The Best and What's Next

Top story in 2011: Without a doubt, this is the final report of the HB 10-1412 state advisory committee to write charter school and charter school authorizer standards. The final report, which came out during the summer, will drive State Board rules and legislation. For the first time in our state, authorizers will have a clear definition of what monitoring and oversight is appropriate and what it means to be a "fair" authorizer. The report also recommends several changes to the Charter Schools Act, including an update to charter school application components that haven't been changed since they were first adopted when the law passed in 1993, except to eliminate the "Statement of Need" section early on. The model standard application has a more comprehensive list of components, for example including management companies. This results in a better evaluation of charter school applications and mitigates the "gotcha" several applicants have felt when they were asked to provide additional information after the application was submitted.

Best blog post: For this category, I'm going with my personal favorite since I wrote about something I'm passionate about: regulation creep. This is the gradual, step-by-step, return to the same overly-regulated public schools the charter school movement grew out of. I wrote about this in two posts, so I'm actually including both the first and second posts as my "best."

Predictions for 2012: First, I predict we're going to see a significant decline in the number of new charter schools getting approved for the next few years. Primarily, I think this will occur because of resistance to charter schools, but even more so because districts haven't figured out how to use charter schools to their advantage in offering a variety of choice options to parents.

I also predict we're going to see more charter school closures than in recent years because small charter schools that haven't prepared financially won't be able to make their budgets work any longer and have to face closure. The financial situation is tight for everyone in public education, but small charter schools have less to work with and so feel restrictions to an even greater level.

Charter School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts

Mathematica Policy Research and the Center on Reinventing Public Education recently published a study on Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), or nonprofit management companies. The report, titled Charter School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts was written to shed more light on these companies that are replicating in record numbers. Below are some highlights from the report:

• Attracting substantial philanthropic support, CMO schools have grown rapidly from encompassing about 6 percent of all charter schools in 2000 to about 17 percent of a much larger number of charter schools by 2009 (Miron 2010).
• CMOs represent approximately 20 percent of the approximately 5,000 charter schools operating nationally, up from 12 percent in 1999.
• About 80 percent of all CMO-run schools operate in Texas, California, Arizona, and Ohio.
• About 74 percent of all CMO schools eligible for our study are located in cities.
• Compared to their host districts, the middle school student population served by the average CMO in our study includes a greater percentage of minority and low-income students.
• CMO charter school principals report that their teachers receive more coaching and are more likely to be paid based on performance.
• Like public charter schools as a whole, the report finds that student achievement results are mixed with findings going both positive and negative. Keep in mind that the types of schools and educational programs also vary significantly.

The initial positive impacts of CMO-operated schools probably is more indicative of the type of program they operate rather than that they are CMO-operated. Schools with schoolwide behavioral expectations and more teacher coaching show more positive results. These findings could be generalized to all new, mission-driven schools, not just those operated with a common governing board, educational design model or back office services.

As the trend continues to be on replicating systems that have already demonstrated success, research such as this study will provide helpful information to charter school authorizers that are considering whether or not to approve new charter schools.

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!

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!

SB11-069, Charter Educational Management Organizations

SB11-069 has been introduced by Sen. Hudak (D-Arvada, Westminster). The title is "Educational Management Organizations," which in the bill, has a very broad definition to include nonprofits that replicate existing successful schools.

The bill establishes a fee-based certification process through CDE that is similar to the online certification process enacted in 2007, SB 215. The process requires CDE to evaluate an application and then provide continuing monitoring and oversight. The bill also limits the terms of contracts with EMOs to two years subject to annual review. It requires a charter school using an EMO to review the EMO's performance at least annually.

SB 69 also requires the HB 1412, charter school standards and charter school authorizer standards advisory committee, to make recommendations on EMOs. On Jan. 5th the committee held a hearing on management company issues.

In Colorado, the term Education Service Provider (ESP) is generally used for all sorts of management companies. EMOs are generally for-profit management companies and Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) are nonprofit. CMOs may include one-off replications. Hudak's bill defines EMOs to mean all types of management companies and doesn't clearly differentiate for vendors contracting with districts for specific services such as operating an online school.

The sample contract language has an attachment dealing with ESP provisions that should be considered by charter school governing boards and charter school authorizers. Further, the contract has an attachment for board members to disclose a number of things including a conflict of interest with the management company. These types of examples provide increased awareness about the issues of greatest concern for quality relationships.

Update: SB 69 will be heard in Senate Education on Thursday, Feb. 10th.

What's Wrong with the Turnaround Model

U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has been very vocal about the need to turnaround the bottom 5% of the nation's public schools.

Without delving into this subject from a national policy perspective or commenting on the likelihood of the initiative's success (or cost!), one of the proposed remedies given to chronically underperforming public schools is to become a public charter school. This means "being a charter school" is both the punishment and theoretically, the remedy.

Colorado already went through this years ago when the management of Cole Middle School was put up for bid and eventually KIPP took over the failing school. This sanction was imposed under state law that preceeded No Child Left Behind's comparable provisions. KIPP Cole was open for two years, plagued by numerous problems and then closed with everyone admitting it was a mistake.

First, the KIPP philosophy requires that the student (and family) are totally committed. It's a rigorous model of extended day, extended year and about half of the Saturdays during the school year. It's tough. Many KIPP Cole families weren't prepared for just how tough it would be and balked during the implementation.

KIPP Cole's first principal resigned before the new charter school even opened the doors. Eventually Rich Harrison became the princpal. Rich started as a teacher at KIPP Cole but moved up when there really weren't too many options for leadership in the building.

Many of the Cole neighborhood families chose other educational options for their students. The first year at KIPP Cole there were only about 60 students. It was very difficult to establish a KIPP culture in that type of environment. KIPP Cole was upstairs in the 3-story, 100 yr old Cole building. The district put an alternative high school in the lower level of the building. Students chose KIPP Cole simply because they couldn't figure out another place to go or because they had a delusional view of what the school would be like.

The research I've read says that for the first two to three years, a turnaround school looks worse than it did before turnaround. Further, the cost for turnaround is significantly higher for the first few years (Mass Insight estimates the cost as $250,000 to $1 million per school, per year).

Bryan Hassel and Emily Ayscue Hassel of Public Impact, writing in Education Next in the Winter of 2009, stated their researched identified six strategies for turnaround:

1. Focus on a few early wins.

2. Break organization norms.

3. Push rapid-fire experimentation.

4. Get the right stuff, right the remainder.

5. Drive decisions with open-air data.

6. Lead a turnaround campaign.

A public charter school, operating under a three-year contract term, has a great deal of pressure to show increased academic achievement right away. There is little flexibility for changes in administration, inexperienced teachers and the need for an entirely new school culture. And yet that's what is expected -- right away!

Colorado's first turnaround effort showed that turnaround is extremely difficult. The Hassels estimate about 70% of turnarounds won't be successful. So what can Colorado do differently this time around for new charter schools attempting to turn around low performing communities?

Have patience and provide support. Charter school authorizers need to realize that there will be many mis-steps along the way. Rather than shoot the turnaround leaders, authorizers should provide support to identify different strategies or provide technical assistance. Policy makers and school district leaders should be careful to not continually put the turnaround school in the spotlight (like was done with KIPP Cole). Being in the spotlight highlights every mis-step that's made. Whereas other neighborhood schools would get the opportunity to make mistakes outside of the media's attention, a turnaround school doesn't get the same luxury.

The vast majority of schools identified as needing turnaround are choosing to be reconstituted rather than convert to charter school status. Being reconstituted means a new principal and the majority of teachers are replaced, but the school stays under the district's leadership and teachers may continue to operate under the district's collective bargaining agreement with the teacher's union. In other words, flexibility is limited.

In the state, eyes are on Denver as its approach is to put high performing charter school replications in neighborhoods where the schools are chronically not performing. W Denver Prep, DSST and SOAR are all starting new schools in neighborhoods that are struggling academically.

Let's all hope these new schools get patience and support from Denver Public Schools in their new venture. And most importantly, let's all hope the students in these neighborhoods have the opportunity for a better education -- and life -- as a result of these efforts!

The Charter School Board Discussion in the St. Vrain Valley School District

There's a controversy brewing in the St. Vrain Valley School District (SVVSD) over a proposed change to district policy that would require charter school board members to live within school district boundaries. This would be the first time a district will have imposed such a requirement.

According to a Longmont Times-Call editorial, this district policy provision is not warranted because the district's charter schools are doing well and the editorial questions why this change is proposed after a proposed charter school application last year had out-of-district founders.

Last year the Lotus School for Excellence proposed a new charter school using a model similar to the school they already operate in Aurora. The application was denied, in part due to their founders -- and proposed board members -- being from outside the school district. In the Lotus proposal they intended to use their existing governing board to also oversee the new school in Longmont.

It's apparent that the vital issue with this whole debate is where should the line be drawn in charter school authorizing responsibilities. This subject came up in the last legislative session when certain lawmakers wanted to see "something done about" schools like the Cesar Chavez School Network. The top three administrators of the Network were eventually terminated, but it was disclosed that they had extraordinarily high salaries and little accountability. Several lawmakers questioned who had the responsibility to ensure things like that didn't happen.

There are differing viewpoints on where the line should be drawn between charter school accountability and "regulation creep." The charter school philosophy embodies the right of a charter school to operate independently, in exchange for increased results. Leaders in the charter school community have expressed concerns over the years that gradually charter school autonomy has been eroded. In fact, this was an issue in the most recent charter school appeal hearing before the State Board of Education.

This debate about autonomy is likely to be a hot topic at the committee hearings established as a result of HB10-1412, which creates a committee to review charter school standards and charter school authorizer standards. The committee will meet this fall and ultimately, have recommendations for the State Board by August 1, 2011.

Advisory Committee for Charter School Institute Charter Schools Meets

Yesterday was the first meeting of the advisory committee established by SB10-111, sponsored by Sen. Keith King. King is an administrator at Colorado Springs Early College, a CSI school. It was the second day of school for King so he joined the group via the telephone for a portion of the meeting.

Patricia Hayes chaired the meeting. Hayes is a board member of the Charter School Institute, former CU Regent and former State Board of Education member. About a dozen people attended the meeting, reflecting the representative required by SB 111.

The purpose of the committee is to make recommendation to the next legislative session's Education committee members about CSI schools becoming their own LEA. In addition to this potentially impacting Special Education, there is also a potential impact on federal entitlement funds, the Carl Perkins Act and gifted and talented programs. The committee discussed what would be studied by the committee and what would not.

The questions raised centered on what problem was the committee attempting to solve? Since the delivery of Special Education services is distinctly different for CSI schools and district charter schools, the "problem" to solve was quite different. CSI schools must conduct their own Special Ed services and do not have liability coverage through CSI. District charter schools deliver Sped services via a contract with their district (using a variety of different models) and their district has ultimate liability.

Sen. King noted that his interest for the work of the committee was not so much about Special Education, but rather what other programs might be different if administered by the charter school, instead of CSI. He noted a few federal programs, but then also recognized that with increased responsibility comes increased accountability, which may include paperwork and bureaucracy. King carried another bill this session that allows charter schools to form cooperatives with CSI. His other bill allows even district charter schools to seek federal grants through CSI.

It was generally agreed that if there was a better way for delivering Special Education services to CSI schools or there was a more efficient way to operate, the committee's report should uncover those options. The committee will conduct research on what other state's have done and consult nationally recognized groups such as the National Assn of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

The committee will meet monthly throughout the fall. For more information, contact the Charter School Institute.