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

21 Summary of Board Development Training Topics Available to Arizona Charter Schools Specific Support Services Presence and Quality of Service Service Provider(s) Ethics Association Charter school law and policy environment Charter board responsibilities: Budgeting/financial/operational efficiency (or fiduciary responsibilities) Association Association Academic oversight Association Public trust Association Public school employment laws Association Charter administrator responsibilities Authorizer responsibilities and relationships Association Association Performance management Association Strategic planning State, local, and federal accountability systems Association Association Data systems Association Assessments Association Board by-laws 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 The Association offers an array of board development opportunities at its annual conference; however, the topics tend to be covered only superficially. In addition, there are currently some limited opportunities for individualized school level board trainings. The Association has done some board trainings on performance management and data systems. The purpose of training board members on performance management is not so the board members can conduct the data collection and analysis themselves, but rather so they understand that performance management is a process. Board members should understand that they need to dedicate appropriate resources to this process (e.g. time for teachers and principals to be trained on system and data use and money for the purchase of systems, assessments, and professional development) and ensure adequate monitoring capacity. The Association is currently working to remedy deficits in its board development services by enhancing their current trainings and outsourcing with organizations that are familiar with non-profit/school boards, however, the following are recommendations for improving this area of support for Arizona charter schools. A. Continue to increase capacity for governance trainings that are available throughout the year and are tailored specifically to an individual school board s needs (either through offering these services directly or by partnering with other organizations). Board trainings should include board roles and responsibilities and financial and academic oversight. B. While the Association has done some board trainings on performance management and data systems, they should continue to enhance these services and make them available to more schools. In particular, the Association should focus on educating board members on the critical pieces of data collection (e.g., what data is needed to track progress toward each goal, where to find it, what systems are needed to store it, when does it become available), data analysis and interpretation (e.g., does the Association have the internal capacity or does it need to hire someone to analyze the data, what questions need to be asked, what is the data saying), and use of the data for decision making about school improvement. C. Additionally, it is recommended that the Association consider adding support to Arizona charter schools in the development of their strategic plans. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 21

22 Support in the Development and Startup Years of Charter Schools The active support of charter school groups in the development and startup phases of their schools is one way for CSOs to both help ensure that developing groups understand the complexity and serious nature of starting a school and monitor the quality of the applications for new schools. List of Support Services Available During the Development and Startup Years of Charter Schools Presence Specific Support Services and Quality of Service Service Provider(s) Application content review + Association Founding group training + Association Contract review + Association Grant and funding assistance Association Facilities support Association Access to cost saving products and services + Association Financial services Association Staff recruitment support 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 The Association was awarded a three-year federal grant in September of 2010 to build a charter starter program to recruit and prepare quality applicants to open charter schools. The Association offers a variety of critical supports for charter schools in the development (i.e., pre-application submission) and startup (i.e., postapproval, pre-opening) phases, including recruiting leaders and providing rigorous training and one-on-one mentoring during the application process, reviewing new school applications, and assigning mentors to applicants to ensure that each of the components emphasized by the ASBCS is adequately addressed (including a required Performance Management Plan). The Association currently provides Arizona charters with a list of available facilities; however, not much work is currently done to increase the number of facilities available to charters or the quality of current facilities. The support for founding groups in Arizona is robust and should help new schools get well established by opening day. However, there does not appear to be adequate expectations for new school developers to access Association support. A. The Association, key authorizers, and the state Department of Education should enhance their efforts to seek out such new school developers to ensure that all schools have the opportunity to benefit from an Association review. Doing so will help to ensure that every school opens with the strongest possibility for success. B. The Association should consider adding support for financial services and recruitment for new school developers. 22 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

23 Support During the Renewal Process for Schools As is the case with initial applications, ensuring that charters are renewed based on a comprehensive renewal application that provides authorizers with empirical evidence of the effectiveness of schools helps high-quality schools remain open and provides a defensible basis for closing low-performing schools. Renewal Support Available to Charter Schools Presence Specific Support Services and Quality of Service Service Provider(s) Renewal application review + Association School and/or student data analysis + Association Renewal contract review + 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 In order to support Arizona charter schools during the renewal process, the Association obtains a listing of the charters that are up for their 15-year renewal from the ASBCS. Those schools are encouraged to participate in a workshop that has a dual purpose: 1) to aid schools in their business plans and, 2) to facilitate schools with performance management. The schools then conduct a data analysis of their performance and develop a plan for renewal. The analysis of the school s performance as well as their business plan is then reviewed by the Association for quality and accuracy. For schools that need more assistance, more intensive support is available from the Association. Feedback from the ASBCS and the schools that have received assistance from the Association has been positive. With such robust support in this area, no recommendations for improvement of the Association s renewal support services are offered at this time. Help in Implementing Performance Management Practices Only by tracking and monitoring student progress through data can teachers and principals make truly informed decisions about needed programmatic improvements and individual student interventions. CSOs need to facilitate professional development and networking opportunities that teach educators how to build a data driven culture within their school buildings. Performance Management Support Available to Charter Schools Presence Specific Support Services and Quality of Service Service Provider(s) Facilitate professional development opportunities for founding groups and new and existing charter teachers and leaders on: Accountability systems + Association Data management systems + Association Interim assessments + Association Data-driven decision-making + 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 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 23

24 Over the summer and fall, the Association provides extensive trainings and services to their member schools. They have already trained over 100 of the 510 charter leaders and over 100 leaders from district schools on their state scorecard and the Arizona growth model. Performance management workshops and a data boot camp are available during which the Association provides training on both the Arizona growth model methodology and its effective use in school performance management. Data back from these data boot camps where leaders and teachers look at their individual student data shows that 40 percent of the schools increased student achievement by at least 10 points on the Arizona Growth Model. Individual facilitation is also available, as are additional trainings during the Association s annual conference. The focus of these trainings is primarily around the areas of academic achievement (status and growth) and post-secondary readiness. Goals are written to meet or exceed the state average. Alternative Education Campuses use the alternative state averages for their goal setting purposes. During the spring, the Association is focused on the renewal cohort, as renewal applications are due during the summer. In addition to offering extensive professional development opportunities around performance management, the Association is in the process of developing a data warehouse that will enable charter schools across the state to assimilate and evaluate their data more effectively. Fourteen schools are involved in the pilot, currently underway, and the data warehouse will be sustainable with 75 schools by As with the renewal support services, little to no gaps in the ideal supports for charters around performance management and the supports provided by the Association were found. Therefore, no recommendations for improvement in this area are being offered. 24 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

25 Public Education Data System Gap Analysis This section focuses on building a statewide assessment and data infrastructure that supports and meets the essential expectations of the BCSQ Project s nationally recommended A Framework for Academic Quality. 3 By enacting the policies recommended herein, Arizona will empower charter schools and authorizers to strengthen the quality of public charter schools in ways that presently are not possible. This section consists of the following parts: Essential Elements of a Robust State Longitudinal Data System: This section identifies gaps between current Arizona policy and the Data Quality Campaign s 10 Essential Elements of a Robust Longitudinal Data System. Essential State Actions to Ensure Effective Use of Education Data: This section identifies gaps between current Arizona policy and the Data Quality Campaign s 10 Actions that states must take to ensure effective use of data to increase student achievement. Student Growth Data System: This section explains the need for a sound statewide student growth data system, identifies limitations of Arizona s model, and recommends improvements to Arizona s system for assessing student growth. Essential Elements of a Robust State Longitudinal Data System This section sites the results from the Annual Survey Update and State Progress Report 4 by the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) to convey the degree to which Arizona meets the DQC s 10 Essential Elements of a robust state longitudinal education data system capable of providing timely, valid, and relevant data to the state s charter schools, authorizers, and other education stakeholders. A robust longitudinal data system is a cornerstone of state infrastructure for building and achieving quality statewide public education. The DQC was launched in 2005 to support state development of longitudinal data systems that provide policymakers and educators with information to help adjust policies and practices to improve student achievement. Since 2005, the DQC s annual survey has tracked state progress in implementing the 10 Essential Elements to ensure that policymakers and educators have the longitudinal data systems capable of providing timely, valid, and relevant data to inform decisions at all levels. Arizona has seven of the 10 Essential Elements in place; thus, it has many of the elements of a robust state longitudinal data system. 5 The three Essential Elements that Arizona still lacks are: Teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students. Student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned. Student-level college readiness test scores. Following is information on each of these missing Elements, with accompanying recommendations for Arizona. 3 See A Framework for Academic Quality: A Report from the National Consensus Panel on Charter School Academic Quality (June 2008), 4 The Essential Element and State Action summary descriptions in this report are taken directly from the DQC Annual Survey Update & State Progress Report, available at 5 The complete Essential Elements survey results for Arizona are available at Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 25

26 Teacher Identifier System with the Ability to Match Teachers to Students Many states collect data on teacher education and certification, but matching teachers to students by classroom and subject is critical to understanding the connection between teacher training and qualifications and student academic growth. Collecting these data is necessary to identify which students and which courses are being taught by teachers with different levels and types of preparation or certification, and which forms of teacher training and certification have the greatest impact on students academic growth in the classroom. Arizona should enact policy to establish a statewide teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students, including each of the following components of this Essential Element: a. The state can match records across teachers and students by course and/or subject in elementary school. b. The state can match records across teachers and students by course and/or subject in middle school. c. The state can match records across teachers and students by course and/or subject in high school. Student-level Transcript Information, Including Information on Courses Completed and Grades Earned Many states are encouraging students, particularly lowincome and minority students, to take rigorous courses in high school so they are better prepared for success in post-secondary education and the job market. Most states, however, do not collect course completion data, making it impossible to monitor the impact of these policies. To fill in the missing information, states should collect and monitor student-level transcript information from middle and high school, including courses taken and grades earned. Arizona should enact policy to collect and monitor student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned, including each of the following components of this Essential Element: a. The state collects and maintains student-level course completion data. b. A consistent statewide course number system is used with the collection of course completion information. c. The course completion data includes middle school courses taken for high school credit. d. The course completion data includes all summer school courses taken for high school credit. e. The course completion data includes dual enrollment courses taken from colleges and universities. Student-level College Readiness Test Scores To ensure that students transition successfully from high school to post-secondary education, it is important for states to collect and report student performance data on college admissions, placement, and readiness tests. Student performance on SAT, SAT II, ACT, Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) exams are important indicators of students college readiness. These data are important for charter schools and authorizers as for all public schools and education leaders to track. Arizona should enact policy to collect and report student-level college readiness data annually for all public schools, including each of the following components of this Essential Element: a. The state collects and permanently stores studentlevel AP exam results. b. The state collects and permanently stores studentlevel SAT exam results. c. The state collects and permanently stores studentlevel ACT exam results. 26 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

27 Essential State Actions to Ensure Effective Use of Education Data The DQC has identified 10 Actions that states must take to ensure effective use of education data the fundamental steps states must take to change the culture around how data are used to inform decisions and policies to improve student achievement. These State Actions are important not just for charter schools and authorizers, but also for the public education system as a whole. According to the DQC s Annual Survey Update and State Progress Report, Arizona has achieved only one of the 10 State Actions. 6 Arizona has not achieved the following State Actions: Link state data systems across the P-20/workforce spectrum. Create stable, sustained support for robust state longitudinal data systems. Build state data repositories that integrate student, staff, financial and facility data. Create progress reports using individual student data to improve student performance. Create reports using longitudinal statistics to guide system-wide improvement efforts. Develop a P-20/workforce research agenda. Promote educator professional development and credentialing. Promote strategies to raise awareness of available data. Note: It is unknown at this time whether Arizona has achieved the DQC State Action to implement systems to provide timely access to information. The DQC did not evaluate this Action last year due to a flaw in the survey. Although the DQC did not evaluate this Action in the survey, it is included below for Arizona policymakers awareness and consideration. Link State Data Systems Across the P-20/Workforce Spectrum Academic data and performance histories alone cannot provide a complete picture of the challenges students face and the programs and services they take part in outside the classroom that affect student achievement. By linking data systems across the P-20/workforce spectrum, states will be able to evaluate whether: a) students, schools, and districts are meeting college and career readiness expectations; b) students are receiving services for which they are eligible; and c) students are receiving effective interventions. Arizona should enact policy to implement the following component of this State Action: a. Student-level K-12 records can be matched with the records of the same students in the state s workforce data system(s). Create Stable, Sustained Support for Robust State Longitudinal Data Systems Longitudinal data systems are not one-time investments but critical state infrastructure that requires maintenance and enhancements over time to meet new stakeholder demands. A key factor in ensuring that state longitudinal data systems remain viable over time is stakeholder use and demand for these systems. States can help to foster this sustainability through codifying a P-20 state longitudinal data system, as well as by providing maintenance and expansion funding. The rest of this section discusses the specific components that Arizona still lacks for each of the above State Actions. 6 The complete State Actions survey results for Arizona are available at: Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 27

28 Arizona should enact policy to implement the following components of this State Action: a. A state P-20 longitudinal data system is mandated in state policy. b. A state P-20 longitudinal data system is mandated by executive order or legislation. c. State P-20 longitudinal data systems receive state funding for ongoing maintenance. d. State P-20 longitudinal data systems receive state funding for system expansion. Implement Systems to Provide All Stakeholders with Timely Access to the Information They Need While Protecting Student Privacy 7 Data are useful only if people are able to access, understand and use them. Without access to the right information, stakeholders are forced to make decisions based on anecdote, experience, or instinct. For information to be useful, it must be timely, readily available, and easy to understand. Different stakeholders need, and are entitled to, access to different types of information. For example, teachers and school administrators need access to individual longitudinal information on the students in their charge. Parents need information on their own children. Other users, such as charter school authorizers, members of the general public, or parents seeking information on the performance of their children s schools, need access to aggregate statistics based on longitudinal data that do not reveal information on individual students. By granting access to different types of users based on the kinds of information to which they are entitled, state data systems can provide access to information while fully protecting student privacy. A. Arizona policy leaders should consider the extent to which their state education data systems enable timely access to information for all stakeholders. Create Progress Reports with Individual Student Data to Improve Student Performance Creating progress reports using student-level longitudinal data enriches the information that is available to parents and teachers by providing information on a student s academic history, including courses taken, grades received, and scores on formative and statewide assessments. Arizona should enact policies to implement the following components of this State Action: a. State produces at least two reports using studentlevel data. b. State produces diagnostic report(s). c. State produces early warning indicator report(s). d. State produces readiness report(s). e. State produces predictive report(s). f. Teachers are provided access to at least two reports. g. Counselors are provided access to at least two reports. h. Principals are provided access to at least two reports. i. District staff members are provided access to at least two reports. j. Select SEA staff members are provided access to at least two reports. k. Post-secondary staff members are provided access to at least two reports. l. Parents and students are provided access to at least two reports. 7 The DQC did not issue an analysis on Action 5 in its survey because the survey instrument failed to collect adequate information. The DQC will provide this information in its analysis. Action 5 is nevertheless included here for Arizona policymakers awareness and consideration. 28 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

29 Create Reports Using Longitudinal Statistics to Guide System-wide Improvement Efforts All stakeholders need information on school, district, and state performance to gauge progress and make decisions to support continuous improvement at all education levels. Reports that include longitudinal statistics provide valuable information about the effectiveness of schools, programs, policies, and interventions for students who start out at different academic levels. Arizona should enact policy to implement the following components of this State Action: a. State produces at least two reports using aggregatelevel data. b. State produces feedback report(s). c. State produces performance report(s). d. State produces graduation or completion report(s). e. State produces report(s) using relational analysis. f. At least two reports using aggregate data are posted on the state education agency s website. Arizona should enact policies to implement the following components of this State Action: a. State has developed a P-20 workforce agenda in conjunction with other organizations. b. State has developed a P-20 workforce agenda in conjunction with an inter-agency data governance committee. c. State has developed a P-20 workforce agenda in conjunction with universities. d. State has developed a P-20 workforce agenda in conjunction with outside researchers. e. State has developed a P-20 workforce agenda in conjunction with intermediaries. Promote Educator Professional Development and Credentialing To ensure that data are used to inform teaching in the classroom and to promote continuous improvement at the school and district levels, educators must be trained in how to access, analyze, and interpret the data. States can develop the capacity of educators to use data by implementing appropriate policies for both pre-service and in-service staff. Develop a P-20/Workforce Research Agenda To make full use of the longitudinal data states are collecting, states need access to individuals with high-level analytical skills and research training to mine the data and answer the multitude of policy and evaluation questions. Through the formation of strategic partnerships with universities and other organizations that conduct educational research or serve as advocacy organizations, states will be provided with information and analysis that could inform decision-making and improve student and system performance. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 29

30 Arizona should enact policies to implement the following components of this State Action: a. State s credentialing or licensure processes require teachers to demonstrate adequate ability to interpret and use student-level and aggregate-level data. b. State s credentialing or licensure processes require principals to demonstrate adequate ability to interpret and use student-level and aggregate-level data. c. State s credentialing or licensure processes require superintendents to demonstrate adequate ability to interpret and use student-level and aggregate-level data. d. State works with teacher preparation or leadership programs to offer instruction on how to use studentlevel or aggregate-level data to educators (teachers, principals, or superintendents). e. State provides support to post-secondary institutions to offer instruction to teachers, principals, and superintendents on how to use student-level data. f. State automatically shares data with teacher preparation program. g. State shares aggregate-level information about how teachers perform as measured through their students performance data and course data. Promote Strategies to Raise Awareness of Available Data In addition to educators, other stakeholders including students, parents, charter authorizers, policymakers, and community members need to know what data are available and be able to access, interpret, and use data effectively. Few stakeholders have had access to longitudinal education data; consequently, few will automatically know how to use the information effectively. Arizona should enact policies to implement the following components of this State Action: a. Stakeholders are informed of the type of data that are being collected / reports generated. b. Parents and students are offered data training. Student Growth Data System Central to data quality and a well-designed state assessment system is the ability of schools, authorizers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to track student academic growth over time, using student-level data. Measuring student academic growth is an essential part of the BCSQ Project s nationally recommended A Framework for Academic Quality. 8 There are various types of growth measures and methodologies not all equally rigorous or informative and states are increasingly adopting assessment systems that include some type of growth model as a key means to reveal and understand student academic progress over time. 9 Rigorously measuring student academic growth is necessary for well-informed school evaluation, because it reveals what schools are accomplishing or not accomplishing with their students over time. In so doing, it often provides a dramatically different picture of school performance than a purely statusbased assessment system would offer. In many ways, measuring academic growth lifts the shades on educational performance. It may reveal, for example, that a school that would be judged as low-performing on proficiency levels alone is actually accelerating student learning far faster than any other school in 8 See A Framework for Academic Quality: A Report from the National Consensus Panel on Charter School Academic Quality (June 2008), 9 The U.S. Department of Education is encouraging and approving more states each year to implement high-quality growth models to improve their state accountability systems under No Child Left Behind. For a concise, practical guide to growth models and explanation of why rigorously measuring student academic growth is critical to school evaluation, see NACSA Issue Brief No. 19, Leave No Charter Behind: An Authorizer s Guide to the Use of Student Growth Data (June 2009), 30 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

31 the district. Conversely, it can show that a school consistently praised as high-performing is simply maintaining students at the same level, rather than challenging and helping them achieve more each year. 10 Sound growth measures and data are essential for school evaluation, and especially for the evidence needed to support high-stakes charter decisions. Measuring student academic growth requires appropriate assessments and methodologically sound data analysis. States should provide systems for measuring student growth in all of their public schools according to a sound model. To select (or develop) and implement an assessment system that will produce quality student growth data, it is important for state education policy leaders to have a basic understanding of common methods of growth analysis and their respective advantages, limitations, and appropriate (or inappropriate) uses. 11 Once a state has selected or developed a strong system for assessing individual student growth, the state must then determine how to weigh growth versus school-status measures in its assessment framework. The BCSQ Project recommends giving greater weight to growth measures because of the depth and quality of performance insight they provide. For example, the State of Colorado has established a ratio of 75/25 for weighting growth over status measures in its accreditation system. 12 Arizona s assessment system currently uses a regression model to assess student growth. This model compares students actual academic growth (the difference between the current year s state test scores and the previous year s test scores) to their expected growth (determined by a regression analysis, based on parameters set in 2005). Arizona s school effectiveness ratings are then based on an average of the difference between students actual and expected growth. 13 Schools with students who largely meet or exceed their expected gains on the state math and reading assessments obtain higher state ratings than schools whose students do not meet their expected gains. Arizona s student growth model has a number of drawbacks, the most important being its limited utility in the classroom. 11 School leaders and teachers, much less parents, likely do not have a strong understanding of the measure, thus making it difficult to interpret the results and use them to guide effective changes in practice. In addition, because the growth results obtained through this method are highly correlated with prior achievement and demographic factors, it is also difficult to assess whether students growth (or lack thereof) is primarily due to the school s efforts or outside factors. The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools, the primary authorizer in the state, has adopted the growth percentile methodology 14 for use in its renewal decision-making. The growth percentile methodology is a normative measure of growth that enable students, parents, teachers, and administrators to see how much students have grown throughout the course of a year, compared to their academic peers (students in the same grade with the same prior year scores). 10 Adapted from Lin, M., It Depends on the Meaning of Bad : The Evidence Base Needed for School Closure, in Accountability in Action: A Comprehensive Guide to School Closure (NACSA, 2010). 11 For example, improvement in a school s school-wide achievement level from one year to the next is not a measure of student academic growth. It is simply a status improvement which could easily occur due to changes in the student population, rather than indicating academic growth for students who have stayed in the school continuously. See Ernst, J. and Wenning, R., NACSA Issue Brief No. 19, Leave No Charter Behind: An Authorizer s Guide to the Use of Growth Data, for discussion of growth-model options: 12 See for information on the Colorado Growth Model, which numerous other states have chosen to adopt, as it is adaptable to any state s existing assessment system (provided that the system is built upon annual assessments). 13 See Arizona s School Accountability System: 2009 Technical Manual, available at 14 See Betebenner, D., Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth (2008), available at Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 31

32 The growth percentile results for a student are easily understood as they are similar to what pediatricians present to parents when reporting the progress of their children s height and weight over time. For example, a student whose growth percentile in math is 80 can be said to have grown faster than 80 percent of students with similar scores from last year. Similarly, schools with higher median growth percentiles are credited with helping students progress farther than schools with lower median growth percentiles. The growth percentile methodology was first adopted by Colorado for use in school accountability in 2008, and has since been adopted in five other states. While Arizona s largest authorizer uses a high-quality measure, it would be beneficial to the other charter schools, as well as all public schools, if the state were to adopt this measure into their accountability system as well. Due to limitations in its current statewide method of assessing student growth, Arizona should consider the growth percentile methodology to assess both student progress and school effectiveness for all public schools. 32 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

33 Next Steps While all of the recommendations in this report will elevate the quality of Arizona charter schools, the following are suggested priorities for each of the four major sections of this report. Align Authorizer Practices with NACSA Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing 15 : The staff and financial resources available to the ASBCS currently 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. In addition, 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. Enhance the Education of Charter School Board Members: As the entity that holds the charter, the board is responsible for ensuring that all contractual agreements are upheld. As a first step, the Association should consider expanding their support services and training opportunities to charter school board members. Continued Support in the Development and Startup Years of Charter Schools: Though the current levels of support for founding groups in Arizona is robust, the Association should enhance and expand its efforts in aiding new and existing charters in finding facilities that are more cost-efficient and appropriate for student learning. Adopt a More Rigorous Growth Measure to Assess both Student Progress and School Effectiveness: Over the next few years, the state should continue to build and fund the state s public education data system. A fully functional data system will provide important information to all public education stakeholders. As a first step, lawmakers should pass legislation in 2011 that mandates a statewide longitudinal data system (P-20) and updates the student growth measure to be more rigorous and transparent to parents, community members, school leaders and teachers. 15 NACSA Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing (2010). > Authorizer Quality. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 33

34 Appendix A: Analysis of Arizona s Charter School Law Against the 20 Essential Components of the Model Public Charter School Law Ranking: 11 out of 40 Score: 117 points out of 208 Arizona s charter law was passed in In , there are 510 charter schools operating, including 498 schools authorized by the Arizona ASBCS for Charter Schools (ASBCS) 16 ; and 6 charter schools authorized by local school boards. This year, Arizona charter schools are serving an estimated 113,000 students. The State Board of Education has a self-imposed moratorium on charter school authorizing. Arizona has long been known for having an environment relatively supportive of charter growth. It is cap-free, open to new startups, public school conversions, and virtual schools, and generally supportive of autonomy. Recently enacted policies by the ASBCS, as well as various changes to statute, have propelled the state forward on some aspects of the four quality control components, which helped ensure its place in the Top 12 of the Model Charter School Law. However, potential areas for improvement remain, including providing adequate authorizer funding, beefing up performance contracting requirements, and providing equitable access to capital funding and facilities. Essential Components of Strong Public Charter School Law Current State Policies vs. Model Components (Yes/Some/No) Rating Weight Score 1) No Caps, whereby: A. No limits are placed on the number of public charter schools or students (and no geographic limits). Some 1B. If caps exist, adequate room for growth. Yes Current Component Description: Arizona law does not place any caps on the overall number of public charter schools or students in the states. However, state law limits the number of charter schools that a university, community college district, or group of community college districts may each approve: no more than two charter school applications for fiscal year , no more than three applications for fiscal year 2012, and no more than four applications for fiscal year ) A Variety of Public Charter Schools Allowed, including: A. New startups. Yes 2B. Public school conversions. Yes 2C. Virtual schools. Yes Current Component Description: Arizona law allows new starts, public school conversions, and virtual schools. 3) Multiple Authorizers Available, including: A. Two viable authorizing options for each applicant with direct application allowed to each authorizing option. Some Current Component Description: Arizona law allows charter applicants to apply to either local school boards (for schools only within their geographic boundaries), the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (ASBCS), or the state board of education. However, the State Board of Education has a self-imposed moratorium on charter authorizing, so ASBCS currently oversees all schools approved by both state boards. In addition, only five local school boards are authorizing schools. Thus, there is only one viable authorizing option for most applicants. As of 2010, a university, community college district, or group of community college districts may each approve no more than two charter school applications for fiscal year , no more than three applications for fiscal year 2012, and no more than four applications for fiscal year As of December 16, 2010, the ASBCS reports that they oversee 378 active charters (498 campuses). Twenty-two of those charters (41 schools) are still held by the Arizona State Board of Education. However, those 22 charters are in the process of being transferred to the ASBCS. 34 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

35 Essential Components of Strong Public Charter School Law Current State Policies vs. Model Components (Yes/Some/No) Rating Weight Score 4) Authorizer & Overall Program Accountability System Required, including: A. At least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state. 4B Application process for other eligible authorizing entities. 4C. Authorizer submission of annual report, which summarizes the agency s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio. No No Some 4D. A regular review process by authorizer oversight body. Some 4E. Authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools. Some 4F. Periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes. No Current Component Description: Arizona law requires the ASBCS, as a state agency, to annually submit a report of its authorizing activities, including things like the number of applications reviewed and approved, number of site visits conducted, number of audits reviewed, number of corrective action plans required, and number of charters revoked. However, Arizona law does not require that all authorizers submit an annual report of their work, including the performance of their school portfolio. Arizona law does not provide for a formal review process by an authorizer oversight body. Instead, the ASBCS is required to oversee the schools it approves, as well as recommend any needed charter school legislation. Members of the ASBCS include the elected state superintendent of public instruction or designee, 10 members appointed by the governor, and three elected legislators who serve as advisory members. This group must annually report to the legislature for funding its operations, and agency goals and accountability systems for charter schools must be included in that report. Additionally, the Arizona law creating the ASBCS is scheduled to sunset every 10 years unless continued. Arizona law provides that the State Board of Education has some oversight over local school board authorizers whereby they can remove the ability of any local school board authorizer to approve additional schools (and can transfer the sponsorship of any existing schools) if it finds a local school board authorizer is out of compliance with the uniform system of financial records. 5) Adequate Authorizer Funding, including: A. Adequate funding from authorizing fees (or other sources). No 5B. Guaranteed funding from authorizing fees (or from sources not subject to annual legislative appropriations). No 5C. Requirement to publicly report detailed authorizer expenditures. No 5D. Separate contract for any services purchased from an authorizer by a school. No 5E. Prohibition on authorizers requiring schools to purchase services from them. Yes Current Component Description: The ASBCS receives a small annual appropriation to cover the expenses of the board, staffing, and external contracts for various oversight functions. The ASBCS is also allowed to charge a processing fee to any charter school that amends its contract to participate in the Arizona Online Instruction program. Some oversight functions are also completed by state Department of Education staff or other state employees. Currently, there are seven employees dedicated to processing applications for new charter schools and providing oversight for nearly 500 schools. Arizona law provides that authorizers, as public entities, are held accountable for reporting their expenditures, but there are no requirements to specifically report expenditures on authorizing activities. Arizona law provides that authorizers may not charge any fees to schools they sponsor unless they have provided services for the school, and any such fees must represent full value of those services. On request, the value of such services must be demonstrated to the state Department of Education. There is nothing in statute requiring a separate contract for any such services purchased. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 35

36 Essential Components of Strong Public Charter School Law Current State Policies vs. Model Components (Yes/Some/No) Rating Weight Score 6) Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decision-making Processes, including: A. Application elements for all schools. Yes 6B. Additional application elements specific to conversion schools. No 6C. Additional application elements specific to virtual schools. Yes 6D. Additional application elements specific when using educational service providers. Some 6E. Additional application elements specific to replications. Some 6F. Authorizer-issued request for proposals (including application requirements and approval criteria). Some 6G. Thorough evaluation of each application including an in-person interview and a public meeting. Some 6H. All charter approval or denial decisions made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for denials in writing. Yes Current Component Description: Arizona law provides a small list of application requirements applicable to all charter schools, and the state regulations of both state boards offer added detail for those applying to their respective boards (although the wording of such requirements is different for the two state board authorizers). The ASBCS also has policies that require information regarding proposed educational service provider usage in their application and policies for a replication application and review process (which currently apply to all schools approved by the two state boards, but not local authorizers). A separate statute includes application requirements for any on-line schools in the state (both charter and non-charter). Arizona law has general language regarding approval criteria (i.e., if application meets the criteria and if a sponsor has determined applicant is sufficiently qualified to operate a charter school). In addition, ASBCS regulations detail its approval criteria and processes and define sufficiently qualified. However, an in-person interview is not specifically required, nor are these detailed application processes required for local school board authorizers. Arizona law requires authorizers to make decisions in public meetings. For those applications denied, it requires authorizers to notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for the rejection and of suggestions for improving the application. 7) Performance-Based Charter Contracts Required, with such contracts: A. Being created as a separate document from the application and executed by the governing board of the charter school and the authorizer. Some 7B. Defining the roles, powers, and responsibilities for the school and its authorizer. Some 7C. Defining academic and operational performance expectations by which the school will be judged, based on a performance framework that includes measures and metrics for, at a minimum, student academic proficiency and growth, achievement gaps, attendance, recurrent enrollment, post-secondary readiness (high schools), financial performance, and board stewardship (including compliance). 7D. Providing an initial term of five operating years (or a longer term with periodic high-stakes reviews. No No 7E. Including requirements addressing the unique environments of virtual schools, if applicable. No Current Component Description: Arizona law requires the signing of a contract by the applicant (or a person with signatory authority for the applicant) for those approved by the State Board of Education and requires the signing of a contract by the charter holder or authorized representative for those approved by ASBCS (but does not have a similar requirement for district-approved charter applications). Arizona law requires all such contracts to include elements from the application regarding the roles and responsibilities of charter schools, but does not require the inclusion of requirements regarding the role of the authorizers nor are there detailed performance expectations against which schools are to be judged. Recently enacted renewal requirement policies for those approved or currently overseen by the ASBCS now include more detailed performance contracts (but these policies do not apply to local school board authorizers, nor are they codified in Arizona law or the Arizona Administrative Code). Arizona law provides that the initial charter term is 15 years, but requires authorizers to review charters at five-year intervals, although there is nothing in statute or regulation which makes such reviews high-stakes. 36 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

37 Essential Components of Strong Public Charter School Law Current State Policies vs. Model Components (Yes/Some/No) Rating Weight Score 8) Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes, including: A. The collection and analysis of student outcome data at least annually by authorizers (consistent with performance framework outlined in the contract). 8B. Financial accountability for charter schools (e.g., Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, independent annual audit reported to authorizer). Some Yes 8C. Authorizer authority to conduct or require oversight activities. Yes 8D. Annual school performance reports which are made public. No 8E. Authorizer notification to their schools of perceived problems, with opportunities to remedy such problems. 8F. Authorizer authority to take appropriate corrective actions or exercise sanctions short of revocation. Yes Yes Current Component Description: State law requires academic performance data to be collected annually by each authorizer (although there is nothing requiring authorizers to analyze this data against any performance framework in charter contracts). Also, the state s accountability requirements for all public schools include an annual report card of each charter school developed by the state Department of Education. State law also requires charter schools to have an annual financial audit. Arizona law requires charter schools to have an annual financial audit. The law does not require authorizers to produce and publish annual school performance reports aligned with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract. However, it requires charter schools to participate in the state s accountability system, which includes annual state-produced school report cards, which are public. While such report cards detail academic performance on the state assessments, they do not include all the types of measures (including financial performance, compliance, and school-specific measures) that an authorizer s performance report would include as outlined in the model law. Arizona law states that the authorizers have oversight and administrative responsibility for the schools they authorize. It also requires authorizers to notify schools of concerns and authorizers to require a corrective action plan and/or disciplinary actions (i.e., withholding up to 10% of the charter s monthly state aide), enter into a consent agreement regarding the resolution of the noncompliance, and/or begin revocation. 9) Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions, including: A. Authorizer must issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year. No 9B. Schools seeking renewal must apply for it. Yes 9C. Authorizers must issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans. Some 9D. Clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal/revocation. Some 9E. Authorizers must 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). 9F. Authorizer authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues. 9G. Authorizers must provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or nonrenewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond. 9H. Authorizers must provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions (e.g., public hearing, submission of evidence). 9I. All charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing. 9J. Authorizers must have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition. Some No Yes Yes Yes Some Current Component Description: Per Arizona law, at the conclusion of their 14th year schools must apply for a renewal of their charter. Authorizers are not required to issue performance reports or application requirements and renewal criteria, but recently enacted ASBCS policies include detailed renewal application requirements for schools approved by them (including the ability to offer supplementary performance information and future plans). Arizona law contains general language regarding renewal decisions for all charter schools, whereby an authorizer may deny the request for renewal if, in its judgment, the charter school has failed to complete the obligations of the contract or has failed to comply with the law. ASBCS regulations note that renewals may be granted to schools based on assessment results, financial audit reports, enrollment reports, and complaint records. Statute requires 20-year renewal intervals, with no ability to vary those terms. Arizona law requires timely notification of potential revocation, including written reasons, with any such revocations occurring at a public hearing. Neither statutes nor regulations detail school closure protocols (although revocation orders and surrender agreements issued by the ASBCS include such information for schools supervised by that board). Overall, many of the pieces within this section have recently been implemented for schools supervised by ASBCS, but these policies are not required by all authorizers, nor are they yet codified in Arizona law or Arizona Administrative Code. Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 37

38 Essential Components of Strong Public Charter School Law Current State Policies vs. Model Components (Yes/Some/No) Rating Weight Score 10) Educational Service Providers Allowed, including: A. All types of educational service providers to operate all or parts of charter schools. Some 10B. The charter application requires 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. 10C. A performance contract is required 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. 10D. The material terms of the ESP performance contract must be approved by the authorizer prior to charter approval. 10E. School governing boards operating as entities completely independent of any educational service provider (e.g., must retain independent oversight authority of their charter schools, and cannot give away their authority via contract). 10F. Existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities are required to be disclosed and explained in the charter application. Some Some Some No No Current Component Description: Arizona law is silent regarding any educational service provider arrangements, with no explicit provisions regarding performance data, contracts, authorizer approval, or conflict of interests. Thus, there is nothing in law that prevents schools from contracting with educational service providers to operate a school nor prevents some educational service providers from directly applying to run a charter school. ASBCS policies require those applying to this board to offer details regarding any ESP in their application, including: services to be provided; the ESP s roles and responsibilities in relation to the applicant, and the school s management and governing board; performance expectations for the ESP; background information on the ESP including relevant performance data for other schools that the ESP has managed; and the actual service agreement as executed between the applicant and the ESP (or a template version if not yet executed). 11) fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools, with Independent Public Charter School Boards, including: A. Fiscally and legally autonomous schools (e.g., schools have authority to receive and disburse funds, enter into contracts, and sue and be sued in their own names). 11B. Legally autonomous schools (e.g., schools have clear statutory authority to enter into contracts and leases, sue and be sued in their own names, and acquire real property). Yes Yes 11C. School governing boards created specifically to govern their charter schools. Some Current Component Description: Arizona law provides that all charter schools are fiscally and legally autonomous schools under the control of a charter holder. That charter holder may be a for-profit or non-profit entity (or even just a single individual), and may operate one or more schools under their charter, with such schools having boards with varying levels of authority over the school. 12) Clear Student Recruitment, Enrollment and Lottery Procedures, including: A. Open enrollment to any student in the state. Yes 12B. Lottery requirements. Yes 12C. Required enrollment preferences for previously enrolled students within conversions, prior year students within chartered schools, siblings of enrolled students enrolled at a charter school. 12D. Optional enrollment preference for children of a school s founders, governing board members, and full-time employees, not exceeding 10% of the school s total student population. Yes Some Current Component Description: Arizona law requires charter schools to be open to all students in the state. Arizona law requires charter schools to use equitable selection processes such as a lottery if demand exceeds capacity. Arizona law requires charter schools to give enrollment preferences to pupils returning to the school and to siblings of such students. In addition, it requires charter schools sponsored by local school boards to give enrollment preferences to eligible pupils who reside within the boundaries of the district. Arizona law allows charter schools to give preference to pupils who attended another charter school held by the same charter holder and to children of employees of the school, employees of the charter holder, governing board, or directors, officers, partners, or board members of the charter holder (but there is no limit on the percentages of such students which may significantly limit the open enrollment aspect of a school). 38 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

39 Essential Components of Strong Public Charter School Law Current State Policies vs. Model Components (Yes/Some/No) Rating Weight Score 13) Automatic Exemptions from Most State and District Laws and Regulations, including: A. Exemptions from all laws, except those covering health, safety, civil rights, student accountability, employee criminal history checks, open meetings, freedom of information, and generally accepted accounting principles. Yes 13B. Exemption from state teacher certification requirements. Yes Current Component Description: Except as provided in Arizona s charter school law (for things like health, safety, and academic accountability), and as provided in a charter school s charter contract, Arizona law provides that a charter school is automatically exempt from statutes and rules relating to traditional public schools, governing boards, and school districts. Arizona law provides that teachers within charter schools do not need to meet state certification requirements, but employee qualifications must be specified in the charter application and resumes for all employees must be maintained by the school and made available upon request by parents or others (including information on educational and teaching backgrounds and experience in a particular academic content subject area). 14) Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption, whereby: A. Charter schools authorized by non-local board authorizers are exempt from participation in any outside collective bargaining agreements. 14B. Charter schools authorized by local boards are exempt from participation in any district collective bargaining agreements. Yes Yes Current Component Description: Arizona law provides that all charter schools (no matter their authorizer) are their own legal entity and thus do not have to abide by any outside agreements. 15) multi-school Charter Contracts and/or Multi-Charter Contract Boards Allowed, whereby an independent public charter school board may: A Oversee multiple schools linked under a single contract with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school. 15B. Hold multiple charter contracts with independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school. Some Some Current Component Description: Arizona regulatory provisions regarding these arrangements require details regarding multi-site locations to be identified in the charter application. However, there is nothing in statute or regulation ensuring independent fiscal and academic accountability for each school. 16) Extra-Curricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access, whereby: A. Laws or regulations explicitly state that charter school students and employees are eligible to participate in all interscholastic leagues, competitions, awards, scholarships, and recognition programs available to non-charter public school students and employees. 16B. Laws or regulations explicitly allow charter school students in schools not providing extracurricular and interscholastic activities to have access to those activities at non-charter public schools for a fee by a mutual agreement. No No Current Component Description: Arizona law is silent about charter eligibility and access. Although open enrollment charter schools are LEAs and thus have all the rights and responsibilities associated with district LEAs, silence on these provisions results in a level of uncertainty. 17) Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities, including: A. Clarity regarding which entity is the local education agency (LEA) responsible for providing special education services. 17B. Clarity regarding funding for low-incident, high-cost services for charter schools (in the same amount and/or in a manner similar to other LEAs). Yes No Current Component Description: Arizona law provides that each charter school in the state is its own LEA and thus responsible for the special education needs of their enrolled students. However, Arizona law does not provide clarity regarding funding for low-incident, high cost services for charter schools (in the same amount and/or in a manner similar to other LEAs). Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 39

40 Essential Components of Strong Public Charter School Law 18) Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding, including: Current State Policies vs. Model Components (Yes/Some/No) Rating Weight Score A. Equitable operational funding statutorily driven. Some 18B. Equal access to all applicable categorical federal and state funding, and clear guidance on the pass-through of such funds. Yes 18C. Funding for transportation similar to school districts. No Current Component Description: Arizona law calculates a base support level for each charter school and these funds flow directly to charter schools (for those approved by the ASBCS). For those approved by a local district board, it flows through that district. For charter schools authorizers by local school boards, transportation may be provided by the district. For other charter schools, they do not receive state transportation aid (nor are they required to provide transportation). In a recent national study of charter school funding (Charter School Funding: Inequity Persists, 2010), Arizona charter schools were receiving on average $7,597 per pupil, while traditional public schools would have received $9,576 for those students. As a result, the state s charter schools were receiving $1,979 per pupil - or 20.7% - less than what the traditional public schools would have received for those students. This figure includes all sources of funding, and analysis reveals some continued significant inequities for both operational and capital funding (see component #19 for information on capital issues). 19) Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities, including: A. A per-pupil facilities allowance which annually reflects actual average district capital costs. Some 19B. A state grant program for charter school facilities. No 19C. A state loan program for charter school facilities. No 19D. Equal access to tax-exempt bonding authorities or allow charter schools to have their own bonding authority. Some 19E. A mechanism to provide credit enhancement for public charter school facilities. No 19F. Equal access to existing state facilities programs available to non-charter public schools. No 19G. Right of first refusal to purchase or lease at or below fair market value a closed, unused, or underused public school facility or property. 19H. Prohibition of facility-related requirements stricter than those applied to traditional public schools. No Yes Current Component Description: Arizona law provides charter schools with a per pupil allocation called additional assistance (with those funds being used for facility construction as well as other operational needs). Statute provides that this amount is $1,445 per K-8 pupil and $1,684 per high school pupil. There is no provision, however, for this amount to be adjusted to reflect average facility funding received by traditional public schools (or a construction price index). Arizona law allows non-profit charter schools to apply for bond financing from Industrial Development Authorities. Arizona law requires the state Department of Education, in conjunction with the state department of administration, to compile and publish an annual list of vacant and unused buildings (or portions of buildings) owned by the state or school districts that may be suitable for the operation of a charter school. However, nothing requires the owner to offer the right of first refusal to charter schools (nor sale or lease to such schools). Arizona law classifies charter schools as public schools for the purposes of assessments of zoning fees, site plan fees, and development fees, and prevents any political subdivision of the state from enacting or interpreting any law, rule, or ordinance in a manner that conflicts with that designation. In a recent national study of charter school funding (Charter School Funding: Inequity Persists, 2010), Arizona charter schools were receiving on average $7,597 per pupil, while traditional public schools would have received $9,576 for those students. As a result, the state s charter schools were receiving $1,979 per pupil - or 20.7% - less than what the traditional public schools would have received for those students. This figure includes all sources of funding, and analysis reveals some continued significant inequities for both operational and capital funding (see component #18 for information on operational issues). 20) Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems, whereby: A. Charter schools have access to relevant state retirement systems available to other public schools. Yes 20B. Charter schools have the option to participate (i.e., not required). Yes Current Component Description: Arizona law provides that charter schools are eligible (but not required) to participate in the Arizona state retirement system. In addition, charter schools have the option to participate in the state health and accident insurance coverage program. 40 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

41 Notes Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 41

42 Notes 42 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona

43 Building Charter School Quality in Arizona 43

44 Building Charter School Quality