Building Charter School Quality in Colorado January 2011

Transcription

1 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado January 2011 Building Charter School Quality

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, the Colorado League of Charter Schools, and the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University would like to thank the many individuals who contributed their time, perspectives, and expertise to produce this report. These individuals include: Vincent Badolato, Colorado League of Charter Schools Nora Flood, Colorado League of Charter Schools Jim Griffin, Colorado League of Charter Schools Stacy Rivera, Colorado League of Charter Schools Taishya Adams, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Todd Ziebarth, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Alex Medler, Ph.D., National Association of Charter School Authorizers Doug Thaman, Ed.D., National Association of Charter School Authorizers This report was written by Sean Conlan, Ph.D., Director of Research and Evaluation, National Association of Charter School Authorizers; Jason Callegari, Public Affairs Associate, Colorado League of Charter Schools; Jennifer Douglas, Director of New School Development, Colorado League of Charter Schools; and Jody Ernst, Ph.D., Director of Research and Evaluation, Colorado League of Charter Schools. This work is part of a larger four-year project entitled, Building Charter School Quality: Strengthening Performance Management among Schools, Authorizers, State Charter Support Organizations and Funders, which was supported by a National Activities grant from the U.S. Department of Education.

3 Table of Contents Introduction A Snapshot of Colorado Charter Schools... 5 Charter School Policy Gap Analysis Charter School Authorizer Practices Gap Analysis Support Services for Charter Schools Gap Analysis Public Education Data System Gap Analysis Next Steps Appendix A: Analysis of Colorado s Charter School Law Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 3

4 Introduction Eighteen years after the nation s first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1992, more than 4,900 charter schools currently serve approximately 1.6 million public school students in 39 states and the District of Columbia. As the charter school movement continues to grow, one of its key challenges is the wide range in charter school quality. While a growing number of charter schools rank among the country s best schools, a notable minority are chronically poorly performing. To address this challenge, four leading organizations came together to spearhead the Building Charter School Quality (BCSQ) project as a force for improving the performance of charter schools nationwide. The convening partners were the Colorado League of Charter Schools (the League), the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (the Alliance), and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA). As part of the BCSQ project, the convening partners chose Colorado as one of the project s target states. Over the past four years, the BCSQ project s activities in Colorado have included the development of the Colorado Growth Model, the Denver Public Schools accreditation model, and a number of authorizer tools, as well as research informing benchmarks for alternative education students which has influenced the development of an alternative accountability framework in the state. In addition, the BCSQ initiative has supported the development and implementation of several performance management training opportunities in Colorado, including a two-day Performance Management Institute, several half-day Performance Management for Board trainings, and a full-day Authorizer Summit for sharing of best authorizer practices. As a result of these activities, the League has provided its member schools with a more robust set of performance management tools and other critical services. As a finale to the project, the BCSQ team has performed a series of gap analyses in each of the BCSQ target states, including Colorado. This report provides an overview of the state s charter school landscape and offers gap analyses of the charter school policies, charter school authorizer practices, support services for public charter schools, and the public education data system policies in Colorado. The overarching purpose of this report is to guide improvement in the Colorado charter school sector, which, in turn, will lead the way to improving the performance of all public schools and the students they serve. 4 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado

5 A Snapshot of Colorado Charter Schools Over the last two decades, public charter schools have become an increasingly accepted component of the public school system across the nation, as well as in Colorado. In general, the charter school movement in Colorado is strong. However, some gaps in the public charter school sector still exist and need to be addressed. Currently,163 charter schools across 170 campuses serve approximately 70,000 students in Colorado. Charter school enrollment represents about 8.6% of the entire Colorado K-12 public school student population. As of the school year, 47 of the state s 178 school districts authorize at least one charter school; the Charter School Institute, the state s only non-district chartering authority, authorizes 18 charter schools. Charter School Demographics The ethnic breakdown in charter schools nearly mirrors that of the traditional public schools in Colorado as shown in the chart below: White (not Hispanic) Colorado Charter Schools ( ) Traditional Public Schools ( ) 60.86% 60.85% Hispanic 26.19% 28.50% African-American (not Hispanic) 7.75% 5.80% Asian or Pacific islander 4.12% 3.68% American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.08% 1.17% The distribution of charter school students, by grade level, is as follows: 1% Pre-K; 53% Elementary (K-5); 24% Middle School (6-8); and 22% High School (9-12). Charter School Growth The charts below illustrate both the growth in the number of charter schools each year and the growth in charter school enrollment since the first schools opened in Figure 1. Number of Colorado Charter Schools that Have Opened Since New Schools Cumulative Total* * The total cumulative number doesn t match the 170 number cited in this report because some schools are counted by the state multiple times based on the number of actual charter contracts (e.g. a K-12 school might have three charter contracts: one for elementary, one for middle school, and one for high school) Figure 2. Charter School Enrollment Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 5

6 Academic Results Evidence of the strong academic performance of Colorado charter schools is provided by both federal and state measures of student achievement. Adequate Yearly Progress In 2009, Colorado s charter schools outperformed the state s non-charters in the percentage of schools that made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Specifically, 85% of charter elementary schools made AYP, compared to 73% of non-charter elementary schools. 81% of charter middle schools made AYP, compared to 49% of non-charter middle schools. 36% of charter high schools made AYP, compared to 34% of non-charter high schools. Colorado Growth Model In 2010, 59 percent of the charter school grade levels (i.e., all elementary, middle, and high school grades served within charters) meet or exceed the state s median growth percentile in mathematics, 61 percent meet or exceed the state median growth in reading, and 63 percent meet or exceed the state median growth in writing. Percent of Charter Schools, by Grade Level, to Meet or Exceed the State Median Growth Percentile (50th) Elem Middle MATH READING WRITING HIgh All Grades Elem Middle High All Grades Elem Middle High All Grades Between 2009 and 2010: The percentage of charter elementary schools to meet or exceed the state median growth percentile increased in all three subject areas. The percentage of charter middle schools to meet or exceed the state median growth percentile increased in mathematics and writing. The percentage of charter high schools to meet or exceed the state median growth percentile increased in reading. Adequate Yearly Growth In 2010, Colorado introduced a new measure by which to rate schools on their effectiveness at reaching all students the median adequate growth percentile. The median adequate growth percentile for a school represents the growth that is needed by the typical student in a school to reach proficiency within three years or by 10th grade, whichever comes first. The figure below illustrates the percentage of schools across the state, and for charters alone, whose actual median growth percentiles were equal to or greater than the median adequate growth percentiles needed to bring their students to proficiency Percent of Schools to meet or Exceed Their 2010 Median Adequate Growth Percentile, All State* and All Charter Elem State Charter MATH READING WRITING Middle High Elem * Charter schools are included in the figures for the whole state. Middle High Elem Middle High 6 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado

7 The percentage of schools, both statewide and by charters alone, to meet or exceed adequate median growth in reading was quite impressive. At all grade levels, at least 70 percent of schools met the median adequate growth percentile for reading, with charter middle schools achieving this 90 percent of the time. The state as a whole appears to have struggled more to meet adequate growth percentiles in both math and writing. In each of these subjects, however, a higher percentage of charter schools met their adequate growth percentiles than all schools in the state with the exception of high school level writing. CSAPs: Percent Proficient or Advanced While not as good an indicator of school effectiveness as growth, the percent of students in a school to score proficient or better on the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) is an important snapshot of how students are performing academically in the state Percent Proficient or Advanced for All State and All Charter Schools, by Subject and Grade Level Elem State Middle Charter MATH READING WRITING High High w/o AECs Elem Middle High High w/o AECs Elem Middle High High w/o AECs In 2010, the overall proficiency results among charter schools closely mirrored those for the entire state (including charter schools). Charters are outperforming the state average for percent proficient and advanced in all subjects at the elementary and middle school levels. When looking at charter high schools it seems that they have lower percentages of students reaching proficiency and above; however, when Alternative Education Campus (AECs) 1 are removed from the analysis (both charter and non-charter AECs), charters are performing as well as the state at the high school level for the subjects of reading and writing. While Colorado charter schools as a whole are doing well by many measures, a number of schools are still struggling to meet academic growth expectations. Continued efforts need to be made towards improving the quality of individual public charter schools in Colorado so they can play a central role in raising achievement and closing the state s achievement gap. Colorado is at a critical time in the evolution of its public charter school sector. Using momentum from the development of the Colorado Growth Model and a positive state and national political environment, Colorado should focus on continuing targeted efforts towards addressing the gaps that still exist in its charter school policies, its charter school authorizer practices, its support services for charter schools, and its public education data system policies. These gaps are outlined in this report. 1 alternative Education Campus (AEC) is Colorado s designation for schools that serve predominantly high-risk students. Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 7

8 Charter School Policy Gap Analysis In January 2011, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools published the second edition of its rankings of states based on how their charter laws match the Alliance s model charter school law. Colorado was listed as one of the top ten states for creating the strongest policy environments for public charters, ranking 4th out of 40 and receiving 130 of the 208 possible points 2. To identify areas for improvement, this section focuses on weaknesses or omissions in Colorado s charter school law. This report will focus on the 12 (out of 20) essential components of the model charter school law that receive the greatest weight in the rankings report s scoring system. These 12 components received either a 4 or a 3 (on scales where 4 was the highest and 1 was the lowest) in the rankings report s scoring system: Weight: 4 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decision-making Processes. Performance-Based Contracts Required. Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes. Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions. Weight: 3 No Caps.* Multiple Authorizers Available. Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required. Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools, with Independent Public Charter School Boards. Automatic Exemptions for Many State and District Laws and Regulations. Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption. Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding. Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities. * Colorado received the highest score possible for this component, so this analysis excludes it. Each bullet point above represents a key policy area that the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools addresses in the model law. The model law details each bullet point and suggests provisions for each one, often times containing multiple options or best practice initiatives that have gained traction in other state legislatures and operating environments. Interested parties should refer to the model law for more information ( This policy gap analysis only provides recommendations on areas that the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools weighted most heavily; readers should look closely at all of the gaps between Colorado s law and the model law s 20 essential components. The 20 essential components of the model law offer a strong framework to guide comprehensive improvement of Colorado s law to support growth of quality charter schools. See Appendix A of this report. The following is a summary of Colorado s policy deficits and recommendations for how to remedy those deficits. 2 See Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Public Charter School Laws, (January 2011). 8 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado

9 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decision-making Processes Current Colorado score: 8 points out of 16 possible Colorado currently lacks many of the model law s provisions that ensure that authorizers follow clear, rigorous and transparent charter application, review and decision-making processes. The model law s provisions are necessary to make certain that only the most qualified, viable and capable applicants are approved to operate a public school. Colorado should amend its law to include provisions for quality application review and decision-making processes by all authorizers. a. The law should specify application content requirements and data requests specific to proposals involving educational service providers and proposals involving school replications. b. The law should require authorizers to thoroughly evaluate each application, using the NACSA standards 3 or current industry best practice models. Performance-Based Contracts Required Current Colorado Score: 8 points out of 16 possible Colorado lacks many of the model law s provisions for performance-based charter contracts. These provisions are essential to ensure that the outcomes for which public charter schools are accountable, as well as the autonomies to which they are entitled, are mutually agreed upon and set forth in a legally binding contract. These provisions should ensure that public charter schools are held to standards demonstrating their academic and financial viability. Colorado should amend its law to include enhanced provisions for charter contracts: a. The law should require contracts to clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of public charter schools and authorizers. b. The law should require that charter contracts define, based on nationally recognized industry standards, academic and operational expectations by which the school will be judged, based on academic performance that includes measures and metrics for, at a minimum, student academic proficiency and growth, achievement gaps, attendance, recurrent enrollment, post-secondary and workforce readiness (high school) and operational performance inclusive of financial viability and board stewardship (including compliance). c. The law should require a term of five academic years and, in cases where this term is extended, periodic high-stakes reviews should occur. d. The law should recognize the uniqueness and demands of virtual charter schools and provide the foundation of guidance and regulatory structure to ensure high-functioning schools. Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes Current Colorado Score: 12 points out of 16 possible Colorado lacks a small number of the model law s provisions for comprehensive public charter school monitoring and data collection by authorizers. These provisions are necessary to ensure that all authorizers collect and are able to appropriately utilize the comprehensive body of evidence needed to drive high-stakes public charter school evaluations. Such processes can also be used to inform the public of charter school performance and provide schools a fair opportunity to make the changes needed to meet all of the performance standards mutually-agreed upon in their contracts. 3 NACSA Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing (2010). > Authorizer Quality. Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 9

10 Colorado should amend its law to strengthen authorizers monitoring and data collection processes by doing the following: a. The law should explicitly empower authorizers to conduct or require oversight activities other than annual data collection. b. The law should require authorizers to produce and make public annual school performance reports that build upon the state level reports and are inclusive of financial performance, compliance and other school specific measures. c. The law should require authorizers to notify their schools of perceived problems and to provide schools with opportunities to remedy such problems in a timely manner. Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions Current Colorado Score: 8 point out of 12 possible Colorado does not meet all of the model law s provisions for clear, merit-based renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decision processes. These provisions are essential to ensure that authorizers provide a fair, transparent, evidence-based process for making highstakes decisions, as well as protect student and public interests in the event of school closure. Colorado should amend its law to improve authorizers renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation processes in the following ways: A. The law should require authorizers to issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose contract will expire the following year. B. The law should require authorizers to issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans. C. The law should require authorizers to ground renewal decisions based on evidence regarding the school s performance over the term of the charter contract (in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract) and grounded in school accreditation law. Multiple Authorizers Available Current Colorado Score: 6 points out of 12 possible Colorado meets the model law s provisions for the availability of multiple authorizers in some but not all cases. These provisions are necessary because they ensure that all charter applicants have the opportunity to seek approval from a conscientious and wellmotivated authorizer. Currently, Colorado law allows all local school boards to authorize charter schools and gives the Charter School Institute (CSI) statewide chartering authority, except in districts granted exclusive chartering authority by the state board of education. In Colorado, any district enrolling fewer than 3,000 students automatically receives exclusive chartering authority; however, other districts may apply to receive exclusive chartering authority from the state board of education. The state board of education can remove exclusive authorizing authority at any time if authorizers do not meet expectations. 10 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado

11 a. Colorado should amend its law to increase access to alternative authorizers and remove the right to exclusive authorizing authority. Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required Current Colorado Score: 6 points out of 16 possible Colorado currently lacks many of the model law s provisions which provide a level of commitment and accountability for authorizers and strengthen the charter program as a whole. These provisions are essential to ensure that public accountability for authorizers exists, that authorizers are committed to charter law, that the state is involved in evaluating the implementation and outcomes of its charter school programs, and that this evaluation informs future improvements. Colorado should amend its law to increase authorizer and overall program accountability by doing the following: a. The law should require a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest and commitment to quality authorizing. b. The law should require authorizers to develop an annual report of all of their authorizing activities based on NACSA standards as well as the performance of their portfolio of public charter schools. c. The law should require a regular review process by an authorizer oversight body. 4 d. The law should strengthen the authorizer oversight body s authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of the authorizer s right to approve schools. 5 Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools, with Independent Public Charter School Boards Current Colorado Score: 9 points out of 12 possible Colorado lacks a few of the model law s provisions for fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent public charter school boards. The provisions are essential to ensure that schools, via their independent governing boards, have the authority to receive and disburse funds, enter into contracts, and sue and be sued in their own names. Colorado should amend its law to strengthen its fiscal and legal autonomy with independent public charter school boards by doing the following: a. The law should require that charter schools incorporate rigorous conflict of interest policies and procedures into their application, by-laws, and ongoing governance structures. Automatic Exemptions for Many State and District Laws and Regulations Current Colorado Score: 9 points out of 12 possible Colorado has many but not all of the model law s provisions which provide for automatic exemptions from many state and district laws and regulations. These provisions are essential for ensuring the school-level flexibility that is needed to develop and implement unique and inventive programs. a. Colorado should amend its law to increase automatic exemptions for many state and district laws and regulations. For example, currently Colorado law requires charter school teachers be certified unless a waiver is granted in the charter. This would ideally be an automatic waiver. 4 in Colorado this could be done by the Colorado Department of Education (CDE), a group of stakeholders including but not limited to members of the Colorado League of Charter Schools, district representatives, charter administrators, and school board representatives; or a team from NACSA. 5 a charter school, a charter school applicant, or an organization that represents charter schools may request revocation of a local board of education s exclusive chartering authority only on the grounds that the local board has demonstrated a pattern of failing to comply with one or more of the provisions of the Charter Schools Act , but not on the performance of the authorizer s portfolio of charter schools. Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 11

12 Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption Current Colorado Score: 9 points out of 12 possible Colorado currently has yet to directly address the issue of collective bargaining exemptions; however, the law has been interpreted to exempt public charter schools from district collective bargaining agreements. These provisions are essential to ensure the school-level flexibility that charter schools demand. While the model law recommends having an automatic collective bargaining exemption, the lack of such an exemption has not been problematic in Colorado (in 17 years and across almost 200 schools) and, therefore, no recommendation is offered here. Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding Current Colorado Score: 6 points out of 12 possible Colorado state law includes some of the model law s provisions for equitable operational funding and equal access to state and federal categorical funding for charter schools. These provisions are essential to ensure that charter schools receive funding equal to any traditional public school and that they receive these funds in a timely manner. Colorado should amend its law to provide equitable funding to public charter school students in the following ways: a. The law should require that all funds, including locally raised funds (bond and mill levy overrides), be shared equally with public charter schools. b. The law should provide equal access to all applicable categorical federal and state funding, and clear guidance on the pass-through of such funds, for public charter schools. Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities Current Colorado Score: 9 points out of 12 possible Colorado law includes many of the model law s provisions for equitable access to capital funding and facilities. These provisions are essential to ensure that public charter schools have appropriate facilities in which to educate their students and that their disparate operational costs do not preclude them from successfully educating students. Colorado should amend its law to provide equitable access to capital funding and facilities for public charter schools in the following ways: a. The law should provide a per-pupil facilities allowance that annually reflects actual average district capital costs and may be used for a wide variety of facilitiesrelated needs. b. The state should maximize every opportunity to increase capital funding opportunities to charter schools, including credit enhancement, loan programs, etc. C. The law should provide a right of first refusal for a closed, unused, or underused public school facility or property. D. The law should prohibit facility-related requirements for public charter schools that are stricter than those applied to traditional public schools and don t recognize and accommodate the unique needs of charter schools. 12 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado

13 Charter School Authorizer Practices Gap Analysis The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) conducts an annual survey of charter school authorizers. Responding authorizers provide information about their current authorizing policies and practices as well as information about their work over the last year (e.g. the number of applications reviewed). Using data collected from its 2010 survey, NACSA can report on the policies and practices of eight responding Colorado charter school authorizers. These eight authorizers collectively oversee 49% of the charter schools in Colorado during the school year (84 of 170 campuses). The policies and practices of the eight authorizers described below fall into five functional areas in charter school authorizing: a. Review of applications. b. Contracting with charter schools. c. Oversight and monitoring. d. Renewal decision-making. e. Commitment and capacity. Successfully accomplishing the required tasks in each of these five functional areas requires well-developed practices and a qualified, professional staff. This report focuses on a small number of key issues within each functional area. Recent Actions to Strengthen Authorizing in Colorado A variety of activities in Colorado have aimed to strengthen authorizing in the state. These include: 1. A recent state law creating a commission to develop proposed standards for charter school authorizing and charter schools. 2. An ongoing collaboration between the Colorado Department of Education (CDE), the League, and the Charter School Institute (CSI) has produced materials for application processes and contract language. This collaboration and the resulting materials 6 have the potential to leverage change in authorizers across the state. 3. Authorizers in Colorado have been participating in NACSA s in-depth evaluations of authorizers. The interest in these evaluations and the resulting planning for improvement by these authorizers are a strong indication of the willingness among a core set of authorizers in the state to improve their practices. 4. Denver Public Schools and NACSA have worked closely on a multi-year effort to strengthen authorizing in the state. As a result of these activities, Colorado has benefited from previous work to improve authorizing, and the state is poised for wide-spread dissemination of strong practices that have been developed to fit Colorado s context. Data from the survey of authorizers in the state indicate both strengths and weaknesses in current practice. Review of Applications A quality charter school authorizer implements a comprehensive charter application process. Colorado charter school authorizers appear to have many of the basic components in place for a comprehensive charter application process. However, some areas of practice are stronger than others. A comprehensive charter application process includes an annual request for charter school applications issued by the charter school authorizer. In Colorado, two of seven responding authorizers reported that they issue annual requests for new charter applications. Thirty percent of charter school authorizers nationally report issuing an annual request for new charter applications. 6 Available online at Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 13

14 A comprehensive charter application process includes an interview with each charter applicant. Face-toface interviews offer an opportunity for authorizers to evaluate an organizing team s understanding of their proposal as well as their capacity to implement that proposal. In Colorado, 63 percent of the charter school authorizers surveyed reported that their organization interviews each charter applicant. Nationally, 81 percent of charter school authorizers report conducting interviews with charter applicants. Through discussions with charter school authorizers nationally and its direct work with charter school authorizers, NACSA has found that quality charter school authorizers employ panels of experts to evaluate charter school applications. These panels should include external experts. Including external experts is important for two reasons. First, successfully operating a charter school requires an experienced team with diverse sets of skills and abilities such as financial management, non-profit governance, school leadership, and curriculum development. Expert panels with members experienced in different subject areas are necessary to evaluate applications in those diverse domains. Second, including external experts helps insulate the application review from the political influence of applicants and other factors separate from the operation of a successful school. All surveyed authorizers in Colorado report that they employ expert panels, but only five of eight authorizers report that those panels include experts external to the authorizing organization. Nationally, 38 percent of charter school authorizers employ panels that include external experts. A rigorous application process must be selective. Authorizers must only grant charters to the most qualified of charter applicants. One proxy for application process rigor is an authorizer s application approval rate. All of the Colorado authorizers surveyed reported receiving and evaluating charter applications during the school year. On average, Colorado authorizers approved 29 percent of the charter applications they received. This rate is below the national average (37 percent), suggesting that Colorado authorizers may be more selective than authorizers nationally. a. Colorado authorizers, CDE and the League should should collaborate to create a pool of trained application reviewers available to authorizers around the state. b. All Colorado authorizers should establish a transparent application process based on the Standard Application developed collaboratively by the CDE, CSI and the League. The application process and required materials should include timelines and be posted publicly on the authorizer s website. C. When an authorizer receives a charter application, the authorizer should conduct interviews with members of the planning team, including prospective board members, to assess the applicant s experience and capacity to implement the proposed program effectively. Contracting with Charter Schools A quality charter school authorizer signs contracts with schools that describe the rights and responsibilities of the authorizer and the school. This section discusses two basic components of a quality charter school contract: the existence of a contract distinct from an application and a five-year charter term. The contract, separate from the charter application, is an essential document to hold schools accountable, uphold school autonomy, and protect student and public interests. Having a contract distinct from a charter application ensures that the material terms and performance expectations are explicitly and formally described and agreed upon, something difficult to do in a charter application. A contract distinct from the charter application also ensures that the charter school is not held accountable at renewal for statements in their charter application extraneous to those central performance expectations. All of the surveyed authorizers in Colorado report signing contracts 14 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado

15 with each charter school overseen. Every surveyed authorizer reported signing contracts separate from the submitted charter applications. Nationally, 88 percent of charter school authorizers sign contracts with each charter school, and 73 percent of those authorizers sign contracts that are distinct from the charter application. A quality charter school authorizer grants charter contracts for a term of five operating years, or longer only with periodic high-stakes reviews every five years. A term of five years allows a school to develop beyond the initial startup phase and produce a sufficient performance record and body of data necessary for high-stakes decision making. NACSA recommends fiveyear charter terms. In the event that contract terms are longer than five years, authorizers should ensure that schools undertake a high-stakes review of their academic performance that is similar in its rigor and scope to the review that schools undergo at the end of a charter term. Three of the seven responding Colorado authorizers reported charter terms of five years. The remaining four authorizers reported either charter terms of less than three years or longer than five years with frequent highstakes reviews. Nationally, 59 percent of charter school authorizers report five-year terms. Surveyed Colorado authorizers report the basic components of a quality charter school contract, though several authorizers may want to consider longer charter terms. a. All Colorado authorizers should institute performance-based charter contracts that include objective performance criteria for both academics and operations. b. All Colorado authorizers institute contracts for a fiveyear period unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. Oversight and Monitoring A quality authorizer conducts oversight that competently evaluates performance and monitors compliance, ensures a school s legally entitled autonomy, protects student rights, informs high-stakes decision-making, and provides annual public reports on school performance. The quality of intervention strategies reported by Colorado authorizers varies. Six of seven responding Colorado authorizers report providing underperforming schools, in writing, a description of the unsatisfactory performance (91 percent nationally). Five of seven responding Colorado authorizers report requiring the school to submit a plan for improvement designed by the school and approved by the authorizer (86 percent nationally). Both of these intervention strategies appropriately balance accountability and school autonomy. However, some interventions threaten both accountability and autonomy by becoming involved in the operation of charter schools. Three of seven responding Colorado authorizers report that when a school performs unsatisfactorily, they provide the school, in writing, suggestions for how to improve (62 percent nationally). Four of seven responding authorizers report that they create plans for improvement in partnership with the underperforming school (54 percent nationally). Becoming involved in the operational choices of a school may result in the authorizer sharing responsibility for the school s performance, making evaluation during renewal more difficult. a. All Colorado authorizers should provide their public charter schools with annual written performancebased feedback. In providing this feedback, authorizers should avoid offering prescriptive remedies, but rather focus on expected outcomes and timelines. Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 15

16 Renewal Decision-Making A quality charter school authorizer regularly reviews its charter schools for renewal and bases the renewal process and renewal decisions on thorough analyses of a comprehensive body of objective evidence defined by the performance framework in the charter contract. Responding Colorado authorizers appear to have the basic components of a quality renewal process. Regular high-stakes review of charter school performance (once every five years) is essential to fostering excellent schools and protecting student and public interests. During the school year, responding Colorado authorizers reviewed on average 24 percent of their charter schools for renewal. The average nationally is 30 percent. Basing renewal decisions on the performance expectations outlined in a contract between a charter school and its authorizer contributes to a fair and rigorous renewal process. Eight of eight responding Colorado authorizers report that they base renewal decisions on the expectations stated in the charter contract. Ninety percent of authorizers nationally report this policy. a. All Colorado authorizers should use renewal criteria based on contract provisions. b. Authorizers should consider a differentiated renewal process for consistently high-performing public charter schools. their authorizing work. Sixty-nine percent of charter school authorizers report oversight fees as a source of funding for authorizing work. Without reliable sources of funding and a dedicated budget, authorizers must support authorizing with funds allocated for other programs (or neglect authorizing duties entirely). Responding Colorado authorizers report an average of 4.9 schools for every full-time equivalent (FTE) employee assigned to authorizing work. The national average is 5.6 schools per FTE. In both sources of funding and staffing, responding Colorado charter schools authorizers exceed national averages. a. Authorizers should be statutorily required to make an affirmative commitment to quality authorizing practices as defined by NACSA Principles and Standards of Quality Charter School Authorizing. B. Authorizers should undergo periodic reviews of their authorizing practices by an authorizing oversight body. C. All Colorado authorizers should designate staff responsible for charter school oversight and allocate budget funds to support quality authorizing. D. The tools (e.g. Standard Application, Model Contract Language, Renewal Framework Template, etc.) being created by many of the state s authorizers in collaboration with the CDE, CSI and the League should continue to be refined and implemented across the state. Commitment and Capacity A quality charter school authorizer has sufficient resources and staff to oversee and foster excellent schools that meet identified needs. Responding Colorado authorizers have greater resources and capacity than many authorizers nationally. Five of seven responding authorizers have budgets dedicated to charter school authorizing. Nationally, only 39 percent of charter school authorizers report having a budget dedicated to charter school authorizing. Six of six responding authorizers report that they rely on oversight fees deducted from charter school revenues to support 16 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado

17 Support Services for Charter Schools Gap Analysis Among the critical elements necessary for quality public charter schools to flourish within a state are the support services available to public charter schools in their various stages of development. In most states, these services are provided by organizations and associations commonly referred to as charter support organizations (CSOs). Most often, CSOs are independent, non-profit organizations dedicated to serving and advocating for quality charter schools as a powerful reform strategy for public education. 7 While CSOs tend to be the primary source of services for public charter schools in a state, other organizations, such as resource centers and state departments of education, may provide support services as well. There are a variety of support services that public charter schools need or want. However, this analysis focuses on five critical support services that most promote the growth of quality public charter schools within a state: Proactive advocacy for public charter schools. Education of public charter school board members. Support in the development stages and startup years of schools. Support during the renewal process for schools. Assistance in implementing performance management practices. The Colorado League of Charter Schools (the League) is the primary CSO in Colorado, though a number of charter support services are also offered through the Colorado Department of Education s (CDE) Schools of Choice (SOC) office. The League was founded as a membership association for Colorado public charter schools in 1994 following the passage of the Charter Schools Act in 1993, and the opening of the first two public charter schools in the state that same year. When the League first began operations, it was staffed by one person and focused on providing networking opportunities for public charter schools, serving as a clearinghouse for information and resources, and advocating on behalf of public charter schools at the state legislature. Over the past 16 years, the League has grown to a 22-employee organization that offers a wide variety of support services for member schools. The League has two primary departments: (1) Public Affairs, which focuses on policy, advocacy and communications, and (2) School Services, which offers a diverse range of services including, board training, performance management support, professional development, research and evaluation, business services, employment support, special education support, general technical support, conferences and events, and new school development support. The CDE Schools of Choice office has served as the administrator for the Charter School Grant Program since In addition, this office provides support services to public charter schools by disseminating best practice documents on their website, hosting trainings and networking meetings, providing external reviews, and authoring a number of guidebooks for charter schools. For the past several years, the League and the CDE Schools of Choice office have also collaborated on a number of projects, including a website for developing public charter schools ( an annual boot camp for new schools, development of online board training modules, and development of several authorizer tools including a standard charter application and model contract language. 7 See Growing the Movement: The National Charter School Support Grid. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, (February 2009) Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 17

18 This section of the report outlines the support services available to public charter schools in Colorado and identifies the gaps in services that are fundamental to creating an environment in which quality public charter schools flourish and poor performing schools close. For each support service, this report outlines which services are available and provides recommendations on how the services can be strengthened. Proactive Advocacy for Charter Schools Proactive advocacy for public charter schools is essential to ensure a policy environment that allows for the flexibility and accountability necessary to foster the growth of quality public charter schools. Because CSOs often work most closely with the charters in their states, they are best informed on what policies are necessary to promote autonomy and ensure high-performing public charter schools. Through both grassroots advocacy and lobbying, CSOs influence what legislation gets passed in their state. In addition, advocacy by CSOs includes taking public and firm stances on quality in a variety of ways, including by publishing quality standards and certifying public charter schools according to specified criteria. Summary of Proactive Advocacy Activities for Colorado Public Charter Schools Specific Services Initiating legislation that promotes charter quality Blocking legislation that undermines charter quality Informing stakeholders on agendas and outcomes Presence and Quality of Service Service Provider(s) + League + League + League Encouraging grassroots advocacy + League Publishing quality standards based on nationally accepted standards League Legend: + means that services are available and quality of services appears strong means that services are available and quality of services is adequate - means that services are available and quality of services needs improvement A blank cell means that services are not available Since its inception in the early 1990s, the League has always held public charter school advocacy as one of its top priorities. In fact, through annual needs assessments of member schools, advocacy consistently surfaces as an essential need of these schools. As a result, the League develops an annual legislative agenda, gathering input from its membership and a Governmental Affairs Committee (which includes a diverse body of stakeholders). Once the agenda has been established, League staff work through the legislative session to ensure that the agenda is met and that any legislation unfavorable to public charter schools is defeated. 18 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado

19 A significant tool used by the League to meet its advocacy goals each year is the Colorado Charter Advocacy Network (Colorado CAN). This is an online network of public charter school supporters (primarily parents) who receive updates and action alerts during the legislative session. The network, which currently has over 16,000 members, enables participants to easily contact their legislators in support of, or opposition to, specific bills that would impact public charter schools. Several years ago, the League adopted Quality Statements for Charter Schools; however, they have become largely irrelevant through the development of a state accreditation system that was created using BCSQ academic principles as its foundation. 8 This state accreditation system applies to both public charter and traditional schools. It is a fair and transparent accountability model that uses a set of State Performance Indicators based on student achievement growth (measured by the Colorado Growth Model), student achievement levels (measured by percentage of students scoring at each level), extent of achievement gaps based on income and ethnicity, and postsecondary readiness (measured by graduation rates and ACT scores). Based on a school s performance on each indicator, schools receive one of six accreditation ratings. The state accreditation model supersedes the League s Quality Statements because it goes beyond a voluntary school commitment and requires all public schools to be held to high standards. The League offers ongoing training to schools on the state accreditation model. In addition, in 2009 the Colorado Legislature passed a League-developed bill (HB 1412) that requires the State Board of Education to adopt public charter school standards for operations, finance and governance. These standards would complement the academic standards already in place through the accreditation model mentioned above. The operational standards would be only applicable to public charter schools and would also be based on BCSQ principles (using A Framework for Operational Quality). 9 A committee has been tasked with developing these standards and the League has been very involved in ensuring that committee members understand the BCSQ guidance so it can be incorporated into the standards. The other component of HB 1412 is the creation of authorizer standards. These standards will be based largely on the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing. 10 Again, the League is working to ensure that committee members understand the authorizer standards as defined by NACSA. The recommendations around proactive advocacy services in Colorado involve the implementation of House Bill It is recommended that the League: A. Continue working with the HB 1412 committee and advocating on behalf of BCSQ-based or other industry-based standards for charter school operations, finance, and governance to ensure that state statute or state board of education policy is fair and reflects high standards for charter schools in these areas. B. Continue working with the HB 1412 committee and advocating for adoption of the NACSA Principles and Standards as the model of authorizer quality and accountability. 8 See A Framework for Academic Quality: A Report from the National Consensus Panel on Charter School Academic Quality (June 2008), 9 A Framework for Operational Quality is available at 10 nacsa s Principles and Standards are available at Building Charter School Quality in Colorado 19

20 Education of Charter School Governing Board Members The education of charter school governing board members on their roles and responsibilities, particularly in relationship to ensuring strong school performance, is essential to supporting quality in every public charter school. Without proper education, charter boards may struggle to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities as overseers of a public entity. Additionally, while volunteer board members bring a wide variety of experience and expertise to their boards, they may lack specific training on public school governance practices and accountability requirements. Summary of Board Development Training Topics Available to Colorado Charter Schools Specific Support Services Presence and Quality of Service Ethics + Charter school law and policy environment Charter board responsibilities: Budgeting/financial/operational efficiency (or fiduciary responsibilities) + + Academic oversight + Public trust + Public school employment laws Charter administrator responsibilities Authorizer responsibilities and relationships + Service Provider(s) League and CDE SOC League and CDE SOC League and CDE SOC League and CDE SOC League and CDE SOC League and CDE SOC League and CDE SOC League and CDE SOC Performance management + League Strategic planning State, local, and federal accountability systems + League and CDE SOC League and CDE SOC Data systems + League Assessments League Board by-laws* - League and CDE SOC Legend: + means that services are available and quality of services appears strong means that services are available and quality of services is adequate - means that services are available and quality of services needs improvement A blank cell means that services are not available * The League and CDE SOC provide sample by-laws for schools, but do not engage in formal by-law review for schools as they believe a school s legal counsel should complete such a review. 20 Building Charter School Quality in Colorado