Whose Standards are they Anyway?

This week a group of charter school authorizers met for their regular quarterly meeting. These authorizers are the school district or Charter School Institute (CSI) staff who work with charter schools.

The authorizers group discussed the authorizer standards currently being considered by the State Board of Education as a result of a mandate in HB 10-1412, which created an advisory committee to make recommendation on these standards. In discussing the standards, the group identified what evidence would demonstrate that standard and then what was quality and what was not quality. Evidence oftentimes includes financial statements, charter contracts, accreditation documents, board policies and past actions. The philosophy for quality charter school authorizing will vary in each district. Further, there is quite a range among the 62 school districts with charter schools: Denver has 34, Jeffco 13, and CSI 19.

The discussion about charter school authorizer standards became very interesting when what was quality was compared to what was not quality. Many times there is a very fine line between being a good authorizer and allowing a charter school to operate autonomously versus micromanaging or simply being too "hands off." This dilemma is inherent in authorizers' daily discussions. It's easy to move the line when a charter school is experiencing difficulties and asks for additional assistance. However, the charter school philosophy is to let charter schools operate on their own and if they fall flat on their face, so be it. But the traditional public education mentality is that once a school is open, almost nothing should cause it to close.

Moreover, many authorizers are unsure their charter schools can actually operate successfully (in compliance and financially sound) without providing regular assurances to the authorizer. For example, some districts have a philosophy for regular monitoring that could be construed as being a mother hen and actually trying to control the charter school. Where is the healthy balance in that relationship? Especially when every authorizer-charter school relationship is unique?

That's why it's important to flesh out these authorizer standards to the point of what is quality and what is not quality. Regarding governance, should an authorizer require that they approve any changes made to the charter school board's bylaws? Would there ever be a situation where the school district board would prohibit a specific individual from serving on a charter school board? Should the authorizer approve charter school board policies before they are finally adopted? Each of these questions are in the "shades of gray" category between what is and isn't indicative of a quality charter school authorizer.

It's easy for authorizer to take the standards to a wholly different level -- too far! If a district takes a good thing too far, is it still a good thing? Or a bad thing? Is it even possible, in regard to the standards, to identify when a district crosses the line and has taken it too far?

Sometimes it is possible to distinguish that line. Authorizers should not be determining, or rejecting, who should be on a charter school governing board. But it's happened in Colorado several times. Charter school board bylaws should be in the charter school application and approved by the authorizer board and then it should be delineated in the charter school contract if making a change to those approved bylaws would be considered a material change and therefore requiring district approval. This can be handled either way, and is across the state's authorizers. Many districts require their charter school boards to submit new or revised board policies to the authorizer. Primarily this is done so that the district is cognizant of what the charter board is doing and can help ensure the charter board isn't doing something that's not aligned with federal or state laws or regulations.

Eventually, through enough discussion, a draft of these authorizer standards will be distributed. It's certain these standards will be modified over time and as more experience and lessons learned are gained to provide additional insight. In the meantime, the discussion among authorizers is, in itself, invaluable!

What is Normal?

I was just at a charter school where we had a discussion about "what is normal"? Oftentimes, charter school leaders and board members don't know what it's like at another charter school so they don't have a perspective of what "normal" is. They don't know if what they're doing is routine or extraordinary.

The best way to cure this problem is to get out and visit other charter schools! This applies to governing board members, principals, business managers, curriculum directors, teachers, and simply: everyone!

One of the best parts of my job is that I have been to almost every charter school in the state and get to see the incredible things happening at these schools. A lot of what I do is spread the word to others who may be struggling in a particular area or need an idea for how to handle a situation. Many of these best practices are on the CDE website: either in the eguidebook of best practices, the administrator's handbook, or the governing board training modules. The charter school community is very open to sharing, without reservation, and so there is an ideal climate for gaining from each other's experiences.

Charter School Accountability

Like all public schools, charter schools in Colorado are accountable through the same state accountability system. Across the state, schools are creating their first Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) based on the data in their School Performance Framework. Much more detail is on the SchoolView website.

The UIP process involves senior leadership at the school. This includes the principal, curriculum director, lead teachers, deans and/or others deemed vital to the discussion. The first step is to take a critical look at what the school's data shows. This in-depth examination goes beyond CSAP or ACT data. Schools are encouraged to collect parent satisfaction data, volunteer hours, staff surveys and any other data that provides an important piece in examining how the school can improve. Every school's data story is different.

Then the leadership team examines why the data says what it does. This does NOT include any "kid reasons" such as high poverty or lack of parental support. This is all about what are the adult influences on student academic achievement. The state process calls this the "root cause analysis."

The strategies decided on by the team are directly tied to the root cause. The question is, "How can adults improve the situation in order to improve academic achievement?"

UIPs for all public schools receiving either a Turnaround or Priority Improvement Accreditation rating must be completed using the state's UIP template. For all other schools this year, the UIP template is optional, but highly encouraged. These plans must all be submitted, via the school district, to the state by January 15, 2011. Some districts already had their schools submit UIPs and others are due in December. This allows the school district to review the plans before they're submitted to the state in January.

Many federal and state programs have agreed that the UIP will serve a wide range of purposes, thereby eliminating the need for schools or districts to write multiple plans. The UIP suffices for Title I, School Improvement, Title IID, and Accreditation.

Several of the charter schools have reported that the UIP process has been extremely helpful for their school. One even called it a great bonding experience for their staff as they all worked together to analyze the data and create strategies for improvement.

Other charter schools have reported a severe lack of communication with their district and haven't received their SPF in a timely manner and have had very short notice for UIP deadlines. Further, because the public schools in Turnaround begin a 5-year path to closure or transformation if they don't improve, these UIPs are very high stakes! This is the first year the state has used this new accountability system and many of the kinks in the system are being worked out during the process. Undoubtedly, the entire process will be better next year. In the meantime, there are several charter schools concerned about expectations for them as they begin this journey.