Peak to Peak is #1 in Colorado and #29 in the Nation!

Peak to Peak Charter School in Lafayette is the best high school in Colorado according to Newsweek's ranking system this year. No other Colorado high school made it in to the top 100 nationwide, but Peak to Peak came in at #29!

One might consider this old hat for the people from Peak to Peak who every year get ranked among the best in the nation by various measures. Believe me, they're very happy to get this recognition and accolades for their student's achievements!  But the culture at Peak to Peak is different than the neighborhood high school.

At P2P the mantra is, "it's about getting a little bit smarter every day!" There is an intense focus on student academic achievement. Yes, the school offers extracurricular sports and clubs, but the real competition is in the classroom. In the classroom there is learning from bell to bell. The expectation is that teachers start their clas period with an activity that preps the students for the lesson that day. Students should be in their seats and ready to engage when the bell rings--or else they're late.

P2P has a culture of continuous improvement. This doesn't stop with the students' learning. This is also about the adults. P2P started a Center for Professional Development because their value for improving the adults in their school system is very high. Everyone should be improving!

The culture among the leaders at P2P is that new leaders are always in the making. In addition to growing up their own from within, the school raises up leaders to go to other schools and also works with other schools to raise up their own leaders. This is done through a combination of coaching and training. The clear message is: when you get better, your students will also get better.

P2P started in about 2000 with a handful of parents who wanted a better education for their own children. Even back then, state charter school leaders affectionately referred to the founding group at P2P as the "overachievers" because they were at every event, learning as much as they could and asking lots of good questions. P2P doesn't do things the easy way and they don't rest on their laurels. That's probably a key to their success! And well-deserved recognition for the hard work and dedication they put in to their student's academic achievement!

Put the School First: Advice, Part 4

I've seen it hundreds of times and it never quits! People who step into leadership at a charter school to satisfy their own personal agendas or bolster their egos. Worst of all, in almost every situation, it's the students that lose.

These are the people who get on a governing board and immediately start making significant changes to the charter school in order to put their mark on it. Or the administrator who thinks that he/she is irreplaceable and stirs up parents to help reinstate him/her as administrator. Or the administrator that develops factions among the staff and pits the entire staff against the governing board. Or the parent that gets recognition for leading a parent revolt against the governing board and attempts to recall board members. I could give countless examples--all without resorting to a fictitious scenario. These are all true situations. In the end, it all boils down to someone's ego getting fed.

What's the right thing to do? Focus on what the students of the school needs. Pretty simple, right? Not for a lot of adults, sad to say.

First and foremost, a public charter school should make sure it's providing the best education possible for students. This means not only a focused, rigorous curriculum, but also exemplary teachers and a culture of continuous improvement where everyone realizes they can do better.

People become complacent. They rationalize why test scores are falling each year. If parents like the teacher or lead administrator, they make excuses and justify their belief that as long as their child is happy and safe, slipping academics is acceptable. Even worse is when the administrator clearly doesn't understand how to raise student achievement through high expectations, staff training and instructional coaching, but instead makes excuses, or worst of all--blames the students, or a group of students.

When a governing board member or an administrator is faced with a tumultuous situation, he/she should do some soul-searching about what is the best for the students in the long run. That may require that board member of administrator to resign and let someone else step in to lead the school. But ultimately, everyone, should put the needs of the school first--in front of personal agendas.

Use Data: Advice,Part 3

Data should drive everything in a school. Too often school leaders react to a comment or a small group of parents who are complaining about something when they make decisions. Instead, facts should drive decision making.

The governing board should use a "data dashboard" to monitor the key indicators they watch to determine if the school is on track and performance is at the level they expect. This might include student academic data, financial figures and student enrollment. There are several key indicators that show when a charter school is entering what is commonly referred to as the "death spiral." This is a decline in student enrollment that eventually causes the school severe financial hardship and/or closure.

As a public school, it's important for school leaders to constantly monitor student academic achievement data. This means not only the CSAP/TCAP data, but assessments that are given more frequently throughout the school year such as NWEA/MAPS, DIBELs, or formative assessments developed by the school or district to measure subjects not tested by CSAP/TCAP. Usually the school administrator monitors this data and uses it to drive discussions with staff, but it's also important for the governing board to completely understand trends that are occurring or if certain subgroups of students are struggling. It's wise for school staff to do an annual workshop on student achievement data for the board. This could be done in conjunction with the development of the annual Unified Improvement Plan before it's submitted to the authorizer.

Having the actual per student revenue on the dashboard is important because it explains why public schools are all tightening their belts over the past several years when the State Assembly is making budget cuts. Showing the Per Pupil Revenue over the past several years is a very powerful tool to explain the school's financial situation to parents.

It's important to align the board's dashboard with their strategic plan. Because the strategic plan is the board's way to implement the school's vision and mission, everything should reflect the same focus and direction. The strategic plan should should progress based on specific measures. It's also a good idea to communicate once or twice a year about the strategic plan and board dashboard to the school community so that others understand how the board monitors progress. It also conveys what the board deems important to monitor.

Making decisions based on data is a solid way to make decisions. That means it's important to have enough data to make decisions. This data might be in an annual survey of parents or staff or even students. But data doesn't lie, even if the message isn't what was expected. Every charter school should have a broad set of data that they examine at different levels and to different degrees. Having the discussions about what is important to monitor and how that data should be obtained and analyzed is vital!

Principal Reports to the Board: Advice, Part 2

Principals should provide a written report for the board at each regular board meeting, usually once a month. In between those regular reports, the Principal may choose to email the board with important information that needs to be provided in a timely manner.

The written Principal's report should be brief, not more than a page or two, and focus on board level information. Delving in to too much detail leads to a natural tendency for board members to get involved in day-to-day operations and so care should be used to keep the report high level.

The report should have standard categories such as academics, highlights and upcoming events. Because these reports are public information, and generally provided to the public via a board packet link on the school's website, there should never be confidential information included. If the administrator needs the board to get involved in a particular issue or situation, this monthly report is a great to place to bring that to their attention. This could be anything from needing board members to participate in graduation ceremonies to something that's come up with the school's charter authorizer that is the responsibility of the governing board to address.

Each regular monthly board meeting should include a section of the agenda for reports. These should generally be in writing and the board only asks questions. The individual presenting a written report, either from the administrator or a committee, should never have to verbally present the same report to the board. Meetings are much more efficient when board members only ask questions about a written report. Because written reports are usually submitted to the board a week prior to the board meeting, the Principal should always be able to bring additional information to the board's attention during this portion of the agenda.

What is Quality Authorizing?

The State Board of Education has been considering what makes a quality charter school authorizer in their consideration of principles and standards for authorizers in state board rule. It's probably safe to say that everyone agrees that charter schools can be better if they're in an environment that allows them to flourish rather than a contentious environment where the charter school is continually fighting for autonomy.

It's also probably safe to assume that everyone agrees it's appropriate to set a high bar for charter school performance and expect student academic achievement to be the top priority for evaluating charter school performance.

But when does that high bar go too far? And is having those high expectations realistic if it impacts students who are being served better than if they were in district-operated schools? It's not fair to look at what is quality authorizing without also looking at what is NOT quality. Too much of a "good" thing isn't always a good thing!

And now that the State Board of Education is considering the adoption of rules regarding charter school authorizing, who decides if an authorizer is being fair or not? It's easy to know there are going to be differing opinions about what is "quality."

The state rules under consideration don't come with a regulator. There isn't going to be anyone going around and evaluating authorizers. It's up to each authorizer to rate themselves on the new standards and principles and make their own case.

What can charter schools do to improve their situation in light of these authorizer standards? First, engage in discussion with the authorizer. Using the standards, discuss each one and talk about what is the evidence that the authorizer is, or is not, demonstrating quality. Talk about what "quality" means in these discussions. Second, use this platform to improve practices. If, through discussion, both the authorizer and the charter school leader decide transparency is a key to quality, then the charter school leader should show a good faith effort by being more transparent and engaging in more communication. Sometimes that can be accomplished simply by copying the authorizer on an email.

What should charter school authorizers do with these new standards? Take an honest look at how practices -- and people -- in the district send a message to the district's charter schools. Sometimes the entire environment can change simply by a focus on professionalism (rather than contention) and the demeanor of the staff member that communicates with the schools. Most contentious environments could be alleviated with a few simple changes. That's not to say that everyone will agree on how situations should be handled, but there isn't any need to be deceptive, retaliatory or just plain mean -- ever!

Throughout the state, these new charter school authorizer standards should drive meaningful discussions about the role of authorizers in the charter school environment. Historically, several school districts in Colorado haven't really understood what proper oversight and monitoring included. These standards will drive discussions that are likely to change things dramatically. But everyone involved should keep in mind that decisions should be made based on the needs of students, not adults!

Why a Job Description is Critical for a Charter School Administrator

Charter school leaders, rarely comfortable being put in a box, use a variety of titles for their number one administrator: Head of School, Principal, Executive Director, and Director are just a few. For this post, I'll use the term "Principal" to talk about the lead administrator.

Charter schools use a variety of structures to meet the school's administrative needs. Some charter school governing boards have one person report to the board (considered a best practice) and some have two or more. This means that unless there are clear job descriptions, it's difficult, and sometimes impossible, for administrators to know what is their responsibility.

This is also true when the charter school governing board has a very involved President. Having a board member do some of the functions commonly delegated to the Principal presents problems. Once the Principal's job description is established, and a Principal is hired, there shouldn't be any deviation from that outline of responsibilities. If a board member temporarily assists the Principal with a responsibility, it should be clear to all involved that the board member is doing it as a "volunteer" without board authority to lead or make decisions.

Many administrators are wary of charter school governing boards, especially when they don't have processes and policies established such as the job description, Principal evaluation form, and Principal evaluation policy. Not having these things appropriately documented shows potential Principal candidates that the board hasn't reached a level of capacity to successfully lead a charter school. Since it's hard to find a really good Principal, boards that fail to develop processes and policies are often left with less-than-ideal Principal candidates.

It's common for there to be confusion about what is the Principal's role versus the governing board's role. Here is a worksheet to discuss the various responsibilities and note who is responsible. Having roles clearly defined, and documented, is a way to mitigate potential conflicts or miscommunication.

Because charter schools are so unique and utilize a variety of organizational structures, school leaders need to take the precaution of documenting as much as possible before the first Principal is hired.

Administrator's Get Legislative Update from League of Charter Schools

Today at the Administrator's Mentoring Cohort (AMC) meeting, Vinny Badolato, from the League of Charter Schools, gave the following legislative update.

1. Win: HB 1089: Collaboratives. Allows charter schools to seek competitive grants within ESEA.

2. SB 188: Moral obligation program. Charter schools go through the State Treasurer’s office to get better bond financing ratings. The bill would have increased the $400 million cap, but that was removed. The bill removes application fees to enter the program. The manager will be the Treasurer’s office. In case of a default, the Treasurer will consult with a team of impacted entities to determine how to handle the potential default.

3. Loss: HB 1055: Improve charter school access to facilities. Passed the House, assigned to Senate State Affairs where it died. Will be reconsidered for next year.

4. HB 1277: Massey’s omnibus bill. Removes unnecessary reporting requirements including

a. Access to data. Designed to eliminate district’s not providing data to their charter schools in a timely manner.

b. Additional criteria for high risk student definition. Adds “over age and under credit” to the definition. This definition is used to define Alternative Education Campuses (AECs)

c. Grant collaborative. The State Board would be able to promulgate rules to allow collaboratives to be designated as the LEA.

d. School Food Authority. Adds charter schools to the entities permitted to be School Food Authorities. Currently charter schools must access the program through one lead school and that school carries all the liability. There are 18 charter schools under one SFA this year.

e. Online reporting requirements. Eliminates annual report to CDE, which has been replaced by requirements in the Financial Transparency Act and the Education Accountability Act.

5. Budget cuts. Cut proposed now is $22.5 million less. Plus a planned mid-year distribution if the June forecast is better. There will definitely be a cut in K-12 funding again next year.

6. New bill by Senator Keith King to be introduced next week. Proposes mill levy matching funds at a quarter of a percent (CVote). Requires districts to include charter schools if they run a mill levy ballot question.

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.

Charter School Administrators Meet

Today was the school year's second Administrator's Mentoring Cohort (AMC) meeting. The morning's training and discussion focused on administrator/board relationships and the resources that are available for board training. Oftentimes when the charter school governing board is having problems the administrator is helpless to intervene. In Colorado, there are a number of training resources and people to assist available through the League of Charter Schools and CDE.

Many of the participants in the AMC have established mentor/mentee relationships. These teams met together briefly today in order to plan their next meetings.

Administrators had a lively discussion about safety plans and different ways to do safety drills. Several administrators talked about how they create an obstacle for staff and students to encounter during a drill so that they learn to think through and problem while in a stressful situation.