U.S. Department of Education SEA Project Directors Meeting April - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

U.S. Department of Education SEA Project Directors Meeting April 23, 2013

Jim m Shel helton n Assistant istant Deputy puty Secre cretar tary Of Office ce of Inno novation ation an and Improvement ment April 23, 2013

OI OII I Or Organ aniz ization ation Char art Office of Innovation and Improvement Jim Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary Nadya Dabby, Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary Margo Anderson, Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary Investing in Charter Improvement Parental Teacher Office of Innovation Executive Schools Options and Quality Non-Public Programs Program office program Information programs Education Office Edith Harvey, Pat Knight, Stefan Huh, Anna Hinton, Director Peggi Zelinko, Maureen Carol Lyons, Executive Director Director Director Dowling, Director Officer Director 4

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Staff Management CSP Director: Stefan Huh CSP Program Manager: Erin Pfeltz National Leadership Grants: Patricia Kilby-Robb State Education Agency Grants (SEA): Kate Meeley Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards: Leslie Hankerson Nancy Paulu Non-State Education Agency Grants (Non-SEA): Credit Enhancement for Charter School LaShawndra Thornton Facilities Grants: Brian Martin Kristin Lundholm Kate Meeley State Facilities Incentive Grants: Replication and Expansion Grants (CMO): Kristin Lundholm Erin Pfeltz Administrative Support: Brian Martin Kate Meeley Cheryl Weekes Kristin Lundholm

Grantee Introductions

Thin ink – Pai air - Share are What is the largest challenge you are currently facing in 1. your state with regard to creating a high quality charter school sector? Pair-Off 2. Introduce yourself to the other person and provide the 3. following information:  Your State  Your Title/Role  How you got involved with Charter Schools and CSP and how long have you been working in the CSP program  Your one largest challenge Introduce your partner to the group 4.

Overview of the Federal Charter Schools Program Stefan Huh, Director Charter Schools Program Office of Innovation and Improvement 8

Agend enda  The Charter School Landscape  The Charter Schools Program: SEA Performance  Budget and Continuation Award Considerations  The Charter Schools Program: National Activities  The Charter Schools Program: Highlighted Elements 9

Mis issi sion on To support the creation, expansion, and improvement of high-quality charter schools across the nation. 10

ED’s Reform Strategy & Key Inves estment tments  Race to the Top  Investing in Innovation  Promise Neighborhoods  School Improvement Grants  ESEA Flexibility 11

RTTT: : Core e Ed Educa ucational tional Ref eform rm Areas eas (a) Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy; (b) Building data systems that measure student growth and success and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction; (c) Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and (d) Turning around the Nation's lowest-achieving schools. 12

ES ESEA EA Fl Flexi xibil ilit ity PRINCIPLES FOR IMPROVING STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND INCREASING THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All 1. Students State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, 2. Accountability, and Support Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership 3. Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden 4. 13

ES ESEA EA Fl Flexibility xibility – Char harter er School hool Considerations siderations  “When a charter school authorizer has indicated that it intends to decline to renew or intends to revoke a charter for a particular charter school based on lack of progress towards improved student academic outcomes or other significant issues cited by the authorizer, the authorizer’s decision to do so supersedes any designation from the SEA that such a school is a focus or priority school, as consistent with any applicable State law.” (ESEA Flexibility FAQs, #A-10a, p. 6) 14

ES ESEA EA Fl Flexibility xibility – Char harter er School hool Considerations siderations “Alternatively, if the SEA can demonstrate to the Department that all charter schools in its State are held to a high standard of accountability through a strong charter school authorizer system (consistent with the Department’s Charter Schools Program (CSP) assurances for SEA grantees from FY 2010 onwards, including the provision that charter school authorizers use increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students as the most important factor when determining to renew or revoke a school’s charter), the SEA may allow its charter schools to develop and implement evaluation and support systems that meet all of the elements of Principle 3, but that do not necessarily adhere specifically to the SEA’s guidelines.” (ESEA Flexibility FAQs, #A-10a, p. 7) 15

The Charter Landscape

A C A Chan angi ging ng La Lands ndsca cape  Voters approved a statewide public charter school initiative (Georgia)  Lifted caps on charter school growth (Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri)  Expanded the types of entities that are allowed to authorize (Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina)  Quality control measures for authorizers (Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, South Carolina)  Improved support for funding and facilities (Connecticut, Hawaii, Utah) 17

A Growing Movement…  The number of charter schools in operation around the nation has grown from 1,993 in 2000-2001 to 4,952 in 2009-2010. (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_101.asp)  The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools estimates that there are 6,002 charter schools during as of the 2012-2013 school year.  43 States now have charter school legislation including DC. 18

… sti still fac aces es ch chal allenges lenges to rea o realiz ize e it its s poten enti tial al  Enrolling and educating students with disabilities  Closing the achievement gap for subgroups, such as English Learners  Improving Accountability  Aggregating demand and collaborating to tackle vexing issues  Replicating successful models for long-term success  Identifying and sharing effective practices  Facilities  Ongoing interest, investigations (Monitoring, Closures, EMOs/CMOs, ELs) 19

Dif iffere erence nce betw etwee een n Economica nomicall lly y Dis isad advan antaged aged CS Stude dents ts and A d All TPS Stude dents 4th Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade Math Reading Math Reading Arizona 20.37% 11.94% 42.11% 16.39% Arkansas 22.73% 32.26% 80.00% 32.76% California 11.11% 16.67% 36.36% 14.29% Colorado 5.81% 6.02% 14.29% 3.45% DC 9.52% 15.00% -26.47% -21.82% Florida 10.29% 7.58% -1.45% 5.66% Georgia 14.08% 6.10% 12.99% 2.17% Indiana 49.06% 28.13% 22.22% 21.67% Louisiana 25.00% 24.14% -1.64% 26.92% Maryland 13.75% 20.27% 71.79% 29.69% Massachusetts 60.00% 39.47% 1.92% -1.23% Michigan 8.24% 18.06% 25.40% 74.47% Minnesota 51.11% 43.40% 52.94% 31.37% Missouri 160.00% 140.91% 85.71% 92.86% New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A N/A New Jersey 31.67% 61.54% 16.13% 13.89% New Mexico 32.35% 38.24% 41.38% 12.77% New York 0.00% 20.83% 1.67% 50.00% Rhode Island 12.28% 9.52% 19.57% 4.23% South Carolina 26.98% 4.00% 66.67% 23.64% Tennessee 39.29% 114.29% 191.67% 118.18% Texas 12.82% 10.26% 12.99% 1.09% Wisconsin 33.33% 25.37% 51.92% 26.09% 20

CRE REDO DO Rep epor ort t – Foo ood d for or Though ought  Initial signals of performance are predictive of later performance  Poor first year performance cannot be overlooked or excused  Great need for careful due diligence by authorizers  Substantial improvement over time is largely absent from middle schools, multi-level schools and high schools. Only elementary schools show an upward pattern of growth if they start out in the lower two quintiles. (CREDO, “Charter School Growth and Replication”, 1/30/2013, Executive Summary) 21

The Charter Schools Program: SEA Performance

CSP P Gr Gran ant Pr t Prog ograms ams  State Education Agency Grants (SEA)  Non-State Education Agency Grants (Non-SEA)  Replication and Expansion Grants (CMO)  National Leadership Grants  Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards  Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Grants  State Facilities Incentive Grants 23

Ob Oblig igations ations by Pr y Prog ogram ram (FY11 & FY12)

Act ctiv ive SEA e SEA CSP P Gr Gran antees ees Arizona 13. Minnesota 1. Arkansas 14. Missouri 2. California 15. New Hampshire 3. Colorado 16. New Jersey 4. District of Columbia 17. New Mexico 5. Florida 18. New York 6. Georgia 19. Ohio 7. Indiana 20. Rhode Island 8. Louisiana 21. South Carolina 9. 10. Maryland 22. Tennessee 11. Massachusetts 23. Texas 12. Michigan 24. Wisconsin 25

Ob Oblig igations ations by St y Stat ate e (Incl O) ncludes des SEA, Non-SEA, & CMO) (FY11 & FY12) *In FY11 & FY12 CSP Served a total of 35 States