I just returned from ten days in Alaska where I saw the word "charter" on hundreds of signs throughout the state. Sure, the word was on signs for charter fishing boats, but the state also has 26 charter schools in operation. Alaska's charter school law is weak, receiving a "D" rating from the Center for Education Reform.
Alaska's charter school law passed in 1995 and permits up to sixty charter schools. Some of the provisions that make the law weak are less autonomy than other states (i.e. an "academic policy committee" instead of a governing board) and the charter school is bound by the authorizing school district's collective bargaining agreement with teachers.
Several of Alaska's charter schools focus on the Alaska Native heritage and culture. The Ayaprun Elitnaurvik Charter School in Bethel uses the immersion method of teaching Yup'ik to elementary school-aged students. In fact, note this list of spelling words for 2nd and 3rd grade students. Other charter schools use Spanish immersion, the Spalding method and a handful are homeschool programs.
Many of the state's charter schools are only accessible by plane, boat or dog sled since there isn't a road system in rural Alaska. About eight rural charter schools operate in Colorado, but at least they have a road to the school!
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
No Blogging Until Next Week
I'm in Alaska volunteering at a college/counseling center and won't be blogging until midway through next week. My initial plan was to write my blog in the evenings, but between salmon fishing, being tired and sore from manual labor, and squeezing in some sightseeing when there's a break from work there hasn't been any time. My computer addiction has been replaced with time spent doing construction work. See you next week!
Friday, July 17, 2009
Colorado's Common Application and Review Rubric
Earlier this year, the Colorado League of Charter Schools, the Colorado Charter School Institute and CDE collaborated in the development of a common charter school application, checklist for completeness and review rubric. For the first time, a charter school applicant, CSI and a school district authorizer all can use the same document to fairly measure what is a good charter school application.
Over the years, very weak charter school applications have been approved and very strong applications denied. Likewise, it's gone both ways when an applicant appeals to the State Board of Education. This "common app" document allows the applicant to see precisely what should be included in each section of the application, the same information available to their potential authorizer. It can be a transparent process now.
The checklist for completeness section allows an authorizer, receiving a charter school application, to quickly evaluate whether or not the application is "complete" before sending it to their board or accountability committee for review. State law doesn't require authorizers to review incomplete applications, a standard which has been unevenly applied across the state.
The final section of each required element is the rubric for evaluating an application. This rubric-based system allows authorizers to use a uniform standard rather than relying on varying opinions. Ideally, this new resource will take the guess work out of the charter application review process and provide more information to the State Board of Education should a denied applicant bring an appeal to the board.
School district authorizers were looking for some method to determine if they were being "fair" to applicants and not doomed for failure at an appeal hearing before the State Board. Charter school leaders were looking for standardization and clarity for charter applicants.
After the "three C's" (CLCS, CSI and CDE) developed the original document, it was circulated for statewide review through CDE's weekly newsletter. The document is now final and available for use.
Over the years, very weak charter school applications have been approved and very strong applications denied. Likewise, it's gone both ways when an applicant appeals to the State Board of Education. This "common app" document allows the applicant to see precisely what should be included in each section of the application, the same information available to their potential authorizer. It can be a transparent process now.
The checklist for completeness section allows an authorizer, receiving a charter school application, to quickly evaluate whether or not the application is "complete" before sending it to their board or accountability committee for review. State law doesn't require authorizers to review incomplete applications, a standard which has been unevenly applied across the state.
The final section of each required element is the rubric for evaluating an application. This rubric-based system allows authorizers to use a uniform standard rather than relying on varying opinions. Ideally, this new resource will take the guess work out of the charter application review process and provide more information to the State Board of Education should a denied applicant bring an appeal to the board.
School district authorizers were looking for some method to determine if they were being "fair" to applicants and not doomed for failure at an appeal hearing before the State Board. Charter school leaders were looking for standardization and clarity for charter applicants.
After the "three C's" (CLCS, CSI and CDE) developed the original document, it was circulated for statewide review through CDE's weekly newsletter. The document is now final and available for use.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Looming Questions
Some days my brain gets stretched with really big questions. Many of these I cannot answer. Today I had to consider the following:
* What is the proper role for an authorizer in regard to charter school governance beyond approving the bylaws and getting an annual report of who is on the board and their contact information? Should the authorizer require the charter board to meet certain goals? What if they don't meet the goals, but the school is still doing well academically? Would their ever be a situation where a charter school is doing well academically, but doesn't measure up in regard to finances or governance and would warrant revocation?
* Will parents of students who don't make it in to a Core Knowledge charter school still be willing to have their children tested annually for about an hour in order to participate in the control group used in the Core Knowledge charter school study CDE and partners will be conducting in the next five years? What would be enough of an incentive? A book for their child? Test results?
* What should be included in a pre-opening checklist for a new charter school to use after approval, but before the first day of school? Should items that are optional in a charter school application (i.e. board bylaws, governing board policies, etc.) be included even though they may have already been provided to the authorizer in the application? When should a new charter school be told they must delay a year because they're not meeting pre-opening requirements?
* How many individual charter schools can one governing board effectively govern before the quality diminishes? Should each of the charter schools have individual charters or one charter contract with the board to operate multiple sites? What criteria evaluates autonomy for each of the different sites?
I love discussing issues such as these with individuals who know the detailed pros and cons. Today was one of those days where I spent time with top-quality people engaged in meaty discussions relevant to charter schools. Not that we figured out the answers, but we definitely figured out the questions!
* What is the proper role for an authorizer in regard to charter school governance beyond approving the bylaws and getting an annual report of who is on the board and their contact information? Should the authorizer require the charter board to meet certain goals? What if they don't meet the goals, but the school is still doing well academically? Would their ever be a situation where a charter school is doing well academically, but doesn't measure up in regard to finances or governance and would warrant revocation?
* Will parents of students who don't make it in to a Core Knowledge charter school still be willing to have their children tested annually for about an hour in order to participate in the control group used in the Core Knowledge charter school study CDE and partners will be conducting in the next five years? What would be enough of an incentive? A book for their child? Test results?
* What should be included in a pre-opening checklist for a new charter school to use after approval, but before the first day of school? Should items that are optional in a charter school application (i.e. board bylaws, governing board policies, etc.) be included even though they may have already been provided to the authorizer in the application? When should a new charter school be told they must delay a year because they're not meeting pre-opening requirements?
* How many individual charter schools can one governing board effectively govern before the quality diminishes? Should each of the charter schools have individual charters or one charter contract with the board to operate multiple sites? What criteria evaluates autonomy for each of the different sites?
I love discussing issues such as these with individuals who know the detailed pros and cons. Today was one of those days where I spent time with top-quality people engaged in meaty discussions relevant to charter schools. Not that we figured out the answers, but we definitely figured out the questions!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
For the Nerdy English Majors...
Running across this article about the most misspelled word, "definately" instead of "definitely" gives me the opportunity to plug one of my favorite podcasts: Grammar Girl. Finally, a group of people (some of the podcasts are responses to call-in questions) who care about whether I tweeted or Twittered. Oh, and in case you Twitter, follow me at: cocharters on Twitter.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Is the New Mantra: "Open good charter schools; close bad ones"?
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the new mantra is "Open good charter schools; close bad ones." Citing support from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) and the Missouri Charter Public School Association, authorizers of two underperforming charter schools have stated they won't renew the two schools' charters.
These two charter schools have failed to perform on a variety of measures including governance, finance and enrollment, not to mention failing miserably at academic achievement. The percentage of students passing state exams were in the single digits or low teens. Just reading the facts cited in the newspaper article, it appears there is ample evidence to close the two charter schools. Further, it appears that everyone gave them multiple opportunities to recitfy problems. It's time to pull the plug!
Aother four charter schools closed at the end of the 2008-09 school year in Colorado. These are Denver Arts and Technology Academy (Denver); Challenges, Choices and Images (Denver); Shivers Academy (Harrison); and Cesar Chavez Academy-Central (CSI). This brings the total number of charter schools that have closed to 20 since the first one closed in 1998. Although most of the charter schools closed due to financial reasons, a handful have closed strictly for academic reasons.
Who determines when a charter school needs to be closed? It's authorizer. Charter school laws were established to offer greater freedom in exchange for greater accountability. If a charter school isn't performing, it should be closed.
The League of Charter Schools has developed much of their programming to support underperforming charter schools and hold a high standard for all charter schools. Across the state, leaders have discussed what warrants a charter school closure (revocation or nonrenewal). While some may debate a few middle-of-the-road schools, there are crystal clear situations where a charter school should close.
So the new mantra, cited by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is accurate: Open new charter schools; close bad ones.
These two charter schools have failed to perform on a variety of measures including governance, finance and enrollment, not to mention failing miserably at academic achievement. The percentage of students passing state exams were in the single digits or low teens. Just reading the facts cited in the newspaper article, it appears there is ample evidence to close the two charter schools. Further, it appears that everyone gave them multiple opportunities to recitfy problems. It's time to pull the plug!
Aother four charter schools closed at the end of the 2008-09 school year in Colorado. These are Denver Arts and Technology Academy (Denver); Challenges, Choices and Images (Denver); Shivers Academy (Harrison); and Cesar Chavez Academy-Central (CSI). This brings the total number of charter schools that have closed to 20 since the first one closed in 1998. Although most of the charter schools closed due to financial reasons, a handful have closed strictly for academic reasons.
Who determines when a charter school needs to be closed? It's authorizer. Charter school laws were established to offer greater freedom in exchange for greater accountability. If a charter school isn't performing, it should be closed.
The League of Charter Schools has developed much of their programming to support underperforming charter schools and hold a high standard for all charter schools. Across the state, leaders have discussed what warrants a charter school closure (revocation or nonrenewal). While some may debate a few middle-of-the-road schools, there are crystal clear situations where a charter school should close.
So the new mantra, cited by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is accurate: Open new charter schools; close bad ones.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Utah's Charter School Law Improves
The Center for Education Reform has moved up on the ranking of all charter school laws in the nation from 28th to 4th! This gives Utah a high B ranking, just above Colorado's own B. Other neighboring states didn't fare as well. New Mexico earned a B, but Wyoming earned a D and Kansas a F. Nebraska doesn't even have a charter school law.
Criteria for the ranking include autonomy, multiple authorizers in the state, the number of charter schools allowed, and equity. The Center for Education Reform compiles this analysis each year.
Criteria for the ranking include autonomy, multiple authorizers in the state, the number of charter schools allowed, and equity. The Center for Education Reform compiles this analysis each year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)