Charter School Subcommittee STATE BO ARD O F EDUC ATIO N JULY 17, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Charter School Subcommittee STATE BO ARD O F EDUC ATIO N JULY 17, 2019

Recap of PC 219

Changes to the Charter Law Pub lic Cha pte r 219 o f the 111 th Ge ne ra l Asse mb ly ma de the fo llo wing ma jo r c ha ng e s to T e nne sse e Co de Anno ta te d, T itle 49, Cha pte r 13:  Cre a tio n o f the T e nne sse e Pub lic Cha rte r Sc ho o l Co mmissio n; a nd  Gra nting the Sta te Bo a rd the a utho rity to e va lua te a utho rize r q ua lity. Give n the se c ha ng e s, se ve ra l o f the Sta te Bo a rd’ s c ha rte r sc ho o l re spo nsib ilitie s will b e turne d o ve r to the Co mmissio n in 2021, inc luding :  Se rving a s a n a ppe lla te a utho rize r; a nd  Se rving a s the L E A fo r the Sta te Bo a rd’ s c urre ntly o pe ra ting c ha rte r sc ho o ls.

Priority Timeline  By De c e mb e r 2019 – Appo int a ll Co mmissio n me mb e rs a nd ho ld o rg a nizing me e ting  By F e b rua ry 2020 – L a unc h se a rc h a nd hire E xe c utive Dire c to r  By Spring 2020 – E xe c utive Dire c to r hire s a dditio na l sta ff  Prio ritie s b e fo re F a ll 2020: Atto rne y a nd a ppe a l-fo c use d sta ff  Prio ritie s b e fo re Ja nua ry 2021: F e de ra l pro g ra ms, spe c ia l po pula tio ns, a nd fina nc e sta ff  F a ll 2020 – Co mmissio n me mb e rs/ sta ff pa rtic ipa te in Sta te Bo a rd’ s ne w sta rt a ppe a l pro c e ss  Ja nua ry 2021 – Co mmissio n’ s first o ppo rtunity to re c e ive a ppe a ls  F irst a ppe a ls ma y b e re ne wa l, re vo c a tio n, o r ma te ria l mo dific a tio n pe titio ns  Aug ust 2021 – Co mmissio n’ s first ne w-sta rt a ppe a ls se a so n b e g ins

Authorizer Evaluations

Our Charge Pub lic Cha pte r 219 o f the 111 th Ge ne ra l Asse mb ly g ra nte d the Sta te Bo a rd the a utho rity to e va lua te a utho rize r q ua lity b y c o nduc ting “pe rio dic e va lua tio ns o f a utho rize rs.” T he Sta te Bo a rd’ s autho rize r e valua tio ns shall:  De te rmine a utho rize r c o mplianc e with re q uire me nts o f the T e nne sse e Pub lic Charte r Sc ho o ls Ac t o f 2002 (T itle 49, Cha pte r 13) a nd the rule s and re g ulatio ns o f the Sta te Bo ard; and  E nsure alig nme nt with the State Bo a rd’ s q ua lity autho rizing standards. Who will b e e va lua te d?  All c urre nt distric t a utho rize rs: Ha milto n Co unty, K no x Co unty, Me tro -Na shville Pub lic Sc ho o ls, a nd She lb y Co unty  All sta te wide a utho rize rs: Ac hie ve me nt Sc ho o l Distric t a nd T e nne sse e Pub lic Cha rte r Sc ho o l Co mmissio n

Information Gathering  Sta te Bo a rd sta ff ha s ta ke n initia l ste ps to c o nne c t with e va lua to rs a nd sta ke ho lde rs a c ro ss the c o untry to le a rn a b o ut the ir pro c e sse s a nd pitfa lls.  At this po int, the Sta te Bo a rd sta ff ha s g a the re d info rma tio n fro m the fo llo wing e va lua to rs a nd sta ke ho lde rs:  Minne so ta De pa rtme nt o f E duc a tio n  Ohio De pa rtme nt o f E duc a tio n  Autho rize rs in Ohio a nd Minne so ta  Na tio na l Asso c ia tio n o f Cha rte r Sc ho o l Autho rize rs  Sc ho o l Wo rks

Goals for Discussion  Ga the r initia l fe e db a c k fro m the sub c o mmitte e o n ke y q ue stio ns a s we b e g in the wo rk o n de ve lo pme nt o f the e va lua tio n syste m.  We will ha ve furthe r to uc h po ints with the sub c o mmitte e a nd the full b o a rd a s this wo rk de ve lo ps a nd to g a the r furthe r fe e db a c k.

Initial Questions to Consider 1. How should we de fine “pe r iodic ally” in te r ms of e valuations? a .) Annua lly  Co nsid e ra tio ns: Wo uld re q uire sig nific a nt sta ff c a pa c ity to fo c us o n re vie w pro c e ss o nly. Ma y no t a llo w a utho rize rs to a pply fe e d b a c k. Ohio o pe ra te s o n this e va lua tio n time line . b .) E ve ry thre e ye a rs  Co nsid e ra tio ns: Wo uld a llo w fo r re g ula r to uc h po ints with a utho rize rs a nd time to imple me nt fe e d b a c k. SBE sta ff pre fe re nc e a nd / o r c o mb ina tio n with a d iffe re ntia te d pla n b a se d o n pa st e va lua tio ns. c .) E ve ry five ye a rs  Co nsid e ra tio ns: Wo uld re q uire le ss sta ff c a pa c ity a nd mo re time fo r a utho rize rs to imple me nt c ha ng e s. Minne so ta o pe ra te s o n this e va lua tio n time line . d.) Diffe re ntia te d b a se d o n pa st e va lua tio ns  Co nsid e ra tio ns: Allo ws Sta te Bo a rd the fle xib ility to d e te rmine c rite ria fo r e va lua tio n fre q ue nc y. Ca n b e use d a s a fo rm o f inte rve ntio n.

Initial Questions to Consider 2. Who should pa rtic ipa te in the e va lua tion? a .) Sta te Bo a rd sta ff o nly  Co nside ra tio ns: Wo uld like ly re q uire a n inc re a se in sta ff c a pa c ity b .) A mix o f inte rna l a nd e xte rna l e va lua to rs  Co nside ra tio ns: Wo uld re q uire b udg e t fo r c o ntra c to rs to pa rtic ipa te a s e va lua to rs c .) A mix o f inte rna l a nd e xte rna l e va lua to rs with a utho rize rs invite d to pa rtic ipa te  Co nside ra tio ns: Wo uld re q uire b udg e t fo r c o ntra c to rs to pa rtic ipa te a s e va lua to rs.  SBE c urre ntly runs o ur a ppe a ls pro c e ss this wa y a nd wo uld b e the pre fe re nc e . Inc luding a utho rize rs a s e xte rna l e va lua to rs wo uld pro vide a n o ppo rtunity fo r a utho rize rs to unde rsta nd o ur pro c e ss a nd ide ntify g a ps o n the ir o wn pra c tic e o utside o f the ir e va lua tio n.

Initial Questions to Consider 3. How should the e va lua tion we ig h a n a uthorize r’s a lig nme nt with the Qua lity Authorizing Sta nda rds (a foc us on the work of a uthorizing ) vs. c omplia nc e with the T e nne sse e Public Cha rte r Sc hools Ac t of 2002 (T itle 49, Cha pte r 13)/ Sta te Boa rd rule s/ polic ie s? a .) We ig he d a b o ut the sa me  Ohio use s a ve rsio n o f this mo de l whic h a lso inc lude s a n a c a de mic c o mpo ne nt. b .) Qua lity Autho rizing Sta nda rds is we ig he d mo re tha n c o mplia nc e c .) Co mplia nc e is we ig he d mo re tha n Qua lity Autho rizing Sta nda rds  E xa mple : Is the a utho rize r mo nito ring T itle I c o mplia nc e ?

Initial Questions to Consider 4. Should the e va lua tion inc lude : a .) An o n-site visit b .) I nte rvie ws with lo c a l sta ke ho lde rs c .) A do c ume nt sub missio n re vie w d.) A c o mb ina tio n o f a ll thre e  SBE sta ff pre fe rs this o ptio n.

Initial Questions to Consider 5. Whic h sta ke holde rs should be inte rvie we d? a .) Cha rte r o ffic e sta ff b .) Sa mple o f sc ho o ls/ g o ve rning b o a rds c .) L o c a l b o a rd o f e duc a tio n me mb e rs d.) A c o mb ina tio n o f a ll thre e  SBE sta ff pre fe rs this o ptio n.

Initial Questions to Consider 6. Should the Sta te Boa rd sta ff e xplore fa c toring sc hool a c a de mic pe rforma nc e into a n a uthorize r’s e va lua tion?  Co nside ra tio ns:  Ho w muc h re spo nsib ility fo r a c a de mic o utc o me s do e s the a utho rize r ha ve ?  Sho uld a n e va lua tio n fo c us mo re o n the a utho rize r’ s re spo nse to the ir sc ho o ls’ a c a de mic pe rfo rma nc e ra the r tha n the a c a de mic pe rfo rma nc e a lo ne ?  Na tio na l Co nte xt:  Minne so ta do e s no t inc lude a n a c a de mic pe rfo rma nc e pie c e .  Ohio we ig hts the ir a c a de mic pe rfo rma nc e po rtio n o f the e va lua tio n b a se d o n to ta l numb e r o f stude nts. E va lua tio ns c a nno t b e c o mple te d until a fte r te st re sults a re re le a se d.

Initial Questions to Consider 7. Should Sta te Boa rd sta ff e xplore diffe re ntia tion of a n e va lua tion ba se d on a uthorize r size ?  Co nside ra tio ns:  Wo uld a n a utho rize r with 3 sc ho o ls g o thro ug h the sa me e va lua tio n pro c e ss a s a n a utho rize r with 50 sc ho o ls?  Are the re o ppo rtunitie s to diffe re ntia te ? If so , whe re ?  Is the re a wa y to diffe re ntia te b e twe e n minimum e xpe c ta tio ns a nd a dva nc e d pra c tic e s?

Initial Questions to Consider 8. How should the Sta te Boa rd ha ndle “c ompla ints” outside of a n e va lua tion c yc le ?  Co nside ra tio ns:  Sta ff c a pa c ity to ha ndle sc he dule d e va lua tio ns in a dditio n to a ny “c o mpla ints”  Wa nt to sta y within the Sta te Bo a rd’ s sta tuto ry a utho rity with re g a rd to e va lua tio ns