Building Charter School Quality in Arizona March 2011

Transcription

1 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona March 2011 Building Charter School Quality

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, and the Colorado League of Charter Schools would like to thank the many individuals who contributed their time, perspectives, and expertise to produce this report. These individuals include: Jennifer Douglas, Colorado League of Charter Schools Jody Ernst, Ph.D. Colorado League of Charter Schools Jim Griffin, Colorado League of Charter Schools Stacy Rivera, Colorado League of Charter Schools DeAnna Rowe, Arizona State Board for Charter Schools Rebecca Gau, Arizona Charter Schools Association Eileen Sigmund, Esq., Arizona Charter Schools Association Taishya Adams, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Todd Ziebarth, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Doug Thaman, National Association of Charter School Authorizers This report was written by Margaret Lin, President of Margaret Lin Consulting, Alex Medler, Vice President of Policy and Research, National Association of Charter School Authorizers, Sean Conlan, Ph.D., Director of Research and Evaluation, National Association of Charter School Authorizers and Jennifer Turnbull, Research Associate, 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 Arizona Charter Schools 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 Arizona s Charter School Law Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 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 are 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). 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 Arizona. The overarching purpose of this report is to guide improvement in the Arizona charter school sector, which in turn will lead the way to improving the performance of all public schools and the students they serve. As part of the BCSQ project, the convening partners chose Arizona as one of the project s target states. Over the life of the grant, the BCSQ project s activities in Arizona have included Performance Management Institutes, authorizer trainings, and public policy support, with the goal of improving the performance of Arizona charter schools. This report, Building Charter School Quality in Arizona, is also part of those activities. 4 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

5 A Snapshot of Arizona Charter Schools In 1994, Arizona passed a law that launched the state s charter school movement, resulting from the efforts of a political coalition of conservatives and racial minorities. The purpose was to give parents a choice and increase student achievement. In 1995, the first 40 schools opened. Without the caps imposed by other states, the charter movement in Arizona grew rapidly. Between 1994 and 2002, the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools approved 76% of charter applications. Today, Arizona is a leader in the charter school movement with 510 charter schools serving more than 119,000 students in Fully, 10 percent of all public school students in the state are enrolled in charter schools, and 25 percent of the state s public schools are charter schools the highest percentage for any state, and second only to the Washington D.C. area. Charter School Demographics Arizona has the highest percentage of Native American students in the nation, and Arizona is one of the top five states in the percentage of Hispanic students. In Arizona, about 56 percent of public school students are minorities, based on the latest enrollment figures from October The demographics of Arizona charter schools closely mirror those of district schools: White (not Hispanic) Charter Public Schools District Public Schools 50.0% 43.7% Hispanic 35.1% 42.1% African-American (not Hispanic) 7.2% 5.6% Asian or Pacific islander 3.2% 3.0% American Indian or Alaskan Native 4.5% 1.17% Per March 2009 data from the Department of Education, 182 of Arizona s 509 charter schools were participating in the free and reduced-price lunch program. Many schools opt not to participate because the paperwork is burdensome to a small school. Of participating schools, four had 100 percent of students eligible, 17 schools had 95 percent or more, and 87 schools had 75 percent or more. Authorization and Oversight In Arizona, charters can be authorized by the Arizona State Board of Education, a school district in which the charter will be located, or the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools in practice, nearly all (504 of 510 schools in ) are authorized by the State Board for Charter Schools. However, with support from the Arizona Charter Schools Association (the Association), legislation passed in 2010 that establishes additional authorizers: the state s three public universities, community colleges with enrollment of at least 15,000, and consortiums of community colleges with 15,000 or more enrolled. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 5

6 Growth of the Movement With a favorable charter school law and the public s insistence for quality choices, the demand for charter schools continues to rise in Arizona. The state is now ranked 11th out of 40 by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, and fifth out of 40 by the Center for Education Reform (2010), for having laws favorable to charters. While total enrollment in Arizona public schools grew four percent, from 1,043,298 students in 2005 to 1,083,408 students in 2009, enrollment in charter schools grew 32 percent during the same period, from 85,683 to 113,393. Charter Schools Opening Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Coming Years Number of Schools 18 schools opened 20 schools opened 14 schools opened 34 schools opened 45 (20 new schools + 25 additional or replication sites) Estimate: 25 to 30 (15 new schools + 10 to 15 additional or replication sites) Conservative estimate: about 20 per year, half of them replications or additional sites More online schools (currently 14) The State Board for Charter Schools created a streamlined replication process to encourage high performing charter school operators to obtain additional charters and open new sites without going through the full application procedure. In addition, Arizona recently lifted caps on online charter schools. New startup grants for charter schools will continue to spur growth as well. The Arizona Department of Education was awarded up to $54 million over fiveyears starting in 2009 from the U.S. Department of Education to provide startup grants the Arizona Charter School Incentive Program to as many as 92 newly approved charter schools. The Walton Family Foundation has committed to fund startup expenses for up to seven quality charter schools a year in highpoverty communities, providing $250,000 for each school. Five of the grants are dedicated to the Phoenix Metro area, and two grants are available for other highpoverty areas. With the continued investment of private and public funds, more charter schools are likely to open. Given all these factors, more charter schools are likely to open, making it even more important that new schools launch with quality and increasing the need for the Association s quality-focused programs. Charter School Renewal and Closure Because Arizona grants charters for 15 years and schools began opening in 1995, the first groups of schools were eligible for renewal in Even more will come up for renewal in the coming years. The chart on page 7 indicates the number of contracts to be reviewed or renewed and a contract can be for multiple schools. As the following chart shows, the renewal process will be a significant factor in the further development of Arizona s charter school system. 6 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

7 Charter Schools up for Renewal or Review 15-year Renewal 10-year Review 5-year Review Number of Arizona Charter Schools that have Closed since Number Revoked Number Surrendered Of the first 53 contracts up for renewal, the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools made the following decisions: 23 fulfilled all quality requirements; three received notices of non-renewal; two failed to apply for renewal; three consented for voluntary surrender and termination of charter contract; and 22 received conditional approval, requiring performance management plans to demonstrate more evidence of continuous academic improvement toward the Board s level of adequate academic performance. The Association is providing technical assistance to some schools in developing performance management plans. In addition to non-renewal, charter schools may be revoked during the term of the charter for any breach of the charter and/or violation of state, federal or local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations; or for conditions which threaten the health, safety, or welfare of the students or staff of the school or of the general public. In the past, revocations for financial and contractual reasons have been more common than for poor academic performance. Charter operators may also surrender the charter prior to the term of the contract. In recent years, 15 percent of surrendered charters did so while under duress of pending revocation. The primary reason for surrender is lack of enrollment. Access to data including individual student level growth and growth percentiles now provides Arizona schools and authorizers with additional indicators for school performance. The State Board for Charter Schools has set an expected level of academic performance for the schools it sponsors using status and growth scores which provides clear measures for which academic performance can be evaluated. Charter schools efforts to improve pupil achievement, the Association s provision of technical assistance in developing performance management plans, and the Board s increased efforts to monitor academic performance provide a forecast of improved academic performance and quality choices in Arizona. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 7

8 Charter School Policy Gap Analysis This section focuses on how Arizona can improve its charter school law to better support the growth of high-quality public charter schools in the state. In June 2009, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (the Alliance) released a new model charter school law organized around 20 essential components of a strong charter school law. 1 In January 2011, the Alliance published its second annual rankings of state charter school laws against the new model charter school law. 2 Arizona s charter school law was ranked 11th out of 40, receiving 117 points out of 208 points possible in the rankings report s scoring system. This section focuses on 10 out of the 20 essential components of the model charter school law that are most relevant to Arizona. These 10 components were weighted either a 4, 3, or 2 (on a scale 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 Charter Contracts Required. Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes. Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions. Weight: 3 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required. Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools, with Independent Public Charter School Boards. Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding. Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities. Weight: 2 Adequate Authorizer Funding. Educational Service Providers Allowed. These components are shorthand for key policy areas that the model law addresses in detail through carefully crafted provisions, often with a number of important subcomponents. Readers should refer to the model law and its accompanying explanations for full perspective and model statutory language for each component. In addition to the policy gaps or weaknesses highlighted in this analysis, readers should be aware of the gaps between Arizona s law and the model law s 20 essential components as described in Appendix A. The 20 essential components of the model law offer a strong framework to guide comprehensive improvement of Arizona s law to support quality growth of charter schools. 1 See A New Model Law For Supporting The Growth of High-Quality Public Charter Schools, (June 2009), 2 See Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Public Charter School Laws, (January 2011). 8 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

9 Following is a summary of the deficiencies in Arizona s charter school law in the areas outlined above with recommendations for how Arizona can improve its charter school law to better support the growth of high-quality public charter schools in the state. It is recommended that Arizona adopt all provisions of the model law that the state currently lacks. Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decision-Making Processes Current Arizona score: 8 points out of 16 possible Arizona lacks some of the model law s provisions for ensuring that authorizers follow rigorous and transparent charter application, review and decisionmaking processes. These provisions are essential to ensure that charters are granted only to applicants that demonstrate sound plans and capacity to operate successful schools. Arizona should amend its law to include the following requirement for quality charter application review and decision-making processes by all authorizers: a. In addition to setting forth minimum general application content requirements, the law should set forth minimum application content requirements specific to proposals for conversion charter schools, proposals involving educational service providers, proposals involving school replications, and proposals involving virtual charter schools. Performance-Based Charter Contracts Required Current Arizona score: 4 points out of 16 possible Arizona lacks most of the model law s provisions for performance-based charter contracts. These provisions are essential to ensure that the outcomes for which 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. Arizona should amend its law to include the following requirements for charter contracts: a. The law should require that charter contracts be separate and distinct from the charter application and executed by the governing boards of both the charter school and the authorizer. b. The law should require that charter contracts define the respective roles, powers, and responsibilities of the school and its authorizer. c. The law should require authorizers to conduct highstakes charter contract reviews every five-years regardless of overall contract term. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 9

10 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes Current Arizona score: 12 points out of 16 possible Arizona lacks a small number of the model law s provisions for comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection by authorizers. These provisions are essential to ensure that all authorizers amass the comprehensive body of evidence needed to inform sound high-stakes judgments of each charter school, report publicly on charter school performance, and provide schools a fair opportunity to remedy identified problems. Arizona should amend its law to strengthen authorizers monitoring and data collection processes in the following way: a. The law should require authorizers to collect and analyze student outcome data at least annually (consistent with the performance framework outlined in the charter contract, with minimum elements as set forth in the model law). Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions Current Arizona score: 8 points out of 16 possible Arizona lacks some 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, evidence-based process for making high-stakes decisions, as well as protect student and public interests in the event of school closure. Arizona should amend its law to improve authorizers renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation processes in the following ways: a. The law should allow authorizers to vary the length of charter renewal contracts based on performance or other issues. B. The law should require authorizers to have school closure protocols to ensure, in the event of a closure, timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition in accordance with law. Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required Current Arizona score: 3 points out of 12 possible Arizona currently lacks most of the model law s provisions to ensure authorizer commitment and accountability, as well as accountability for the state s charter school program as a whole. These provisions are essential to ensure that local school boards and universities and colleges demonstrate sufficient commitment and capacity for quality authorizing before undertaking the role, that all authorizers are publicly accountable for quality authorizing, and that the state periodically evaluates the implementation and outcomes of its charter program, to identify and inform necessary improvements. 10 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

11 Arizona should amend its law to strengthen authorizer and overall program accountability in the following ways: a. The law should provide for an application process for other eligible authorizing entities (which the law should establish to provide for multiple viable authorizing options, as recommended above). B. The law should require all authorizers to submit an annual report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, which summarizes each agency s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio. C. The law should require a regular review of authorizer performance by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. D. The law should require periodic formal evaluation of the overall state charter school program and outcomes. Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools, with Independent Public Charter School Boards Current Arizona score: 9 points out of 12 possible Arizona law currently includes the model law s provisions for fiscally and legally autonomous charter schools, but falls short of the model law s provisions for independent public charter school boards. These provisions are essential to ensure that every charter school is governed by an independent board positioned to carry out sound public stewardship of the school. Arizona should amend its law to strengthen charter school governance in the following ways: a. The law should require that every charter school be governed by an independent board that contracts with its authorizer. b. The law should require that every charter school governing board be legally and operationally independent of its authorizer and any contracted service providers. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 11

12 Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding Current Arizona score: 6 points out of 12 possible Arizona falls short of the model law s provisions for equitable operational funding and equal access to categorical funding for charter students. These provisions are essential to ensure that charter schools and thus, their students are funded fairly and on an equal basis as other public schools and students. Arizona should amend its law to provide equitable funding to public charter school students in the following ways: a. The law should provide equitable operational funding to public charter schools. b. The law should provide funding for transportation similar to school districts for public charter schools. Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities Current Arizona score: 3 points out of 12 possible Arizona lacks most of the model law s provisions for equitable charter school access to capital funding and facilities. These provisions are essential to ensure that charter schools have appropriate facilities in which to educate their students and are not forced to cannibalize their operational funding for capital costs a financial disadvantage that, at best, is unfair to charter students, and is potentially devastating for charter schools. Arizona should amend its law to provide equitable support for charter school facilities 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 purposes. b. The law should create a state grant program for charter schools that allows grant funds to be used for a wide variety of facilities-related purposes. c. The law should take steps to improve charter school access to capital (including low interest loans where possible) that allows loan funds to be used for a wide variety of facilities-related purposes. d. The law should provide a mechanism to provide credit enhancement for public charter school facilities. e. The law should provide charter schools with equal access to existing state facilities programs available to non-charter public schools. f. The law should provide a right of first refusal for charter schools to purchase or lease at or below fair market value a closed, unused, or underused public school facility or property. 12 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

13 Adequate Authorizer Funding Current Arizona score: 2 points out of 8 possible Arizona lacks most of the model law s provisions for adequate authorizer funding. These provisions are essential to ensure that authorizers have the financial and human resources necessary to carry out their critical responsibilities with quality, integrity, and public accountability. Arizona should amend its law to provide for adequate funding for all authorizers in the following ways: a. The law should provide for adequate authorizer funding from authorizing fees or other sources. b. The law should provide for guaranteed authorizer funding from authorizing fees or from sources not subject to annual legislative appropriations. c. The law should require authorizers to publicly report expenditures for authorizing activities. d. The law should require a separate contract (from the charter contract) for any services purchased from an authorizer by a school. Educational Service Providers Allowed Current Arizona score: 2 points out of 8 possible Arizona lacks most of the model law s provisions for quality contracting with educational service providers. These provisions are essential to enable charter schools to contract for a variety of services, and to ensure appropriate oversight, quality service, and public accountability in such service arrangements through clear performance contracts with independent charter school governing boards. Arizona should amend its law to improve charter school contracting with educational service providers (ESPs) in the following ways: a. The law should explicitly allow all types of ESPs (both for-profit and non-profit) to operate all or parts of schools. b. The law should require the charter application to contain 1) performance data for all current and past schools operated by the ESP, including documentation of academic achievement and (if applicable) school management success; and 2) explanation and evidence of the ESP s capacity for successful growth while maintaining quality in existing schools. c. The law should require a performance contract between the independent public charter school board and the ESP, setting forth material terms including but not limited to: performance evaluation measures; methods of contract oversight and enforcement by the charter school board; compensation structure and all fees to be paid to the ESP; and conditions for contract renewal and termination. D. The law should require the material terms of the performance contract to be approved by the authorizer prior to charter approval. e. The law should require school governing boards to operate as entities legally and fiscally independent of any educational service provider (e.g., must retain independent oversight authority of their charter schools, and cannot give away their authority via contact). f. The law should require existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities to be disclosed and explained in the charter application. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 13

14 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 oversight and management of charter schools over the last year (applications, renewals, revocations, etc.). Data from NACSA s survey and information from follow-up interviews with staff is used below to examine the reported implementation of basic authorizing practices by the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (ASBCS), the largest of seven charter school authorizers in the state of Arizona. The ASBCS currently oversees 98 percent of the charter schools in Arizona (498 out of 510 charter schools), placing it among the largest two charter school authorizers in the nation. The ASBCS is, by a significant margin, the largest independent chartering board (ICB) in the nation. The scale of its charter school portfolio has created a unique set of challenges, faced by few, if any, other authorizers nationally. Below, the implementation of basic authorizing policies and practices by the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools is discussed. This report focuses on a small number of key issues within the following five functional areas of charter school authorizing: A. Review of applications. B. Contracting with charter schools. C. Oversight and monitoring. D. Renewal decision-making. E. Commitment and capacity. Recent Changes The ASBCS was recently awarded a grant from the Foundation for Authorizer Excellence, which is operated by NACSA. This grant supports an effort by the ASBCS to receive an in-depth evaluation of their authorizing activities. This evaluation is scheduled to be conducted by NACSA during the winter of This evaluation effort is a significant step towards self-improvement and marks a desire to move toward best practices in charter school authorizing. Data from that evaluation are not yet available. In the meantime, data from the ASBCS taken from NACSA s national survey of authorizers provide a preliminary scan of the implementation of basic authorizing practices in the state. Survey Results for Arizona Review of Applications A quality charter school authorizer implements a comprehensive charter application process. The ASBCS appears 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 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. The ASBCS reports that they do not include an interview with each applicant in their application process. However, each charter applicant addresses questions from the ASBCS Board during a public meeting of the Board. Questions from the members are derived from information submitted in the application package; comments made by the technical review panel during the review of the application package; or information provided which was obtained during a background check of the officers, directors, members and partners of the entity applying for the charter. This process does not necessarily incorporate a question and answer period that allows the authorizer to follow- 14 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

15 up with all members of the application team to explore their capacity or their familiarity with the substance of all aspects of the application. Whether the ASBCS s method includes sufficient investigation of the capacity of charter school applicants to implement the goals described in their applications requires further study. Nationally, 81 percent of charter school authorizers report conducting interviews with charter applicants. Through discussions with charter school authorizers nationally and its direct assistance to charter school authorizers via its Authorizer Development division, 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 application review from the political influence of applicants and other factors separate from the operation of a successful school. The ASBCS reports that they employ expert panels that have a combination of both internal and external experts. Nationally, 38 percent of charter school authorizers employ charter application evaluation panels that include external experts. A rigorous application process should be selective. Ideally, authorizers would only grant charters to qualified charter applicants with a high likelihood of succeeding. One proxy for application process rigor is an authorizer s application approval rate. As reported above, the ASBCS reported that they received 40 charter applications during the school year and granted charters to 14 of those applicants (a 35 percent application approval rate). This rate is near the national average (37 percent). The 14 new charter schools approved by the ASBCS place them among the top four authorizers in the country in terms of annual growth. Contracting with Charter Schools A quality authorizer signs contracts with schools that describe the rights and responsibilities of the authorizer and the school. In this section, we discuss 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. 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 central performance expectations. The ASBCS reports that they sign a contract with each charter school overseen. They also report that their contracts are separate from the submitted charter applications. Nationally, 88 percent of charter school authorizers sign contracts with each charter school and 72 percent of those authorizers that sign contracts with charter schools, sign contracts that are distinct from the charter application. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 15

16 A quality charter school authorizer grants charter contracts for a term of five operating years, or longer only with periodic high-stakes reviews every fiveyears. 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. Terms longer than five-years may not provide sufficient oversight, allowing charter schools that are not serving students adequately to remain open. Arizona law provides that initial charter terms are 15 years, significantly longer than the recommended five-years. The ASBCS is also empowered to grant 20 year terms to renewed charters. Nationally, 59 percent of charter school authorizers report five-year terms. The ASBCS reports that they conduct high-stakes reviews of their charters at fiveyear intervals. Arizona should consider ways to ensure that the rigor of the reviews that take place every five-years match the rigor expected in an end-of-term charter renewal process. Alternatively, the state could consider whether charter terms should be shortened. Oversight and Monitoring A quality authorizer conducts oversight that competently evaluates performance and monitors compliance, ensures schools legally entitled autonomy, protects student rights, informs high-stakes decisionmaking, and provides annual public reports on school performance. The school intervention strategies reported by the ASBCS generally reflect NACSA s recommended practices. Highlighted below are four intervention strategies often employed by charter school authorizers when a school performs unsatisfactorily. One of the strategies employed by ASBCS may infringe on both charter school autonomy and charter school accountability. The ASBCS reports that when it identifies a charter school that is underperforming, it provides the school, in writing, a description of the unsatisfactory performance (91 percent nationally). The ASBCS also reports that it requires underperforming schools to submit plans for improvement designed by the schools and approved by the authorizer (86 percent nationally). Both of these intervention strategies appropriately balance accountability and school autonomy. Some interventions threaten both accountability and autonomy by involving the authorizer in the operation of charter schools. The ASBCS reports that when a school performs unsatisfactorily, it does not provide written directives on what changes must be made to improve (62 percent of authorizers nationally provide underperforming schools, in writing, suggestions for how to improve). However, the ASBCS does report that it creates plans for improvement in partnership with underperforming schools (54 percent create improvement plans in partnership with their schools nationally). In these situations, it is not clear how prescriptive the ASBCS is in the development of performance plans, and the authorizer s involvement often focuses on setting appropriately rigorous goals. In general, NACSA recommends against prescribing solutions. Determining operational choices for a school may result in the authorizer sharing responsibility for the school s performance, making evaluation during renewal more difficult and potentially complicating later closure procedures. The ASBCS follows recommended practices in three out of four of these indicators. 16 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

17 Renewal Decision-Making A quality 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. Regular high-stakes review of charter school performance (once every five years) is essential to fostering excellent schools and protecting student and public interests. While Arizona law provides that initial charter terms are 15 years, the ASBCS conducts statutorily mandated five-year interval reviews of each school. During the school year, the ASBCS conducted 25 five-year interval reviews using a newly-developed interval review process (100 percent of eligible schools). Of those 25 schools, 11 were required to complete corrective action plans based on current performance and none were closed. Further study is necessary to see how effective the corrective action plans are at improving school performance and whether those plans lead to subsequent closure when appropriate. From January 2010 to September 2010, the ASBCS processed and considered the renewal applications of its first 53 charters eligible for renewal (100 percent of the charters eligible for renewal consideration). The review of these 53 charters constitutes a renewal review of 11 percent of the charter schools in the ASBCS portfolio (or 14 percent of the charters) during the school year compared to 30 percent of charter schools reviewed nationally. Eight-nine percent were renewed or received conditional renewal (47 of 53 schools). Of those 47 schools, 23 were renewed with specific performance management plans. This renewal rate is notably similar to the national average renewal rate of 87 percent during the school year. Including revocations and surrenders, 19 charter schools out of approximately 459 charter schools overseen by the ASBCS closed during the school year for an overall closure rate of four percent. This closure rate is similar to the average closure rate of authorizers nationally during the school year (six percent of schools closed). Prior to the renewal review described above, no charter schools overseen by the ASBCS had been reviewed for renewal. Recent interval reviews did not result in any school closures, but required 11 schools to submit corrective action plans. Time will tell whether schools improve or close as a result of the new interval review process (and associated corrective action plans). As low-performing schools appear more likely to close during a renewal review, Arizona should consider reducing the length of charter terms to increase charter school accountability. Commitment and Capacity A quality authorizer has sufficient resources and staff to oversee and foster excellent schools that meet identified needs. The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools has one of the largest charter school portfolios in the nation and they continue to grow. The scale of their charter school portfolio requires significant resources and staff to successfully manage the application process, ongoing oversight and monitoring, and the renewal process. Arizona s first charter schools opened in With 15- year charter terms, the ASBCS and the state as a whole is beginning to review for renewal a large number of charter schools. This increase will still represent a small percentage of the portfolio of ASBCS. However, the scale of their charter school portfolio will necessitate significant resources and staff to successfully manage the renewal process. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 17

18 Despite evident need, the ASBCS has significantly less resources and capacity than authorizers nationally. While they do report that they have a budget dedicated to charter school authorizing, they do not report that they rely on oversight fees deducted from charter school revenues to support their 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). Sixty-nine percent of charter school authorizers report oversight fees as a source of funding for authorizing work. Authorizing charter schools requires sufficient staff to successfully perform the range of duties encompassed in the five functional areas described above. The ASBCS reports that they have 71.1 schools for every full-time equivalent (FTE) employee assigned to authorizing work. This ratio is significantly greater than the national average of 5.6 schools per FTE. While the precise number of staff necessary to oversee such a large portfolio of schools is not known, 71 schools for every FTE places the ASBCS in the unfortunate position as the most understaffed charter school authorizer in the nation. The lack of staff is even more striking when one considers the sheer size of the state of Arizona and the geographic distribution of the charter schools the ASBCS oversees. The limits on staffing will also complicate the upcoming effort to proceed with charter renewal decision-making for large cohorts of schools that are expected in the next few years. Inadequate staffing is a significant obstacle to quality charter school authorizing. In both sources of funding and staffing, the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools lags behind the rest of the nation. Through its Fund for Authorizing Excellence, NACSA recently awarded the Arizona State Board of Charter Schools a grant for a comprehensive evaluation of their authorizing policies and practices. Their application to The Fund and upcoming evaluation indicate an effort to reflect on and improve their policies and practices. Recent changes in the outcomes of renewal processes also demonstrate significant progress. Below are two recommendations that should aid the ASBCS in their work and improve the quality of charter schools available to students in Arizona. Additional specific recommendations for improvement of authorizing activities will emerge from the upcoming evaluation. A. the staff and financial resources currently available to the ASBCS are inadequate to perform best practices in charter school authorizing. Increases in resources and support staff will be necessary if the ASBCS is to fully implement best practices. B. the length of charter terms in Arizona leads to a low rate of review of charter school performance. NACSA recommends five-year charter terms. As long as Arizona law allows, and the state s authorizers award, longer terms, authorizers should ensure that all schools receive a high-stakes review once every five years that is similar in its rigor and scope to the review that schools would undergo at the end of a charter term. 18 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

19 Support Services for Charter Schools Gap Analysis Among the critical elements necessary for quality charter schools to flourish within a state are the support services available to charter schools in their various stages of development. In most states, these services are provided by organizations 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. While CSOs tend to be the primary source of services for charter schools in a state, other organizations may provide support services as well. There are a variety of support services that charter schools need or want, such as advocacy, group purchasing, or recruiting. For the purposes of this analysis, however, five critical support services that best promote the growth of quality charter schools within a state have been identififed: Proactive advocacy for charter schools. Education of charter school board members. Support in the development and startup years of schools. Support during the renewal process for schools. Help in implementing performance management practices. When the first Arizona charter school opened in 1995, the Arizona Charter Schools Association (the Association) was established at the same time, as a voluntary organization. The vast majority of charter schools in the state were authorized without the support of a strong and effective support organization until the the Association reorganized with a paid, professional team in The repercussions of chartering without a focus on quality are still apparent. However, the Association, as well as the Arizona State Board of Charter Schools (ASBCS, see page 14 for the gap analysis on authorizer practices), have been working to enhance the emphasis on quality in existing schools, particularly over the past three years. In September 2010, the Association was awarded a federal grant to build a robust charter starter program. This focus on quality has also extended to assisting new school developers in opening quality schools. This section of the report outlines the support services available to charter schools in Arizona and identifies the gaps that must be filled to create an environment in which quality charter schools flourish and poor performing charter schools close. In this section of the report, each of the support services are outlined, and recommendations are provided on how the services can be strengthened. For this analysis, the web pages of the Arizona Charter Schools Association, the Arizona State Board of Charter Schools, and the Arizona Department of Education, were reviewed, and interviews with key staff from the Association were conducted. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 19

20 Proactive Advocacy for Charter Schools Proactive advocacy for charter schools is essential to ensure a policy environment that allows for charter schools to operate with the flexibility and accountability necessary to foster the growth of quality charter schools. As CSOs often work most closely with the charters in their states, they are best informed on what policies are necessary to promote high-performing charter schools. Through both grassroots advocacy and lobbying, CSOs influence what legislation gets passed in their state. In addition, proactive advocacy by CSOs includes taking public and firm stances on quality in a variety of ways, including by publishing quality standards and certifying schools according to specified criteria. Summary of Proactive Advocacy Activities for Arizona 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) + Association + Association + Association Encouraging grassroots advocacy + Association Publishing quality standards based on nationally accepted standards Association 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 public schools. The Association is constantly working toward ensuring that legislation is not biased against charters and helps to maintain charter autonomy. The Association is currently spearheading several lawsuits brought on by the parents of 20 school children who sued the state due to inequities in funding. The Court will now decide if the Arizona Constitution currently requires equitable funding for students. If successful, the legislature will be forced to re-examine Arizona s K-12 finance system. A. While the Association uses Voter Voice to manage grassroots advocacy, more could be done to maximize the power of this tool. The Association should continue to utilize Voter Voice to mobilize the public on important issues to charters by consistently using it to communicate important messages in a timely manner to charter supporters, issuing calls to action that make it easy for advocates to send targeted s to lawmakers, and tracking the performance of its messages to supporters and lawmakers. Education of Charter School Board Members The education of charter school board members on their roles and responsibilities is essential for the quality of every charter school. As the entity that holds the charter, the board is responsible for ensuring that all contractual agreements are upheld. Without proper education, charter boards may step beyond the boundaries of oversight into the day-to-day management of the school. Additionally, as volunteer board members who generally are not trained in education, board members need to be informed on local, state, and federal accountability requirements. Since its foundation, the Association has focused on proactive advocacy and has helped to pass laws to better support charter schools, such as addressing the funding disparity between charter schools and traditional 20 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona