorado authorizers reviewed on average 24 percent of their charter schools for renewal. the average nationally is 30 percent. Basing renewal decisions on the performance expectations outlined in a contract between a charter school and its authorizer contributes to a fair and rigorous renewal process. eight of eight responding Colorado authorizers report that they base renewal decisions on the expectations stated in the charter contract. ninety percent of authorizers nationally report this policy.

reCommeNDatioNS

a. all Colorado authorizers should use renewal criteria based on contract provisions.

B. authorizers should consider a differentiated renewal process for consistently high-performing public charter schools.

Commitment and Capacitya quality charter school authorizer has sufficient resources and staff to oversee and foster excellent schools that meet identified needs. responding Colorado authorizers have greater resources and capacity than many authorizers nationally. Five of seven responding authorizers have budgets dedicated to charter school authorizing. nationally, only 39 percent of charter school authorizers report having a budget dedicated to charter school authorizing. Six of six responding authorizers report that they rely on oversight fees deducted from charter school revenues to support

their authorizing work. Sixty-nine percent of charter school authorizers report oversight fees as a source of funding for authorizing work. Without reliable sources of funding and a dedicated budget, authorizers must support authorizing with funds allocated for other programs (or neglect authorizing duties entirely).

responding Colorado authorizers report an average of 4.9 schools for every full-time equivalent (Fte) employee assigned to authorizing work. the national average is 5.6 schools per Fte. in both sources of funding and staffing, responding Colorado charter schools authorizers exceed national averages.

reCommeNDatioNS

a. authorizers should be statutorily required to make an affirmative commitment to quality authorizing practices as defined by naCSa Principles and Standards of Quality Charter School authorizing.

B. authorizers should undergo periodic reviews of their authorizing practices by an authorizing oversight body.

C. all Colorado authorizers should designate staff responsible for charter school oversight and allocate budget funds to support quality authorizing.

d. the tools (e.g. Standard application, Model Contract language, renewal Framework template, etc.) being created by many of the state’s authorizers in collaboration with the Cde, CSi and the league should continue to be refined and implemented across the state.


there are a variety of support services that public charter schools need or want. however, this analysis focuses on five critical support services that most promote the growth of quality public charter schools within a state:

• Proactive advocacy for public charter schools.

• education of public charter school board members.

• Support in the development stages and startup years of schools.

• Support during the renewal process for schools.

• assistance in implementing performance management practices.

the Colorado league of Charter Schools (the league) is the primary CSo in Colorado, though a number of charter support services are also offered through the Colorado department of education’s (Cde) Schools of Choice (SoC) office.

the league was founded as a membership association for Colorado public charter schools in 1994 following the passage of the Charter Schools act in 1993, and the opening of the first two public charter schools in the state that same year. When the league first began operations, it was staffed by one person and focused on providing networking opportunities for public charter schools, serving as a clearinghouse for information and resources, and advocating on behalf of public charter schools at the state legislature. over the past 16 years,

the league has grown to a 22-employee organization that offers a wide variety of support services for member schools. the league has two primary departments: (1) Public affairs, which focuses on policy, advocacy and communications, and (2) School Services, which offers a diverse range of services including, board training, performance management support, professional development, research and evaluation, business services, employment support, special education support, general technical support, conferences and events, and new school development support.

the Cde Schools of Choice office has served as the administrator for the Charter School grant Program since 1996. in addition, this office provides support services to public charter schools by disseminating best practice documents on their website, hosting trainings and networking meetings, providing external reviews, and authoring a number of guidebooks for charter schools.

For the past several years, the league and the Cde Schools of Choice office have also collaborated on a number of projects, including a website for developing public charter schools (www.startacoloradocharter.org), an annual boot camp for new schools, development of online board training modules, and development of several authorizer tools including a standard charter application and model contract language.

Among the critical elements necessary for quality public charter schools to flourish within a state are the support

services available to public charter schools in their various stages of development. In most states, these services

are provided by organizations and associations commonly referred to as charter support organizations (CSOs).

Most often, CSOs are independent, non-profit organizations dedicated to serving and advocating for quality charter

schools as a powerful reform strategy for public education.7 While CSOs tend to be the primary source of services

for public charter schools in a state, other organizations, such as resource centers and state departments of

education, may provide support services as well.

Support Services for Charter Schools gap analysis

7 See “growing the Movement: the national Charter School Support grid.” the national alliance for Public Charter Schools, (February 2009) www.publiccharters.org.


this section of the report outlines the support services available to public charter schools in Colorado and identifies the gaps in services that are fundamental to creating an environment in which quality public charter schools flourish and poor performing schools close. For each support service, this report outlines which services are available and provides recommendations on how the services can be strengthened.

proactive advocacy for Charter SchoolsProactive advocacy for public charter schools is essential to ensure a policy environment that allows for the flexibility and accountability necessary to foster the growth of quality public charter schools. Because CSos often work most closely with the charters in their states, they are best informed on what policies are necessary to promote autonomy and ensure high-performing public charter schools. through both grassroots advocacy and lobbying, CSos influence what legislation gets passed in their state. in addition, advocacy by CSos includes taking public and firm stances on quality in a variety of ways, including by publishing quality standards and certifying public charter schools according to specified criteria.

SummarY oF proaCtive aDvoCaCY aCtivitieS For ColoraDo publiC Charter SChoolS

SPeCifiC ServiCeS

PreSenCe and Quality of ServiCe

ServiCe Provider(S)

Initiating legislation that promotes charter quality ✔+ League

Blocking legislation that undermines charter quality ✔+ League

Informing stakeholders on agendas and outcomes ✔+ League

Encouraging grassroots advocacy ✔+ League

Publishing quality standards based on nationally accepted standards

✔ League

leGeND:✔+ means that services are available and quality of services appears

strong

✔ means that services are available and quality of services is adequate

✔- means that services are available and quality of services needs improvement

a blank cell means that services are not available

Since its inception in the early 1990s, the league has always held public charter school advocacy as one of its top priorities. in fact, through annual needs assessments of member schools, advocacy consistently surfaces as an essential need of these schools. as a result, the league develops an annual legislative agenda, gathering input from its membership and a governmental affairs Committee (which includes a diverse body of stakeholders). once the agenda has been established, league staff work through the legislative session to ensure that the agenda is met and that any legislation unfavorable to public charter schools is defeated.


a significant tool used by the league to meet its advocacy goals each year is the Colorado Charter advocacy network (Colorado Can). this is an online network of public charter school supporters (primarily parents) who receive updates and action alerts during the legislative session. the network, which currently has over 16,000 members, enables participants to easily contact their legislators in support of, or opposition to, specific bills that would impact public charter schools.

Several years ago, the league adopted Quality Statements for Charter Schools; however, they have become largely irrelevant through the development of a state accreditation system that was created using BCSQ academic principles as its foundation.8 this state accreditation system applies to both public charter and traditional schools. it is a fair and transparent accountability model that uses a set of State Performance indicators based on student achievement growth (measured by the Colorado growth Model), student achievement levels (measured by percentage of students scoring at each level), extent of achievement gaps based on income and ethnicity, and post-secondary readiness (measured by graduation rates and aCt scores). Based on a school’s performance on each indicator, schools receive one of six accreditation ratings. the state accreditation model supersedes the league’s Quality Statements because it goes beyond a voluntary school commitment and requires all public schools to be held to high standards. the league offers ongoing training to schools on the state accreditation model.

in addition, in 2009 the Colorado legislature passed a league-developed bill (hB 1412) that requires the State Board of education to adopt public charter school standards for operations, finance and governance. these standards would complement the academic standards already in place through the accreditation model mentioned above. the operational standards would be only applicable to public charter schools and would also be based on BCSQ principles (using AFrameworkforOperationalQuality).9 a committee has been tasked with developing these standards and the league has been very involved in ensuring that committee members understand the BCSQ guidance so it can be incorporated into the standards.

the other component of hB 1412 is the creation of authorizer standards. these standards will be based largely on the national association of Charter School authorizers (naCSa) Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School authorizing.10 again, the league is working to ensure that committee members understand the authorizer standards as defined by naCSa.

reCommeNDatioNS

the recommendations around proactive advocacy services in Colorado involve the implementation of house Bill 1412. it is recommended that the league:

a. Continue working with the hB 1412 committee and advocating on behalf of BCSQ-based or other industry-based standards for charter school operations, finance, and governance to ensure that state statute or state board of education policy is fair and reflects high standards for charter schools in these areas.

B. Continue working with the hB 1412 committee and advocating for adoption of the naCSa Principles and Standards as the model of authorizer quality and accountability.

8 See AFrameworkforAcademicQuality:AReportfromtheNationalConsensusPanelonCharterSchoolAcademicQuality (June 2008), www.charterschoolquality.org.

9 AFrameworkforOperationalQuality is available at www.charterschoolquality.org.

10 naCSa’s Principles and Standards are available at www.qualitycharters.org/authorizer-quality/overview.


education of Charter School Governing board membersthe education of charter school governing board members on their roles and responsibilities, particularly in relationship to ensuring strong school performance, is essential to supporting quality in every public charter school. Without proper education, charter boards may struggle to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities as overseers of a public entity. additionally, while volunteer board members bring a wide variety of experience and expertise to their boards, they may lack specific training on public school governance practices and accountability requirements.

SummarY oF boarD DevelopmeNt traiNiNG topiCS available to ColoraDo Charter SChoolS

SPeCifiC SuPPort ServiCeS


ServiCe Provider(S)

Ethics ✔+ League and CDE SOC

Charter school law and policy environment ✔+

League and CDE SOC

Charter board responsibilities:

– Budgeting/financial/operational efficiency (or fiduciary responsibilities)

✔+ League and CDE SOC

– Academic oversight ✔+ League and CDE SOC

– Public trust ✔+ League and CDE SOC

Public school employment laws ✔ League and CDE SOC

Charter administrator responsibilities ✔+

League and CDE SOC

Authorizer responsibilities and relationships ✔

League and CDE SOC

Performance management ✔+ League

Strategic planning ✔ League and CDE SOC

State, local, and federal accountability systems ✔+

League and CDE SOC

Data systems ✔+ League

Assessments ✔ League

Board by-laws* ✔- League and CDE SOC


strong




* TheLeagueandCDESOCprovidesampleby-lawsforschools,butdonotengageinformalby-lawreviewforschoolsastheybelieveaschool’slegalcounselshouldcompletesuchareview.


Both the league and the Cde Schools of Choice office recognize the importance of strong governance in the success of public charter schools. accordingly, both organizations dedicate a considerable amount of time and resources to providing educational opportunities for public charter school board members. the two organizations collaborate on all of the offerings detailed in this section to ensure common messaging and information is provided regardless of which organization provides the trainings.

the league offers two formal events that provide governance training for public charter school board members: (1) an annual conference which includes a strand of sessions for board members and (2) an annual retreat designed specifically for board members. Cde SoC, with involvement of league staff, offers an annual boot camp for new schools that includes a session on governance. twice a year, board members are invited to participate in full-day regional board trainings offered free to all public charter school governing boards.

the league also offers customized full-day and half-day governance trainings on a fee-for-service basis. these trainings are customized to the needs of the school, but two primary trainings are offered: (1) governance 101, which introduces basic roles, responsibilities and general practices essential to operating an effective public charter school board, and (2) Performance Management for Boards, which provides the foundation for understanding the board’s role in ensuring improved student performance and school success.

Both the league and Cde SoC offer high-quality strategic planning supports, including a strategic planning curriculum and tools for plan development; however, the number of schools receiving these services is low (an average of 10% of the total number of schools per year).

the league, Cde SoC, and the Charter School institute (CSi), which is the state’s only non-district chartering authority, collaboratively developed a series of web-based board training modules. the online Charter School governing Board training modules (which are available at: www.boardtrainingmodules.org) cover a comprehensive range of topics and offer an in depth look at governance and charter school oversight. the 30 training modules cover a variety of topics and total over 15 hours of professional development for public charter school governing board members. each training module includes a pre-test, a flash presentation, and a post-test. there is also a study guide that allows boards to use the modules as ongoing board development. the modules are free, flexible, and available to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Cde SoC requires board members of new schools that receive startup funding through the Colorado Charter School grant Program to pass all 30 of the governing Board training Modules. they must meet this requirement within 12 months of receiving grant funding.

in addition, Cde SoC also recently convened a Board President’s Council. the aim of the Board President’s Council is to provide support and resources specifically to current and future governing board leaders. the Board President’s Council, which meets quarterly, is also intended to further facilitate collaboration and the sharing of best practices among charter schools.

the greatest challenge in terms of educating public charter school board members is getting board members to take advantage of the plentiful opportunities available to them. the requirement tied to the Colorado Charter School grant Program for new schools is an effective strategy, but it doesn’t address more established schools or the fact that there is annual turnover on charter school boards. Both the league and Cde SoC have found that the schools who need governance training the most are often the least likely to participate in various training opportunities.


reCommeNDatioNS

a. the league and Cde SoC should identify strategies for providing and focusing training for board members at schools that are struggling academically or operationally, including the creation of incentives tied to completion of the board modules. another option would be to work with these schools’ authorizers to encourage them to require training for their schools.

B. Similar to the online Board Modules, the league and Cde SoC should develop a method of large-scale strategic plan support so more schools can benefit from this process.

C. the league and Cde SoC should provide improved support for public charter schools around by-law development. While this support should not be a substitute for a school’s legal counsel’s review of by-laws, the league and Cde SoC should develop a check list of topics that should be addressed in by-laws and model by-law language.

Support in the Development and Startup Years of public Charter Schoolsthe active support of public charter school groups in the development and startup phases of their schools is one way for CSos to help ensure that developing groups understand the complexity and serious nature of starting a public school using public funds. Providing these support services also helps CSos monitor and assure the quality and long-term viability of the charter school movement.

liSt oF Support ServiCeS available DuriNG the DevelopmeNt aND Startup YearS oF Charter SChoolS



ServiCe Provider(S)

Application content review ✔+ League

Founding group training ✔+ League and CDE SOC

Contract review* ✔ League

Grant and funding assistance ✔ League and CDE SOC

Facilities support ✔ League

Access to cost saving products and services ✔+ League

Financial services

Staff recruitment support ✔ League


strong




* TheLeagueandCDESOCprovidemodelcontractlanguageforschools,butdonotengageinformalcontractreviewforschoolsastheybelievethisshouldbedonebytheschool’slegalcounsel.

together, the league and the Cde SoC office offer a variety of critical supports for public charter schools in the development (i.e., pre-application submission) and startup (i.e., post-approval, pre-opening) phases.

Founding Group training and application Content reviewthe league is committed to providing comprehensive assistance to startup public charter schools to ensure that when a school opens, it does so with the ultimate opportunity to succeed and improve student achievement. the majority of schools that go through the application process use many of the services described in this section, particularly the application review against the Quality Standards.


the league’s support begins when a developing group contacts the office and sets up a meeting with new School development staff. Staff members provide a flowchart11 for developing groups that defines the stages of new school development, and also provides guidance to begin the application process. this includes a review of the league’s comprehensive Quality Standards for developing Charter Schools12 and other support resources for the development process. the league also offers a monthly series of free webinars for public charter school developers on a variety of relevant topics. once the charter application is complete, the developing group is invited to submit the application for a free two-stage review process involving a team of external reviewers who provide feedback and suggestions for improving the application. once improvements are made, the application is resubmitted for a second read and further recommendations.

as developing groups are designing their school, the new School development staff connects them with the league’s other departments to provide information and resources in the areas of governance training, professional development, performance management, business services/group purchasing, food services, job postings, facilities, special education, employment law, and general technical assistance.

Contract reviewthe league’s new school support has intentionally not included a contract review. While the league has weighed in on contract issues when they arise between an authorizer and the schools it charters, it encourages new schools to have contract language reviewed by the school’s legal counsel. the league, Cde SoC, and CSi

have instead developed model contract language13 which is being used by more and more authorizers, particularly those that authorize multiple schools. if the model contract language is used, it helps ensure strong accountability measures, appropriate autonomy, and a healthy operating relationship with the authorizer.

Funding Support for New School Development and Start upin terms of grant funding, there are several sources of grant funds available to developing and startup public charter schools:

• the Colorado Charter School grant Program consists of federal funds managed and disbursed by the Cde’s Schools of Choice office. the grant process is competitive but schools can receive up to three years of startup funding (averaging about $1,500 per student up to $180,000 per year). to receive grant funding through this program, a school must be authorized.

• the Walton Family Foundation offers pre- and post-authorization grants. the league helps administer these grants through its grant Partners Program. Funding primarily supports new schools in denver Public Schools, with allowances made for a handful of schools in other areas that serve a significant percentage of low-income students. eligible schools can receive up to $30,000 in pre-authorization funding and $220,000 in post-authorization funding.

• the league has received and actively pursues philanthropic support that can be provided to developing public charter schools in the planning phase of development (pre-authorization). When the league receives a grant for school planning support, it then disburses this money to eligible groups on a competitive basis determined by their ability to meet various school development criteria. however, the availability of planning grants is dependent on the league’s ability to receive funding from foundations.

11 available online at www.startacoloradocharter.org. this website was developed collaboratively by the Colorado league of Charter Schools, the Colorado department of education’s Schools of Choice office, and the Charter School institute.

12 available online at www.coloradoleague.org/uploaded-files/2010%20Quality_Standards_for_developing_Charter_Schools.pdf.

13 available online at www.startacoloradocharter.org.


Facilities Support for New Schoolsthe league recently increased its capacity for supporting new schools in their acquisition of facilities. While there is more work to be done in this area, work is underway to provide general technical assistance to schools through the process. While the league cannot directly provide a facilities financing mechanism for charter schools, the league would like to see improved facilities financing opportunities for startup charter schools.

recruitment & hiring Support for New Schoolsin terms of recruitment, the league provides a job postings page on its website which sees a significant amount of online traffic throughout the year. Creating a pipeline of qualified public charter school leaders continues to be a challenge as the expectations for charter school leaders are substantially different than traditional public school leaders. While the league has chosen not to tackle this task directly, it works in support of leadership development organizations such as getSmart Schools. in addition, the Cde SoC office recently began offering leadership training sessions as part of the Colorado Charter School grant Program.

reCommeNDatioNS

the support for founding groups in Colorado is robust and should foster the creation of high-quality new schools. however, in light of this analysis of existing services, the following recommendations are offered:

a. the league should work more pro-actively with schools and authorizers to ensure that model contract language is used in order to set up schools for maximum success in terms of both accountability and autonomy.

B. the league should continue to dedicate substantial resources to raising funds that can be disbursed to developing public charter schools in the form of planning grants.

C. While the league provides technical support for schools in the facilities development process, facilities financing for new schools is an ongoing challenge. the league should review options to increase facilities financing opportunities for startup charter schools.

d. the league should continue to explore how high-quality leaders can be effectively paired with new schools.

e. the league may want to consider adding financial services to its suite of services available to both new and existing public charter schools.

Support During the renewal process for Schoolsensuring that charters are renewed based on a transparent and objective renewal application process— using empirical evidence of the schools’ academic progress—helps assure that high-quality schools remain open. a strong renewal process also provides a defensible basis for closing low-performing schools.

reNeWal Support available to Charter SChoolS



ServiCe Provider(S)

Renewal application review ✔- League

School and/or student data analysis ✔ League

Renewal contract review* ✔ League


strong




* TheLeagueandCDESOCprovidemodelcontractlanguageforschools(whichcanbeusedwithrenewalcontracts),butdonotengageinformalcontractreviewforschoolsasthisshouldbedonebytheschool’slegalcounsel.


each year, a substantial number of Colorado public charter schools are renewed with little concern or controversy. implementation of the state’s new accreditation process has made renewal even easier because it provides a standard mechanism for authorizers to evaluate how schools are performing academically. as a result, renewal support has not been a significant focus for the league.

the league has a strong research and evaluation team that offers high-quality data analysis, but again this service has not been readily accessed by schools due to a variety of factors including school need, league capacity, cost effectiveness of the services, and a lack of marketing on the league’s part. While many of the state’s larger, more established schools do not need renewal assistance, small schools, new schools, and struggling schools could all benefit from increased support in this area.

another gap in this area is that up until now, charter school authorizers have not had a good tool they could use for evaluating and renewing charter school contracts. Colorado statute provides some guidance on renewal, but it is fairly general and there has been ambiguity about how to put the statutory guidelines into action. the league, Cde SoC, and many of the state’s largest authorizers are in the process of putting together a renewal framework template that can be used by authorizers and schools. this renewal framework builds upon the foundation of the model contract language and aligns with the state’s new accreditation process. the other product being developed is a model process for school closure when that becomes necessary. While closure is never an easy process, notice and dispute resolution, appropriate timelines, tools for communication, and student transition processes should be addressed to ensure that the procedure is minimally disruptive for students and their learning.

reCommeNDatioNS

a. the league should formalize its data analysis services available to public charter schools going through the renewal process and target this support to schools that may need help in this area (e.g. small, new, and struggling schools). this effort should include identifying and contacting schools that may be interested in this type of data analysis support and are up for renewal in a given year. the league should provide schools with a clear picture of the type of data analysis that is available, ensuring that it is relatively affordable for schools.

B. once the renewal framework template is complete, the league should work diligently to ensure that it is being used by schools and authorizers alike to create a transparent and fair renewal process.

C. the league should provide a service of reviewing and providing constructive feedback on a school’s renewal application.


help in implementing performance management practicestracking and monitoring student progress through data allows teachers, principals, and governing board members to make informed decisions about overall programmatic improvements and appropriate individual student interventions. to inform school stakeholders about the importance of building a data-driven school culture, CSos should facilitate professional development and networking opportunities for boards, school leaders, and teachers.

perFormaNCe maNaGemeNt Support available to publiC Charter SChoolS



ServiCe Provider(S)

Facilitate professional development opportunities for founding groups and new and existing charter teachers and leaders on:

– Accountability systems ✔+ League

– Data management systems ✔+ League

– Interim assessments ✔+ League

– Data-driven decision making ✔+ League


strong




the league recognizes that one of the most effective ways a CSo can impact student achievement is through providing schools with support around performance management systems. Performance management is data-driven decision making that is facilitated by the use of high-quality tools, strategies, and systems that gather, organize, analyze, report, and share information about student and school performance. in order to have a complete performance management system, schools need to have three primary tools: a student information system (for tracking enrollment, attendance, grades, etc.), a data management system (for warehousing and analyzing student assessment results), and interim assessments to inform instruction on an on-going basis.

the league’s work around performance management includes implementing effective systems within a school designed to understand student performance, training individuals at all levels (teachers, administration, board) to effectively use data to inform instruction and ensure accountability, and developing a school culture that promotes and rewards teachers and schools for academic success. to this end, the league offers a significant number of regional and on-site performance management trainings (63 trainings were offered during the 2009-10 academic year). in addition, through grant funding, the league has been able to distribute subsidies to schools to support implementation of good performance management tools and training. lastly, as the state continues to implement the new Colorado growth Model, the league provides trainings for schools in understanding the new model, the state accreditation system, and the state-mandated unified improvement Planning template.


the league’s Performance Management team provides substantial support to developing and new schools in the creation of annual performance management plans. this support includes ensuring that performance management plans are aligned with both the budget and the annual professional development calendar. the league’s goal is to see every new charter school open its doors with all three performance management systems in place (student information system, data management system, and interim assessments).

the league has also advocated on behalf of schools to help them gain access to their school-level data from their authorizing districts. this advocacy includes legislatively addressing the timely release of data to public charter schools, cultivating relationships with authorizers to promote timely release of data, and advising schools on how to request, obtain, upload (into the school’s performance management system), and use their data. the league has also supported, largely through BCSQ grant funds, the development of a public portal for school-level data and a password-protected portal for student-level data. the student-level portal is new and is not yet being widely utilized by the state’s charter schools.

While performance management services are strengths in the offerings available to Colorado charter schools, the challenge still exists of reaching the schools that need these services the most. Similar to the issue raised in the governance section above, the schools that most often take advantage of the performance management supports are those that are performing well. it is much more challenging to engage the schools that are struggling academically and operationally.

reCommeNDatioNS

a. the league should more deliberatively target its performance management services towards low-performing public charter schools, as this would help to strengthen the quality of those schools and ultimately improve the quality of the public charter landscape in the state.

B. the league should work with authorizers to make sure they are aware of performance management services available from the league. authorizers could also assist in identifying and leveraging underperforming schools to participate in the league’s performance management services.

C. the league should disseminate information to schools on use of SchoolView.org for gaining access to student-level growth and achievement data.


this section consists of the following parts:

• essential elements of a robust State longitudinal Data System: this subsection identifies gaps between Colorado’s current data infrastructure and the data Quality Campaign’s 10 essential elements of a robust longitudinal data System.

• essential State actions to ensure effective use of education Data: this subsection identifies gaps between current Colorado policy and the data Quality Campaign’s 10 actions that states must take to ensure effective use of data to increase student achievement.

• Student Growth Data System: this subsection discusses the availability of a statewide growth measure and the utility of the measure to make decisions at the school and classroom level.

essential elements of a robust State longitudinal Data Systemthis subsection cites the results presented in the data Quality Campaign’s (dQC) 2009-10AnnualSurveyUpdateandStateProgressReport.15 it conveys the degree to which Colorado’s longitudinal data system contains the dQC’s “10 essential elements” of a robust state longitudinal education data system capable of providing timely, valid, and relevant data to the state’s charter schools, authorizers, and other education stakeholders. in addition, it provides updates on the implementation of a statewide longitudinal system that have come to light since the 2009-10 dQC survey was administered.

as of the 2009-10 survey, Colorado had seven of the 10 essential elements in place; however, legislation passed during the 2009 and 2010 legislative sessions has paved the way for the remaining three to be implemented.16 the three essential elements that Colorado has not yet implemented, but which are currently underway are:

• teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students.

• Statewide collection of student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned.

• ability to match student-level P-12 and higher education data.

This section focuses on building a statewide assessment and data infrastructure that supports and meets the

essential expectations of the BCSQ Project’s nationally recommended AFrameworkforAcademicQuality.14 By

enacting the policies recommended herein, Colorado will empower charter schools and authorizers to strengthen

the quality of public charter schools in ways that presently are not possible.

Public education data System gap analysis

14 See AFrameworkforAcademicQuality:AReportfromtheNationalConsensusPanelonCharterSchoolAcademicQuality (June 2008), www.charterschoolquality.org.

15 the essential element and State action summary descriptions in this report are taken directly from the dQC 2009-2010 annual Survey update & State Progress report, available at: www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states/Co.

16 the complete 2009-10 essential elements survey results for Colorado are available at: www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states/Co?tab=elements


Following is information on how Colorado is addressing each of these missing elements, with accompanying recommendations for their implementation, according to the dQC.

teacher identifier System with the ability to match teachers to StudentsMany states collect data on teacher education and certification, but matching teachers to students by classroom and subject is critical to understanding the connection between teacher training and qualifications and student academic growth. Collecting these data is necessary to identify which students and which courses are being taught by teachers with different levels and types of preparation or certification. Knowing this information will allow states to determine which forms of teacher training and certification have the greatest impact on students’ academic growth in the classroom.

during the 2009 legislative session, Colorado enacted hB 1065, which allows the Colorado department of education (Cde) to begin the development and implementation of a statewide teacher identification system. the development and implementation timeline follows:17

ProjeCt PhaSe

deSCriPtion of ProjeCt taSk

ProjeCted CoMPletion

dateon

traCk?

Phase IGeneration and dissemination of unique identifiers

June 2010 Yes

Phase II

Integration of identifiers into existing CDE data systems as well as data systems outside of CDE, such as Department of Higher Education

November 2010 No

Phase III

Linking educator ID’s with student ID’s into such systems as the Growth Model and other agencies, providing reports based on their data, providing access to data that allow districts or other identified entities to perform analysis

April 2011 No

according to the frequently asked questions posted on the Cde website, all district employees have been assigned a unique teacher identifier. no mention of charter employees is made on the website, although specific mention of charter school educators is made in the legislation.

17 See educator identifier Project webpage at www.cde.state.co.us/edidproject/index.asp.


reCommeNDatioNS

it is unclear publically whether Colorado’s charter school educators have been assigned identifiers, as they are often not employees of school districts. the state needs to:

a. Make it clear whether all educators are assigned an identifier, including those who work in charter schools.

B. Make it transparent how charter school educators receive an identifier.

Statewide Collection of Student-level transcript information, including information on Courses Completed and Grades earnedMany states are encouraging students, particularly low-income and minority students, to take rigorous courses in high school so they are better prepared for success in post-secondary education and the job market. Most states, however, do not collect course completion data, making it impossible to monitor the impact of these policies. to fill in the missing information, states should collect and monitor student-level transcript information from middle and high school, including courses taken and grades earned.

in october 2008, the Colorado transcript Center went live. this system allows for public and private schools throughout Colorado’s P-20 education system to send student transcript records to each other electronically. While the system helps make the transfer of transcript data easier and less costly, the system is not without flaws. Because of a strong tradition of local control over education decisions in Colorado, there is no common course coding system in the state. therefore, it is unclear to receiving schools whether students have acquired prerequisite knowledge to enroll in some courses in their new schools. in addition, Cde does not currently collect this type of data for its own use.

reCommeNDatioNS

Colorado should enact policy to collect and monitor student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned that addresses each of the following components:

a. a consistent statewide course numbering system.

B. Course completion data that includes middle school courses taken for high school credit.

C. Course completion data that includes all summer school courses taken for high school credit.

d. Course completion data that includes dual enrollment courses taken from colleges and universities.

ability to match Student-level p-12 and higher education Dataas states and school systems work to align expectations in high school with the demands of post-secondary education, they

building charter school quality in...

Documents