IMPR MPROVING N NEW EW MEXICO CO’S ’S CHA CHARTER AND AUTHO HORIZ RIZER A R ACCO COUN UNTABILIT ILITY SYSTEMS PRES ESEN ENTATION TO T THE L E LES ESC JULY 18 18, 2 2018 18 VERONICA BROOKS-UY POLICY DIRECTOR LISA S. GROVER, PH.D. SENIOR DIRECTOR, STATE POLICY AND SUPPORT NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
2
AGE GENDA • New M Mexic ico’s N Natio ional al C Char arter S School L Law R Rankin ing • St Strengths an and R d Room f for Impr provement in in the L Law • Polic icy R Recomm mmendat datio ions f s for I Increase ased A Accountab abil ilit ity f for C Charter S Schools • Polic icy R Recomm mmendat datio ions f s for I Increase ased A Accountab abil ilit ity f for A Authoriz izers 3
5
6
7
NM’S CHARTER LAW ALSO HAS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT Renewal Standard & Default Closure NM’s law is vague on renewal standards: schools must make “substantial • progress” toward academic goals There is no minimum threshold for closure, aka default closure • Authorizer Evaluations There is no requirement for authorizers to be evaluated on their adherence to • standards Authorizer Sanctions There are no laws that require consequences for authorizers that do not follow • standards 8
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (1) (1) Be e more cl clea ear i in n the l e law abo bout ut w what i is m meant nt b by “subs ubstantial p progres ess” a and nd require a author orizers t to o clos lose chron onically lly lo low-perfor orming c charter s schoo ools ls u unle less exce ceptional ci circu cumstances es exist All authorizers, charter schools, and other stakeholders should have opportunity to • engage in process to determine how best to define substantial progress and what the default closure threshold should be Not every authorizer would have to use same performance framework for its charters, • but would have to include certain “non-negotiable” indicators of progress Would cut down on authorizer shopping and provide more clarity to schools and the • public 9
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (2) (2) Es Establ blish a a statewide e ent entity t that holds a aut uthorizer ers a acco ccountabl ble f e for abi biding b by prin inciples a s and st stan andards, an and mai maintaining a a high high-perfor orming p por ortfol olio of o of schools ools Just as charter schools should be held accountable, so should authorizers • All authorizers should have to register with the statewide entity and agree to abide by • national principles, standards, and best practices The evaluation entity should annually collect and report on the performance of every • authorizer If an authorizer isn’t meeting the standards or has a chronically low-performing portfolio • of charter schools, the evaluation entity should issue consequences 10
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (3) Give a e a ne new s statewide aut uthorizer er ent entity the a e abi bility to sanct nction poor or-performing ng aut uthorizer ers The entity would have the authority to sanction an authorizer for poor performance, • including suspending an authorizer’s authority to approve new schools It would also conduct periodic formal evaluations of overall state charter school • program and outcomes and publish a report This would also help cut down on authorizer shopping • 11
12
KEEP IN TOUCH Veronica Brooks-Uy Policy Director veronicab@qualitycharters.org /qualitycharters (225) 301-1759 @qualitycharters www.qualitycharters.org www.linkedin.com/in/vbrooksuy/ 13
14
Recommend
More recommend
