nacsa de eval report final

8/3/2019 Nacsa de Eval Report Final

1/35

NACSA Authorizer Evaluation

National Association of Charter School Authorizers

March 17, 2011

Authorizer

Delaware Department of Education

Board President

Dr. Teri Quinn Gray

Secretary of Education

Dr. Lillian Lowery


2/35

Contents

Introduction 3

About the Authorizer 5

Executive Summary 6

Application Decision Making 7

Monitoring Operations 16

Performance-Based Accountability 22

School Autonomy 29

AppendicesSources i

Evaluator Bios ii

1

3

2

4

2011 National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA)

This report carries a Creative Commons license, which permits noncommercial

re-use of content when proper attribution is provided. This means you are free to

copy, display and distribute this work, or include content from this report in

derivative works, under the following conditions:

Attribution You must clearly attribute the work to the National Association

of Charter School Authorizers, and provide a link back to the publication at

http://www.qualitycharters.org/.

Noncommercial You may not use this work for commercial purposes, including but

not limited to any type of work for hire, without explicit prior permission from NACSA.

Share Alike If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute

the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.

For the full legal code of this Creative Commons license, please visit

www.creativecommons.org. If you have any questions about citing or reusing

NACSA content, please contact us.


3/35

3 NACSA Authorizer Evaluation:

Introduction

In cities and states across the country, more public

officials are seeing charter schools as one of several

powerful and complementary strategies to improve

public education in their communities. These officials

are stepping forward to play a leading role in the

development of a high quality charter school sector.

Local school superintendents, state superintendents,

governors, mayors, university leaders and others are

taking bold action to develop plans, form public-private

partnerships, allocate resources, provide facilities, and

implement policies to support new charter schools that

meet high standards.

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers

(NACSA) was founded on the principle that every child

should have the right to choose a high quality school.

We advance this vision by promoting the establishment

of quality charter schools through responsible oversight

in the public interest. NACSA has not only pioneered

the cause of quality in the charter school sector

but, through its first-hand experience working with

authorizers, has put that cause into action.

NACSA has learned through practice and experience

that authorizers have a significant impact on the nature

and quality of charter schools. The authorizer makes at

least two critical decisions in the life of every charter

school: whether to approve the application and whether

to renew the school. In addition, the authorizer has an

ongoing relationship with approved schools through

which it needs to balance the need to represent the

public interest in monitoring the school with ensuring

that each school has the operational autonomy to

which it is entitled. There are specific characteristics

of an authorizer that fulfills those responsibilities well.

NACSAs Evaluation Framework is designed to facilitate

authorizer evaluations that reflect and align with those

characteristics in a clear, evidence-based manner.

Structure of this Report

The Authorizer Evaluation is designed to assess how

well an authorizer is fulfilling its role, based on TheNational Association of Charter School Authorizers

Principles & Standards for Quality Authorizing.

This report is divided into four parts, each of which

focuses on a functional area of the authorizing role.

A Guiding Question frames the evaluation of each part:

Part 1: Application Decision Making

Does the authorizer make new school decisions based

on demonstrated preparation and capacity to operate a

quality charter school?

Part 2: Monitoring Operations

Does the authorizer monitor school compliance with

rigorous operational expectations?

Part 3: Performance-Based Accountability

Does the authorizer use comprehensive academic,

financial and operational performance information

to make rigorous, merit-based accountability decisions?

Part 4: School Autonomy

Do schools have the autonomy to which they

are entitled?



4/35


Rating Criteria

Authorization quality is rated in two categories:

Established

Refers to the authorizers practices as set out

on paper whether by policy, protocol, or other

means. It also addresses the way that the authorizercommunicates information about its practices to

relevant stakeholders within the authorizing agency

and to schools. This category rates the authorizer

based on what it plans to do.

Applied

Refers to the authorizers practices as applied.

This category rates the authorizer based on what it

actually does.

Within each of the parts of the evaluation, the rating

categories are defined more specifically with respect to

the authorizers responsibilities in that area.

Rating System

Within each category (established or applied),

the authorizer receives a rating as follows:

Model

Exceptional in that it exceeds the expectations

of NACSAs Principles & Standards for Quality

Authorizingand warrants notice from and

emulation by other authorizers.

Well-Developed

Commendable in that it materially satisfies the

expectations of NACSAs Principles & Standards.

Approaching Well-Developed

Sound in that it contains most aspects of a well-

developed practice and substantially satisfies

NACSAs Principles & Standardsalthough it

requires some modification to meet the standardfully.

Partially Developed

Incomplete in that it contains some aspects

of a well-developed practice but is missing

key components, is limited in its execution,

or otherwise falls short of satisfying NACSAs

Principles & Standards.

Minimally Developed

Inadequate in that the authorizer has minimally

undertaken the practice or is carrying it out in

a way that falls far short of satisfying NACSAsPrinciples & Standards.

Undeveloped

Wholly inadequate in that the authorizer has not

undertaken the practice or is carrying it out in

a way that falls far short of satisfying NACSAs

Principles & Standards.



5/35


About the Authorizer

Delaware's charter law was passed in 1995 with the

intent of improving student learning, encouraging the

use of different and innovative or proven school

environments and teaching strategies, providing

parents and students with improved measures of

school improvement, and expanding public school

options. Local school boards and the Delaware

Department of Education (the DDOE) may authorize

charters, but only one local board currently grants

charters, leaving DDOE as the only viable authorizer

for most of the state. The state's Charter School

Accountability Committee has primary responsibility

for application decisions. It is composed of eight

voting members including seven DDOE staff and one

community member. Two State Board members serve

ex officio with six other non-voting numbers.

Currently, the DDOE oversees 15 schools serving

7,091 students. In 2009-10, the DDOE received

seven applications for new schools and approved one.

That same year, four schools were up for renewal.

Two schools received renewal; one was not renewed;

and one decision is pending. To date, the DDOE has

closed one other school.

All Delaware charters are independently run bricks

and mortar schools. DDOE-chartered schools include

both all-girls and all-boys programs; several

technology-focused schools; and several designed for

at-risk students. One school, originally authorized by a

local school district, has been approved to transfer to

the DDOE for 2011-12. New schools opening in

2011-12 include an arts-based lab school and a dual

language program.



6/35


Executive Summary

Key Competencies

Priorities for Improvement Recommended Actions

Part 1 Application Decision Making:

Part 2 Monitoring Operations:

Part 3 Performance-Based Accountability:

Part 4 School Autonomy:

Established Applied

The authorizer adheres to statutorily prescribedcriteria and timelines for receiving, reviewing, andmaking decisions on new school and renewalapplications.

The authorizer has developed a reasonablycomprehensive pre-opening checklist and hasresponded appropriately when schools failed tomeet stipulated pre-opening requirements or wereotherwise unprepared to open.

Develop a comprehensive authorizing program thatforwards the state's efforts to establish and supporthigh quality public charter schools.

Create and implement a strategic plan that providesfor developing appropriate policies, processes,guidelines, and tools to build a quality authorizingprogram that incorporates the recommendations inthis Evaluation Report.

Develop rigorous criteria and procedures for makingmerit-based application decisions.

Develop and implement a substantially revisedapplication process based on clear applicationrequirements; rigorous, documented criteria;

engagement of experienced external reviewers; andan interview process that assesses applicant capacityto implement the proposed program effectively.

Ensure that every charter school operates under abinding contract or charter that serves as the basis formaking performance-based accountability decisions.

Develop and execute with each newly approved andrenewed charter school a performance-based contractthat sets forth measurable academic andnon-academic performance goals and expectations,and explicitly defines the role of the authorizer andthe governing board of the school.

Focus renewal decisions on academic, financial, andoperational performance rather than primarily oncompliance.

Establish and implement a renewal process designedto make decisions that are based primarily on aschool's demonstrated academic, organizational andfinancial performance in relation to measurablestandards set forth in the charter contract.

Monitor school operations on a consistent, ongoingbasis.

Develop and implement a system for monitoringschool operations including transparent reportingrequirements; systems for regular assessment ofperformance; and public reporting on schoolperformance.

Ensure that technical assistance does not compromiseeither school autonomy or the authorizer's capacity tomake independent accountability decisions.

Define technical assistance more narrowly anddistinguish the role of the Delaware Department ofEducation, as a whole, in providing assistance fromthat of the Charter Schools Office, as an authorizer.



7/35


Application Decision-Making1

Guiding Question:

Does the authorizer approve applications

based on demonstrated preparation and

capacity to operate a quality charter school?

1.1. Application Decision Making: Substance

This section evaluates the expectations that the

authorizer establishes, communicates and applies to

the substance of charter school applications, including

the educational program, the organizational plan, the

business plan, and demonstrated capacity, in order

to make decisions about whether to approve or deny

charter school applications.

1.2. Application Decision Making: Process

This section evaluates the expectations that the

authorizer establishes, communicates and applies to the

charter school application process, including timelines,

format requirements, evaluation procedures, and any

steps the authorizer actively takes to solicit applications.

1.1.1. Vision and Mission

1.1.2. Educational Program

1.1.3. Organizational Plan

1.1.4. Business Plan

1.1.5. Applicant Capacity

1.1.6. New School Priorities

1.1.7. Application Responsiveness

1.2.1. Application Process Timelines

1.2.2. Application Format

1.2.3. Interview

1.2.4. Transparency

1.2.5. Decision Analysis

1.2.6. Applicant Pool Development

Part 1 Summary:

Established d

Applied d

EstablishedEstablished AppliedApplied

Minimally Developed

Undeveloped



8/35


Summary Assessment


Application Decision-Making1

The charter school law in Delaware provides aframework identifying fourteen criteria that developersmust meet to receive approval to open a charterschool. A Charter School Accountability Committee

(CSAC) -- the voting members of which includeDelaware Department of Education (DDOE) executivesand officials, State Board of Education members, anda community representative -- makes a finalrecommendation on approval or denial of a new schoolapplication to the State Board of Education. Nonvoting members of the CSAC include DDOE CharterSchool Office staff, State Board staff, and theexecutive director of the state charter schoolassociation. In practice, the approval criteria havebeen interpreted fairly narrowly, creating anenvironment where reviews of charter schoolapplications are not comprehensive or consistent andare thus open to subjectivity.

The authorizer does not have an established processor the evaluative tools to evaluate new charter school

applications in their entirety. Some members of theCSAC review designated sections of an application(e.g., a DDOE special education specialist who sits onthe CSAC reviews each application's special educationplan under the special education criterion). Fewpeople actually read each application in its entirety,and individual reviewers do not providecomprehensive feedback in any standard format.Rather, reviewer input focuses on the extent to whicheach of the 14 discrete criteria is met. As a result,evaluations do not enable the authorizer to determinethe extent to which individual components of theapplication align with each other, with the proposedbudgets and financial projections, and with the overallmission and vision for the school.

The application decision-making process lacksadequate attention and due diligence to critical areassuch as leadership capacity, need or demand for theproposed school, the likely success of the proposed

educational program, and applicant capacity toimplement and operate the proposed school.Specifically, there is no place for applicants toaddress, and reviewers to assess, research orinformation related to effectiveness of the proposededucational model with student populationscomparable to that which the school is likely to serve.In addition, decision-making is based exclusively on apaper review by internal staff. There is no opportunityfor input from external reviewers or for an in-personinterview that would allow the authorizer to probe intoquestions raised by the application and to assess thecapacity of the founding group to implement theproposed program successfully. As a consequence,CSAC application deliberations do not focus specificallyon the viability of the proposed school and how orwhether the applicant has the capacity to actualize the

plan.

The CSAC presents a narrative of findings andpreliminary and final recommendations to the StateBoard. Though the report format is consistent, thestructure and focus of the review process are not;narrative findings and final recommendations differ incontent and detail on a case-by-case basis. Reviewfindings and recommendations, along with curriculumreview rubrics, are provided to applicants at, or priorto, a public hearing on the CSAC's recommendations.Such findings and recommendations generallyconstitute the only formal feedback developers haveheretofore received from the CSAC about theirapplications.


Set clear expectations for starting and operating aquality charter school.

Revise the application document to incorporate criticalelements necessary to start and operate a successfulschool, including measurable academic, operational,and financial goals, and strategies for ensuringcompetent governance and leadership capacity.

Develop and implement a high quality applicationreview process.

Develop an evaluation instrument aligned withapplication requirements, authorizer expectations,

and clearly stated evaluation criteria. Use trained,independent reviewers to evaluate applications intheir entirety and a formal applicant interview.

Communicate clearly to the public regardingexpectations for new school proposals.

Conduct information sessions prior to applicationsubmission deadlines for interested developers tolearn about the application process, authorizerexpectations, the basis upon which evaluations will beconducted, and the criteria for approval or denialdecisions.


9/35


Application Decision-Making

Detailed Analysis

1

1.1.1.

Vision and Mission

The authorizer has thorough

requirements and rigorous

evaluation criteria for the

schools vision and mission

statement.

1.1.2.

Educational Program




proposed educational program,

including the educational

philosophy, curriculum and

instruction, teaching skills and

experience, calendar and daily

schedule, target population,

enrollment, and plans for

educating students with special

needs.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d

As established, the application requires that the mission, goals and educationalobjectives be aligned with the legislative intent outlined in statutes, to includerestrictions set on charter schools. While the application does not specificallyaddress a vision statement, it requests a statement of the purpose and philosophyof the school. The evaluation criteria do not analyze mission alignment with theeducational program or academic goals.

As applied, application decisions give minimal consideration as to whether theapplication, as a whole, aligns with the focus and priorities identified in the missionstatement.

Minimally Developed Minimally Developed


Minimally Developed Undeveloped

As established, the application requires a number of appropriate educationprogram components such as the calendar and schedule, teacher-to-student ratios,academic program alignment with standards, performance benchmarks, andassessment tools. However, the educational program requirements are incompleteand do not elicit a cogent picture of the proposed educational program as a whole.For example, the application does not require either a rationale for the proposededucational programs or research-based evidence that it is likely to succeed withthe anticipated student population. The application also does not require theapplicant to address how the proposed learning program will be delivered, aleadership development plan, or position descriptions of school employees.

As applied, analysis of the educational program is not focused sufficiently onalignment with the school's mission, the likelihood a proposed school will beeffective with the targeted student population, or be academically high performing.Evaluation criteria for the educational program are vague, incomplete, and overlyfocused on alignment to state content standards. CSAC preliminary reports and

recommendations indicate a primary focus on mechanical issues, includingcurriculum alignment with state content standards, statutorily prescribed sign-offs(such as an MOU with the Science Coalition and the Mathematics Coalition),

approved units per the Charter School Unit Review Rubric, and major curricularresource adoptions.


10/35



Detailed Analysis

1

1.1.3.

Organizational Plan




proposed organizational plan.

1.1.4.

Business Plan




proposed business plan.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d


Partially Developed Minimally Developed


As established, the application requires provision of some operations information -e.g., a plan for recruiting students, CMO information - including a proposedmanagement services contract (if applicable), a start up plan, and a description ofthe board's role. However, as a whole, the application does not require criticalinformation geared toward determining the applicant's plan or ability to create asound organizational infrastructure or appropriate operations and managementsystems. Specifically, the application does not require provision of anorganizational chart, a description of the leadership model or structure, acomprehensive staffing plan, or a detailed professional development plan, whichprecludes assessment of the alignment of the organizational plan with schoolmission and education plan. In addition, if a proposed school has a specificlearning model - a Montessori program, for example, the authorizer does notrequire information necessary to ensure teachers will be adequately trained or thatthe unique aspects of a proposed school design can or will be actualized.

As applied, the review process of the proposed organizational plan is fragmentedand does not include consideration of the school's mission. Evaluation of theapplication (i.e., the preliminary and final findings and recommendation developedby the CSAC) do not reflect in-depth or coordinated analysis of operations-specificinformation. The application and the review are much more focused, and thus

tighter, on matters specific to legal and compliance requirements -- such as theapplicant's appropriate legal status and bylaws sufficiency, and plans for provisionof transportation and food services, for meeting insurance requirements, and forensuring health and safety requirements compliance.

As established, various application components combined ask for significantamounts of information that, if assembled into a coherent whole, would constitutesome, but not all, of the critical components, of a business plan. The applicationdoes not require a comprehensive budget narrative in which the applicant mustpresent assumptions indicating how financial projections are tied to the proposedlearning model, unique components of the school design, staffing andorganizational plans, facilities plans, fundraising strategies, etc.

As applied, there is evidence from CSAC preliminary and final reports andrecommendations, internal memoranda, case history content and site visitinterviews with DDOE/CSO officials and school operators indicating that financialprojections and facilities plans are reviewed for viability, reliability, and sufficiency.However, this is not done in any consistent, systematic way, and the reviewprocess does not focus on the components or the adequacy of business plancomponents, and hence, is not a comprehensive assessment of the proposal -including critical infrastructure components - as a whole.

For example, the authorizer recently approved a school intended to serve asignificant special education population; however, key questions were not askedduring the application review process to assess the viability of the financial plan -particularly enrollment assumptions. The financial plan was constructed on theassumption that at least 60 percent of the school's students would have specialneeds; the financial viability of the proposed school model was dependent uponreceipt of additional funds targeted for special education students. In approvingthe school, the authorizer did not ask for a contingency budget plan if the schoolenrolled a much lower special education population -- which now appears likely --nor did the application ask for, or reviewers inquire into, the recruiting ormarketing plan the school would employ to attract its targeted population.


11/35



Detailed Analysis

1

1.1.5.

Applicant Capacity



criteria for evaluating the

applicants capacity to

implement the school plan

effectively.

1.1.6.

New School Priorities

The authorizer has defined

new school priorities based

on identified needs in the

population to be served.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d


Undeveloped Undeveloped

As established, the application does not request critical information that isnecessary to adjudge applicant capacity to execute the plan for a school. Thoughthe application asks for the backgrounds of each member of the founding groupthat makes him or her qualified to operate and implement the proposededucational program, it does not ask who, if anyone, on the planning team hasexperience creating, rolling out, or leading a charter school. The application doesnot ask for resumes of governing board members or the school leaders (if suchindividual has been identified), and contains little focus on the capacity of thegoverning board to oversee a school once it is up and running. Potential conflictof interest disclosures are not required components of the application or examinedduring the review process.

As a result, in practice, the review process does not focus on the experience orqualifications of school founders to start or operate a school, and thus lackscomprehensive assessment of the founding team's capacity to realize the vision ofthe proposed school program. Examination of application evaluations (specifically,CSAC findings and recommendations) suggest that the review process is limited toensuring that the composition of the school development group meets statutoryrequirements (i.e., that the initial founding board includes a parent and a teacheron the board).

As applied and in practice, DDOE has not taken any tangible steps to determine itspriorities as an authorizer for new schools. Specifically, the authorizer has notdefined educational needs it could or would like to address by authorizing new orreplicating charter schools. Likewise, the authorizer has not identified in anystrategic way the characteristics (strengths, weaknesses, uniqueness, etc.) of theschools in its portfolio, or analyzed how currently operating schools - if replicated -could meet educational needs in certain communities or among specificdemographic groups, and therefore increase quality choice opportunities in thestate.



12/35



Detailed Analysis

1

1.1.7.

Application

Responsiveness

The authorizer has adapted

the application to meet

information needs generated

by different types of proposals

(e.g., virtual, replication,

alternative education, etc.)

Analysis

Rating Established d Applied d


As established and applied, it appears as though the application format andrequirements, and the application review process, have not changed for a numberof years. The application process is not well tailored to assess school proposalsthat differ from traditional school designs, such as on-line models, alternativeschools, or academically rigorous schools specifically focused on under-servedcommunities. There are no high performing schools serving significantly at-riskand disadvantaged student populations, which arguably is a derivative ofdeficiencies with the application format and review process. In addition, theapplication for renewal and replication of existing schools is the same as for newschools. With the limited exception of requirements specific to Education ServiceProviders (i.e., Charter Management Organizations), the authorizer has few distinctstandards or criteria that are applied to different types of school proposals. Eventhen, the authorizer does not require proposed management services contracts tobe included with an application.



13/35



Detailed Analysis

1

1.2.1.

Application Process

Timeline

The authorizer has clear

and realistic timelines for

the application process.

1.2.2.

Application Format

The authorizer provides clear

guidance and requirements

regarding application format

and submission requirements.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d

Approaching Well-Developed Partially Developed


As established, timelines are clearly spelled out by statute, elaborated upon inDDOE's Technical Assistance Manual, and are adhered to on a consistent basis, toinclude provisions for public hearings. However, the statute and authorizerprotocol are vague about how, when, or whether feedback to applicants will ormust be provided before final decisions are made on an application.

As applied, the review and decision making process, including timelines, isgenerally well understood by charter school applicants and operators. In practice,applicants are given an opportunity to respond to questions raised by reviewers,and to provide additional information prior to, or at, public hearings. However,because the timeframe for such feedback or follow-up with applicants during thereview process is not specified or consistently applied, applicants sometimes getminimal advance notice of CSAC questions or concerns before public hearings.

As established, the application document is not well constructed; in places, it is notclear precisely what information the authorizer is requesting. The disparate piecesof the application do not connect in such way as to allow applicants to present acoherent articulation of the entirety of the school they are proposing.

As applied, there is little alignment between required application content andactual application reviews. Overall, the review process does not focus on whetherthe application articulates a cogent school model that can be actualized by theapplicant. Specifically, the application is not aligned with a comprehensiveevaluation rubric or with authorizer established evaluation criteria. Rubrics used toevaluate curriculum examine items not specifically required by the application. Inaddition, some application requirements do not appear to be reviewed whatsoeverby the CSAC. The format for the CSAC's Preliminary and Final Findings andRecommendations is sequentially consistent with the structure of the application,but actual reviews focus quite narrowly on the 14 criteria established by statute forapproval rather than on the entirety of required application content.



14/35



Detailed Analysis

1

1.2.3.

Interview

The authorizer conducts a

substantive in-person capacity

interview with the applicant

group.

1.2.4.

Transparency

The authorizer has transparent

processes for both application

evaluation and application

decision-making.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d



The review process does not include a structured applicant interview of the sortthat strong authorizers use to evaluate applicant capacity and cohesiveness. Aftera charter application is submitted, the CSAC meets with applicants during aninformal meet and greet session. Evaluator guidanceper se occurs via provisionof a DDOE curriculum review rubric and CSAC's preliminary report andrecommendations, at which time applicants have an opportunity to respond inwriting to identified gaps and weaknesses in the application, and subsequentlypresent to, or discourse with, the CSAC during a statutorily prescribed publichearing. As previously noted, the response time accorded to applicants varies on acase-by-case basis. Public hearings are used in varying degrees by the authorizeras a forum for applicants to articulate the application and respond to questions.The extent to which information or clarification provided during public forumsaffects final decisions is unclear, and appears to differ on a case-by-case basis.

As established, the procedures for application submission, evaluation, anddecision-making adhere strictly to statutory requirements and are well documentedthrough maintenance of detailed logs and evidence of correspondence toapplicants. From the standpoint of legal sufficiency, the process is transparent.DDOE's Technical Assistance Manual provides extensive guidance to applicants,particularly about legal and compliance requirements. CSO staff are discussingand beginning to develop pre-application information and training sessions tobetter inform potential applicants of the application and review process.

As applied, The review and decision-making process lacks adequate transparencybecause the criteria driving decisions are not defined and hence not clear orconsistent. There are no specified review criteria for decision-making (other thanthe 14 criteria set forth in statute). Reviewers do not use detailed rubrics or ratinginstruments that are aligned with application requirements to conduct evaluationsor make decisions. Some required aspects of the application appear not to bereviewed or evaluated whatsoever. Applicants do receive feedback in the form of

CSAC's preliminary and final findings and recommendations, and rubrics used toreview curriculum alignment. Though findings and recommendations are providedby the CSAC in a standard narrative document, the content and level of detail varynarrative by narrative.



15/35



Detailed Analysis

1

1.2.5.

Decision Analysis

Authorizer decision-making

is informed by documented

evidence and analyses of the

extent to which the plan

satisfies approval criteria

1.2.6.

Applicant Pool Development

The authorizer takes affirmative

steps to increase the likelihood

of receiving viable applications

that meet identified needs.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d



As established, the decision making process is reasonably clear, though the basisfor decision making is not. There is no guidance or explanation provided as towhich of the 14 statutorily established criteria, or other authorizer expectations,are or are not non-negotiable for approval, or whether a minimal number ofcriteria must be satisfied.

In practice, new school approval decisions are based on an incomplete analysis ofcharter school applications. CSAC recommendations are based, in large part, onwhether an application meets statutory criteria for approval. However, theauthorizer has not established meaningful criteria or indicators, other than tools toevaluate curriculum alignment with state content standards, to be consistentlyused to evaluate applications against statutory criteria. It is not always clear whya school is approved or denied, or the extent to which curriculum alignmentreviews are the basis for a final new school (or renewal) decision. Present practicehas the potential for reviewers to be partial or biased, or vary in the standardsthey apply to reviews. Reviewers receive little or no training about reviewstandards or the review process; individual reviewers evaluate portions of theapplication, but few reviewers, if any, evaluate the application as a whole. Thelack of review criteria and the lack of consistency in making decisions could, atsome point, lead to authorizer decisions being legally challenged.

The authorizer has not identified the reasons why there are relatively few highperforming charter schools in the state, especially schools serving high-risk orat-risk students populations. Nor has the authorizer been proactive or strategic insoliciting, fostering, or attracting high performing operators of charter schoolmodels into the state or encouraging replication of in-state high performingschools.



16/35


Monitoring Operations2

Guiding Question:

Does the authorizer establish and monitor

school compliance with rigorous operational

expectations?

The contract should document the material

terms of the schools operation including

its legal status, the educational program,

operational requirements, financial

commitments, and miscellaneous terms of

the contracts operation. The contract should

also make clear the legal authorities with

which the charter school must comply.

2.1. School Existence

2.2. Educational Program

2.3. Organizational Requirements

2.4. Financial Operation

2.5. Special Populations

2.6. Monitoring Authority

2.7 Contract Operation

2.8 Transparency

Part 2 Summary:

Established d

Applied d

Established Applied

Minimally Developed

Minimally Developed



17/35


Summary Assessment




The Delaware Department of Education (DDOE) doesnot execute charter contracts per se, nor are chartercontracts required by statute. By law and by practice,the charter application, as submitted, is the approved

charter document. Because there is no executedcharter contract, the material terms for the school'sexistence, educational program, and operations arenot defined in specific, legally binding terms.Arguably, some educational, operational, and financialmaterial terms are contained in the approved chartercontract, but the articulation of such terms has variedsignificantly from application to application.

DDOE executes a Performance Agreement for eachnewly approved and renewed school. However, thePerformance Agreement is not used to annually orperiodically monitor school academic andnon-academic performance, nor is it the basis formaking renewal decisions. In fact, most elements ofthe Performance Agreement are not examined duringthe renewal process.

The authorizer's monitoring of academic, financial,and operational performance is limited. Data onacademic growth and progress are compiled forrenewal review purposes but do not drive renewaldecisions which are based, in large part, on whetherschools are meeting state performance requirements.There is no consensus within DDOE or the CharterSchool Office (CSO) on how to monitor academicperformance or about whether the authorizer has theflexibility to establish performance-based academicand non-academic goals other than those prescribedby statute. Current and prevailing interpretation ofstatutes that speak to academic performance inhibitthe authorizer from engaging in quality practices thatspecifically define academic performance goals againstwhich schools will be measured, and ensure academicperformance and progress are the primaryconsiderations for charter renewal decisions.

NACSA's document review and site visit elicitedlittle evidence of systematic monitoring andoversight of any aspect of school operations.Though school reporting requirements are

prescribed largely by statutes and spelled out indetail in the DDOE Technical Assistance Manual,the authorizer does not have a systematicapproach for verifying statutory or charter termscompliance, sufficiency of school operations, or thefinancial viability of schools. Its review of annualreports, which charter schools are required by lawto submit to DDOE, is cursory and not guided byestablished policies, processes, or monitoring toolsor instruments. The authorizer does not conductformal site visits or utilize any site visit protocol.Schools receive little feedback on academic,operational or financial performance, except whenproblems arise. Communication with schooloperators is largely restricted to correspondencefollowing up on concerns flagged by DDOE staff

(often pertaining to enrollment or financial activity)or concerns that have been brought to theauthorizer's attention from the school communityor other external sources. State law requires theauthorizer to prepare and submit an annual report.However, this requirement has not been met since2006.

Define and document the roles and responsibilitiesof each charter school for achieving specificacademic and non-academic performance goalsand expectations.

Develop and execute with each charter school aperformance-based contract that sets forthmeasurable academic, financial and organizationalperformance goals and expectations, and explicitlydefines the role of the authorizer in holding eachschool accountable.

Devise a systematic approach to monitoring charterschool performance to include gathering information

necessary for ongoing evaluation of school academic,operational, and financial performance, and providefeedback to charter school operators at least annuallyregarding their performance.

Develop clear and transparent policies, processes, andprotocols to guide monitoring, including formal annual

site visits, systematic review of individual schoolannual reports, and review of school compliance withstatutory requirements. Develop standard reportingformats for use with schools and the public.

Improve authorizer and charter schoolaccountability by publicly reporting the annualperformance of each school and the authorizer'sportfolio as a whole, and be proactive in improvingthe charter school policy environment.

Comply with existing statutory requirements requiringthe authorizer to publish an annual report and, ifnecessary, include in the 2011 reportrecommendations on changes in law, or currentinterpretations of law, necessary to improvethecharter school program" (subsection 514).


18/35



Detailed Analysis

2.1.

School Existence

The authorizer defines and

monitors the material terms

for the schools existence

including legal status of the

school, location, authority of

signatories, length of the charter

term, and governing body

restrictions or requirements

and verifies compliance at

least annually.

2.2.

Educational Program


monitors material terms of the

educational program consistent

with the schools mission and

legal obligations.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d

Partially Developed Partially Developed


As established, DDOE does not execute charter contracts per se, nor are chartercontracts required by statute. By law and by practice, the charter application, assubmitted, is the approved document. While some material terms are addressedin the charter application, the designation of the application as the charter contractis both an atypical and inadequate practice, as critical elements outlining the rolesand responsibilities of both parties - the authorizer and the school operator - arenot included in the charter application.

As applied, the authorizer does not have a systematic approach to verifyingcompliance with statutory requirements or charter terms, nor does itsystematically review annual reports charter schools are required by law to submit.However, because charter schools are legally defined as public schools, and mustreport compliance, operating, and financial information to DDOE in the samemanner as do traditional schools, the authorizer is able, to some degree, tomonitor compliance and charter term fidelity. In practice, the authorizer has beendiligent in taking compliance monitoring actions, as evinced by correspondencesent to schools regarding failure to meet compliance requirements (includingcharter conditions) and the authorizer's history of placing schools on FormalReview and Probationary Status for non-compliance and other reasons. Schooloperators confirmed the authorizer's active focus on ensuring compliance, though

some, if not most, operators interviewed believed that the authorizer'saggressiveness borders on, or crosses over into, micro-managing andunnecessarily impedes school operating autonomy.

As established, because there is no executed charter contract, the material termsof the educational program are not defined with any specificity. It is thereforeunclear to the authorizer and operators alike what educational program materialterms are contained in, or are binding components of, the charter. The authorizerexecutes a Performance Agreement with each approved school that containsobjective and verifiable measures of student achievement consistent with statutoryrequirements. The authorizer lacks rubrics, protocols or systems of ongoingoversight of charter school academic performance.

As applied, the authorizer's Technical Assistance Manual contains references to sitevisits, but in practice the visits that do occur are informal or reactive and do notrise to the level of monitoring or oversight visits. In particular, the authorizerdoes not evaluate schools' academic performance against the measures containedin the Performance Agreements on an ongoing basis, or as the basis for renewaldecisions. The authorizer does not have a prescribed approach to monitoringschool academic performance. DDOE does track basic school performance

information on state assessments (data which is readily accessible to DDOE);however, the authorizer's analysis of test data is limited and does not adequatelyconsider factors such as performance growth, a school's demographics, orachievement or lack thereof of mission-specific performance targets. Moreover,the authorizer does not provide any reports or feedback to schools on academicperformance until the renewal cycle begins.



19/35



Detailed Analysis

2.3.

Organizational

Requirements


monitors organizational terms

consistent with the schools

governance and compliance

obligations.

2.4.

Financial Requirements


monitors financial operations

consistent with the schools

legal obligations and

established professional

standards.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d


Minimally Developed Partially Developed

The authorizer does not execute a charter contract distinct from an approvednew school charter application or a school renewal application. Hence thematerial terms for a school's operations are not specifically set forth in adequatecontract form. Nevertheless, state statutes, DDOE Guidance (including theTechnical Assistance Manual and its many components), the approved newcharter or renewal application, and conditions attached to State Board ofEducation charter approval resolutions do, in large part, state the responsibilityand commitment of schools to adhere to essential public school obligations,including admitting and serving all eligible students so long as space is available.The authorizer also has established standards for educational service provider(ESP) agreements.

As applied, the authorizer does not engage in a systematic approach tomonitoring school operations on a recurring or annual basis, but it is able torespond to some problems that arise because pertinent data is readily availablevia DDOE data systems. For instance, evidence from school case historiesindicates that the authorizer has followed through in instances where enrollmenthas not reached the statutory threshold. Similarly, the authorizer appears totake an aggressive posture to ensure ESPs live up to contractual commitments.Two case histories reviewed reflected appropriate authorizer intervention to

address challenges involving the performance or activities of ESPs.

The authorizer lacks established financial oversight policies, standards, andprocesses. Financial performance requirements are not spelled out in approvedcharter applications. Independent annual audits of charter schools are notrequired by statute. Instead, charter schools undergo audits by the state on thesame basis as traditional public schools -- every three years, and per auditstandards applied to traditional schools.

In practice, the authorizer knows how schools are doing financially. Charterschools are state entities and therefore participate in state administrative (humanresources, benefits, payroll, and pensions) and financial (budget and accounting)systems. CSO and DDOE financial staff have ready access to the DelawareFinancial Management System (DFMS), in which accounting and transactional datafor charter school financial transactions is stored, and feedback is provided toschools if financial problems or trends are detected - albeit from analysis that isnot systematized or sophisticated.

Because most charter schools do not undergo independent financial audits, theauthorizer cannot review audits on an annual basis. Therefore, the authorizer isunable to examine year-to-year audited financial performance and conduct bestpractice ratio and trend analysis, which no doubt contributes to financialmonitoring focused primarily on cash flow and cash availability, rather than onschool progress toward developing financial viability over time. The authorizer alsogives little attention to determining the extent to which schools are buildingadequate financial planning and management capacity.



20/35



Detailed Analysis

2.5.

Special Populations

The authorizer establishes

clear expectations for and

ensures compliance with

school obligations to special

populations.

2.6.

Monitoring Authority

The authorizer exercises

adequate monitoring authority

that includes regular

performance feedback.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d



As established, applications require adequate information and complianceassurances for serving some groups of students with special needs. Theapplication and the review form used by the CSAC focus for the most part onstudents with disabilities and contain little reference to English Language Learners(ELL), exceptional children, or severely at-risk students.

As applied, the authorizer does oversee compliance with special educationobligations. Monitoring of special education compliance requirements is one aspectof oversight for which DDOE has developed a detailed monitoring rubric. Inaddition, special education compliance oversight is conducted on an ongoing andannual basis by the DDOE. The authorizer also has a record of compliance issuesthat have arisen in the form of documented correspondence with operators.

The authorizer's Technical Assistance Manual states that charter schools mustconduct an annual evaluation of ELL programs; however, it is unclear whether orhow the authorizer monitors compliance with any of the ELL-specific requirements.

The authorizer has no established process, tools, instruments, or mechanisms tomonitor or provide feedback to school operators on any aspect of schooloperations. The authorizer's Technical Assistance Manual spells out the right of theauthorizer to engage in site visits and access student records; however, theauthorizer has developed no process or protocol for conducting monitoring-focusedsite visits.

The authorizer evinces little evidence of systematic monitoring and oversight.Monitoring is conducted largely on an ad hocbasis. The authorizer providesfeedback to schools only when problems directly tied to compliance with statutoryprovisions arise - such as when schools fail to meet minimum annual enrollmentthresholds. Similarly, the authorizer responds when problems or issues identifiedby DDOE -- or called to its attention -- surface with regard to a school's financialviability, compliance or reporting requirements, or legal status. in such cases, theauthorizer has responded to complaints (or issues it has flagged) and has engagedin comprehensive and diligent information gathering and fact finding in order to

make and support decisions. But such actions were not defined or prescribed bypolicy or clear and transparent guidelines and process.



21/35



Detailed Analysis

2.7.

Contract Operation

The parties have clarity

regarding how the contract

will operate with clear

provisions for notice, waiver,

severability, assignment,

amendment, merger,

indemnification, survival, and

contract dispute resolution.

2.8.

Transparency

The authorizer communicates

to schools and the public

clearly and consistently

regarding expectations for and

status of school operations.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d

Undeveloped Minimally Developed


As established, the charter application does not contained provisions addressingnotice, waiver, severability, assignment, amendment, merger, indemnification,survival, and contract dispute resolution. There are no processes spelled out thathave guided addressing contract operation issues or disputes. DDOE officials andschool operators indicated that issues and disputes are addressed on an individualbasis.

As applied, it does appear that, by virtue of prevailing practice, school applicantsand operators understand - or at least have a notion of - the process for amendinga charter contract. Charter amendments have been meticulously documented, butDDOE staff and school operators indicated that the internal handling ofamendments has lacked any consistently applied approach.

As established, the authorizer is required to issue an annual report; however, inpractice, the authorizer has not issued an annual report since 2006.

Operators are not privy to the authorizer's internal review and evaluationdocuments, including all data, information, and analysis used to make renewaldecisions. Case histories, as well as interviews with CSO and DDOE staff, CSACmembers, and school operators, indicate that the lack of transparency, clearstandards and expectations, and formalized policies and processes may becontributing to momentum to put charter schools into a box, heavy oncompliance and narrow interpretation of Delaware law, rather than on attainmentof academic and operating goals set forth for a school in its approved charter.



22/35


Performance-Based Accountability3

Guiding Question:

Does the authorizer use comprehensive

academic, financial and operational

performance information to make rigorous,

merit-based accountability decisions?

Performance-Based Accountability means

high-stakes decisions that are based on the

application of valid, reliable evidence to

the schools performance as set out in the

charter contract. Accountability includes

decisions about a schools preparation to

open; whether to intervene in a schools

operation; and whether to revoke or nonrenew

a charter contract.

3.1. School Opening

3.2. Educational Performance

3.3. Operational Performance

3.4. Financial Performance

3.5. School Intervention

3.6. Charter Revocation

3.7 Renewal

3.8 Transparency

3.9 Closure

Part 3 Summary:

Established d

Applied d

Established Applied

Minimally Developed

Minimally Developed



23/35


3

Summary Assessment


Performance-Based Accountability


The authorizer executes a Performance Agreementwith each school; however, this Agreement is not usedas a basis for oversight or renewal reviews. Theauthorizer does not define, in a clear and transparent

way, measurable and attainable academic, financial,governance-specific, or operational performancegoals, standards and targets that schools must meetfor renewal. The renewal application is the same asthe new school application, with the exception of somerenewal-specific provisions, few if any of which focusthe school or the authorizer on the material terms andperformance goals set forth in a school's approved orpreceding charter.

The authorizer does not systematically review schoolacademic and non-academic performance, includingsufficiency of governance, against charter terms orgoals. Though the authorizer collects annualacademic performance data, these data are not usedto provide meaningful feedback to schools or toinitiate necessary corrective action. The primary

education-specific evaluative indicators used by theauthorizer for renewal decisions are: (1) curriculumalignment with state content standards; and (2) theextent to which status-level student achievementmeets the strict letter of the law. Renewal reviewsare not guided by rubrics or templates aligned with anapproved charter application or a PerformanceAgreement. Rubrics used by DDOE curriculum,instructional, and special education officials arefocused on alignment and compliance with statecontent standards and other inputs. The renewalreview process, as presently conducted, inherentlyallows for individual reviewer subjectivity. Findingsand recommendations made by the CSAC to the StateBoard of Education are reported in varying degrees ofdetail.

Even though growth data are readily available toDDOE, neither academic progress over time, norpostsecondary readiness (when applicable) is used toevaluate school performance for renewal purposes.

The authorizer's on-line application requires renewaloperators to submit detailed annual budgets andmulti-year financial projections. Because charterschools are public schools by legal definition and mustintersect with the Delaware Financial ManagementSystem (DFMS), the system is not tailored toautonomous financial planning, accounting, andmanagement. Newly approved schools have particulardifficulty navigating this system. Though charterschool financial activity is monitored closely by CSOand DDOE officials, such monitoring is not done in asystematic way. The authorizer, in effect, engages inad hocfinancial monitoring activities trying to ensureschools are financially viable, expenditures areappropriate, budgets are being adhered to, andenrollment targets undergirding budgets are being

attained. There are, however, indications that theauthorizer verges on financial micro-managing,particularly of specific line item expenditures.

State statutes prescribe processes and time framesfor authorizer-initiated and required remedial actionas a consequence of oversight and, more specifically,of renewal review. Such remedial action can lead torevocation. However, the authorizer has notestablished, beyond statutes, formal policies forrevocation. Because the authorizer does not engagein systematic performance-based oversight of schools,non-renewal is the only proactive action theauthorizer has taken thus far to discontinue theoperations of - or close - a charter school.

Make academic, organizational and financialperformance the primary considerations forrenewal decisions.

Create a separate renewal application that is alignedwith the material terms, legal and compliancerequirements, and performance-based academic andnon-academic goals contained in an executed chartercontract.

Foster consistent, objective evaluation and scoring ofrenewal applications.

Develop renewal instruments aligned with establishedperformance measures, and provide implementation

training for reviewers, including external reviewers.

Provide timely feedback to renewal applicants prior toa public interview or hearing.

Make accountability decision-making moretransparent.

Develop and disseminate clear, comprehensivepolicies and procedures for initiating or requiringremedial or corrective action; for revocation of acharter; and for ensuring the orderly closure ofschools in cases of charter revocation, non-renewal, ora decision by an operator to close a school.


24/35



Detailed Analysis

3.1.

School Opening

The authorizer ensures that

approved schools are prepared

adequately for opening.

3.2.

Educational Performance

The authorizer holds schools

accountable for academic

performance using objective

and verifiable measures of

student achievement as the

primary measure of school

quality.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d



The authorizer sets reasonable pre-opening requirements for new schools toensure that they meet all health, safety, Certificate of Occupancy (COO), and otherlegal requirements prior to opening. DDOE has developed a pre-opening checklist,which is contained in the Technical Assistance Manual. The checklist is reasonablycomprehensive in terms of addressing pre-opening operational requirementsincluding staffing, enrollment and facilities preparation, and it is reasonably specificin terms of benchmarks or targets that the school must meet. As a consequenceof CSAC review and decision-making on new applications, the authorizer alsoestablishes pre-opening conditions when making approval decisions. Thesedocuments, however, are vague about how the authorizer will actually monitor newschool preparation for opening.

Nevertheless, as applied, case histories indicate that the authorizer appears to bethorough in monitoring school openings. Evidence indicates that when pre-openingconditions and deadlines have not been met, the authorizer has engaged inappropriate follow up. The authorizer also goes on-site during the pre-openingphase and monitors the status of enrollment, hiring and spending, facilities, andstart-up financial activity in the early stages of a new school's operation. However,leadership and governance, and the manner in which the learning program is beingimplemented, appear to receive little attention. Authorizer findings and follow-up

actions are documented via internal memoranda, reports, and, in particular, bycorrespondence with operators - all of which are logged.

Academic goals contained in the approved charter and in the PerformanceAgreement are not the primary basis for the authorizer's evaluation of academicperformance or for making accountability decisions. One aspect of thePerformance Agreement - school performance versus national averages - is notreviewed whatsoever. Renewal recommendations coming from the CSAC to theState Board of Education do not reference compliance or lack thereof withestablished academic performance targets. DDOE internal renewal reviews ofcurriculum and instruction focus on content and sequence rather thanperformance. The authorizer does not do in-depth review of academicperformance data contained in school annual reports. It is not clear whetheracademic goals contained in school Race to the Top work plans - particularly thosethat reflect grade level and cohort progress targets - will be used or considered bythe authorizer to monitor charter school academic performance.

The primary evaluative indicator used by the authorizer during renewal reviews isstatus level achievement and whether such achievement meets the strict letter of

the law. Despite the academic performance information that is gathered at DDOE,schools are adjudged almost solely on whether academic performance meets orexceeds state status requirements, regardless of type of school, grade levelsserved, or year of operation. Readily available growth data is not used to makeaccountability decisions.

Stated simply, the authorizer has little in the way of policy or practice toappropriately and effectively evaluate the educational performance of schools and,therefore, make high stakes decisions that are based on appropriate and adequateanalysis of academic performance.



25/35



Detailed Analysis

3.3.

Operational Performance


accountable for compliance

with organizational performance

requirements.

3.4.

Financial Performance


accountable for being

financially responsible and

viable.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d



The operations standard for charter schools, established by statute, is that theschool's financial and administrative operations (must) meet or exceed the samestandards, procedures, and requirements of a school district. The authorizer hasdefined this standard on paper for many aspects of operational performance,though not in one, easily accessible place or document (such as in an executedcharter contract). Though Performance Agreements executed with schools containnon-academic goals, including Market Accountability and Parent Satisfaction

conditions, the authorizer has no process for monitoring attainment of thesegoals on an ongoing basis.

As applied, many operational and administrative functions for charter schools areperformed by the state in the same manner as such functions are performed fortraditional public schools. Hence, enrollment and financial performance get thebulk of operations-focused attention on an annual basis (or more frequently) andduring renewal processes.

Of particular note, the authorizer has minimal expectations regarding governance.New school and renewal applications request background information aboutfounding team and initial board members; however, the required information doesnot speak to the ability, capacity, or experience expected of board members to be

responsible fiduciaries for a charter school from the early implementation stage tothe operational stage of a school. The authorizer has provided little guidance interms of expectations for, or the characteristics of, strong governance. In point offact, governance is not referenced in DDOE's Technical Assistance Manual. Little orno monitoring of boards and governance is conducted unless a problem arises at aschool. The authorizer only addresses basic issues such as board composition andopen meetings compliance during the renewal process.

The authorizer has no systematic process or formal tools for monitoring schoolfinancial management or viability. There are no financial standards or expectationsestablished. Charter schools are not treated any differently in this regard thantraditional schools. Performance Agreements contain no explicit financial goalsother than enrollment goals. New and renewal charter applications require adescription of how the board of a school will ensure oversight of a school and be

ultimately responsible for the administrative and financial operations of a school;however, there is no process or vehicle by which the authorizer evaluates thecapacity of a founding board to be effective financial stewards prior to new schoolapproval or as part of renewal reviews.

In practice, the authorizer conducts regular and sometimes in-depth financialmonitoring, albeit on an ad hocbasis, to try to ensure individual school financialviability, appropriateness of expenditures, adherence to approved budgets, andattainment of enrollment targets. For the most part, school operators characterizetheir relationship with the authorizer's primary financial officer as positive and

beneficial. Some of the authorizer's detailed attention seems warranted -particularly in the early stages of a new school's operation - to ensure schools aremanaging within available resources.

Nevertheless, there are indications that the authorizer's in-depth and very specificexamination of school expenditures, particularly at the line item level, has potentialfor financial micro-managing, particularly if the individual line items of initiallyapproved budgets were to be treated as sacrosanct, or schools were not allowed tomake necessary adjustments to budgets to accommodate critical spending needs.In addition, hands-on financial-related technical assistance is not necessarilyconducive to individual schools' developing adequate in-house planning andmanagement capacity.



26/35



Detailed Analysis

3.5.

School Intervention

The authorizer conducts merit-

based interventions in response

to clearly identified deficiencies

in the schools record of

educational, organizational

and/or financial performance.

3.6.

Charter Revocation

The authorizer makes merit-

based revocation decisions

based on the schools record

in relation to established

expectations for educational,

organizational and financial

performance.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d

Minimally Developed Partially Developed


The authorizer has not clearly and transparently defined the process by which itwill intervene as a matter of policy. Formal processes, time-lines, and reasons forauthorizer-initiated corrective action or intervention are not spelled out - i.e., thereare no stipulated academic, organizational, and financial performance standardsthat trigger intervention.

Nevertheless, it appears that the authorizer takes a consistently well-documentedapproach to following up on issues or problems that it identifies or which come tothe authorizer's attention. School case histories indicate that the authorizercommunicates regularly with schools, if and when issues arise, and has appliedsubstantive options for intervention short of revocation. These options includeplacing schools in Formal Review or Probationary Status -- options derived directlyfrom statutes, and initiated as a result of formal action taken by the State Board ofEducation at a public meeting. There is evidence that, when the authorizer hasintervened, it has set clear expectations with reasonable time frames for what aschool needs to accomplish, and has monitored compliance adequately.

The authorizer has not established, beyond statute, formal policies for revocation.State law prescribes process and time frames for authorizer-initiated and requiredremedial action as a consequence of oversight and, more specifically, of renewalreview. The law also spells out corrective actions options available to theauthorizer along with time frames for corrective action, and gives the authorizerthe ultimate authority to revoke a charter if required corrective actions orconditions of probation are not met or are not successful. Statutory provisions,however, prescribe and limit revocation to two specific breaches - material fraud /misappropriation of funds, and a more ambiguous failure to comply with thecharter and charter school statutes.

Because the authorizer does not engage in systematic oversight of schoolperformance or attainment of prescribed performance goals, non-renewal is theonly action the authorizer has taken to discontinue the operations of, or close, acharter school.



27/35



Detailed Analysis

3.7.

Renewal

The authorizer makes merit-

based renewal decisions based

on the schools record in

relation to established

expectations for educational,

organizational and financial

performance.

3.8.

Transparency

The authorizer makes high-

stakes accountability decision

in a way that is transparent to

schools and the community.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d



As established, the authorizer adheres to the statutorily defined process andtimeline for renewal reviews and decisions. DDOE's Technical Assistance Manualcontains information on renewal applications, processes, and timelines in twoseparate sections - Charter School Application Process and Evaluation of CharterSchools. The latter section also speaks, in general terms, to the PerformanceAgreement, On-Going Authorizing Monitoring, Annual School Reports, and

Evaluation for Renewal. The content of the Technical Assistance Manual does notelaborate beyond statutory language in any meaningful way.

As applied, the renewal process is not designed to determine whether a school hasfulfilled the terms of its charter or met goals and conditions set forth inPerformance Agreements. Renewal decisions do not stem from ongoing, objectivemonitoring, analysis, or comprehensive evidence, as to whether a school has orhas not met academic and non-academic performance goals contained in itsapproved charter application or executed Performance Agreement. The reviewprocess instead focuses on a rather strict interpretation of whether schools havemet: (1) statutorily prescribed academic performance requirements; and (2) the14 approval criteria specified by statute (which include compliance and financialmeasures).

As established, new school applicants and/or their supporters are provided at leastthree opportunities for input into high stakes approval decisions. On paper, theprocess adheres strictly to the statutory process and time lines. However, there isno policy or process in place indicating what information new school or renewalapplicants are entitled to receive, or when. Case histories indicate thatsubsequent to the initial public hearing, schools have been allowed, or have beenasked, to provide substantive responses and input, including additionaldocumentation, and that the CSAC has, on a case-by-case basis, and not alwaysconsistently, considered such feedback, along with additional testimony, in a publicforum and as a part of its final determinations and recommendations.

Turnover in the CSO office, and the extent to which applicants or renewaloperators have built relationships with CSO and DDOE staff and CSAC members,have affected the consistency, transparency, and clarity of communications.



28/35



Detailed Analysis

3.9.

Closure

Following non-renewal,

revocation or voluntary return

of the charter, the authorizer

ensures orderly closure of

the school.

Analysis

Rating Established d Applied d


The authorizer has no established plan, process, requirements, or guidelines forschool closure.

Two charter schools have closed in Delaware to-date. The first, a charter school inGeorgetown, closed for financial insolvency in its first year of operation (2001),and was closed by the operator. The second closure, the Marion T. Academy,stemmed from a non-renewal decision for academic reasons in 2008. That closurepreceded current CSO personnel. Although the decision was discussed as part ofthe evaluation process, records or documentation pertaining to that closure werenot available.



29/35


School Autonomy4

Guiding Question:

Do schools have the autonomy to which they

are entitled?

Autonomy means the authority of schools

to make decisions about the process and

means by which they will achieve expected

outcomes, consistent with applicable law

and policy.

Note: The shaded criterion below (4.6) is not required

in order to have a quality authorizing practice. It

represents, in and of itself, a model practice.

4.1. Legal Autonomy

4.2. Educational Process

4.3. Financial Management

4.4. Conflicts of Interest

4.5. Re-regulation

4.6. Earned Autonomy

Part 4 Summary:

Established d

Applied d

Established Applied

Minimally Developed

Minimally Developed



30/35


School Autonomy4

Summary Assessment



Delaware's guiding charter school statute does notprovide the structure for an appropriate balancebetween accountability and autonomy. The authorizerhas no policy and does not in practice grant schools

increased autonomy as a result of acceptable orexemplary school performance. In some respects,charter schools in Delaware have a great deal ofautonomy; in others, autonomy is limited. Thedisconnect between accountability and autonomy islargely a result of ineffective or absent authorizerpractice.

On the one hand, charter schools in Delaware haveextensive ongoing operating autonomy insofar as theyare not subject to regular, formal monitoring,structured annual reviews, or site visits. Likewise,annual reports developed by schools do not receivesystematic scrutiny. However, during the renewalprocess, the standards being applied to schools havethe potential of infringing upon educational programautonomy. The reviews focus minimally on the

specific components of a particular school model, orwhether the school has achieved its goals. Instead,reviews are focused in large part on statutorycompliance and curriculum alignment with statecontent standards. In particular, reviewers challengeor downgrade such things as scope and sequence ofcurriculum and course offerings based on an individualreviewers's personal educational philosophy. Inaddition, charter modifications are required for veryminor adjustments to a school's learning program. Toperhaps a growing extent, current authorizer practicesassume that the educational components of charterschools should look like traditional schools, whichdiscourages both autonomy and innovation.

The financial autonomy of schools is also an issue.Though the authorizer has no formal process forengaging in financial monitoring of schools, theauthorizer does not hesitate to question or challenge

school financial activities, including expenditures atline item levels.

Autonomy challenges are exacerbated by the fact thatDDOE is a state education agency and, by statute, isprescribed to be a technical assistance provider to allpublic schools. Ideally, appropriate technicalassistance by the Charter School Office would focus onthe provision of guidance and clarification about theprocesses, timeline, and criteria the authorizer uses toapprove, monitor, and renew schools, and, in thespecific case of autonomy, to establish process andcriteria for rewarding strong performance andaccountability with more autonomy. However, byvirtue of a very strict interpretation of statutoryrequirements speaking to DDOE's technical assistancerole, and expectations on the part of the some school

operators, DDOE and CSO have come to be engagedin atypical levels and types of technical assistancethat, in other states, are commonly provided byexternal parties - such as state charter associationsor independent educational service providers. Suchhands-on support, though well intended, has thepotential to compromise the authorizer's ability tomake independent decisions on intervention, renewal,and revocation.

Distinguish and separate school support fromaccountability systems and structures.

Establish policies that clearly define technicalassistance and, based on such definition, clarify therole of the authorizer in providing technical assistanceto include specifying the duties and responsibilities ofthe CSO as contrasted to other elements of DDOE.

Align school autonomy more closely andconsistently with performance standards.

Define the authorizer's expectations andnon-negotiables to appropriately balance

accountability and autonomy. Define performanceoutcome standards that, when achieved, could be thebasis for the authorizer granting increased autonomyto individual schools or ESPs.


31/35


School Autonomy4

Detailed Analysis

4.1.

Legal Autonomy


respects the autonomies to

which the schools are entitled

based on statute, waiver, or

authorizer policy.

4.2.

Educational Process


respects school autonomy

over the educational process.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d



As established, the contract between the authorizer and charter school is theschool's application. Approved applications do not adequately define therelationship (i.e., rights and responsibilities) of both parties. The authorizer andschool board do not negotiate terms concerning oversight, accountability, andautonomy, leading to ambiguity in the authorizer-operator relationship.

In practice, this ambiguity has created an unnecessary reliance on the part ofsome schools for authorizer-provided technical assistance, which compromises theauthorizer's objectivity and its ability to initiate corrective actions when necessary.This practice also potentially threatens a school's autonomy and its ability toimplement a program and be held accountable for results. PerformanceAgreements are not used to evaluate the performance of the school on an ongoingbasis, nor are they considered during evaluation of the school's renewalapplication. This fact calls into question the usefulness of such agreements.

Charter school autonomy in the specific aspect of the educational program islimited by statute and in practice. Internal review instruments used to evaluatenew school applications and renewals are the same, notwithstanding that there is asignificant difference between the criteria that should be used to make decisions onnew school proposals as contrasted to schools that have operated for years. Inaddition, these instruments are very detailed and lack flexibility that may lead toapproval and renewal of a school because it conveys or contains the characteristicsof traditional public schools. It appears that the new and renewal charterapplication processes are beginning to move toward authorizer stipulation oflearning model inputs. A key evaluative instrument currently in use is designedalmost solely to determine compliance with state content learning standards,rather than on the likely or actual effectiveness of the educational program of acharter school.



32/35


School Autonomy4

Detailed Analysis

4.3.

Financial Management


respects school autonomy over

financial operations.

4.4.

Conflicts of Interest

The authorizer operates free

from conflicts of interest.

Analysis

Analysis

Rating

Ratin

Established d

Established d

Applied d

Applied d



Charter schools have adequate control o

nacsa de eval report final

Documents