Post on 08-Jan-2017
New Charter School Application Evaluation Process
Presented to the SCSB on October 13, 2016
By DeLaina Tonks PhD Student
Brigham Young University
Meta-
Began August 2015
Completed September 2016
Intent to Apply
SCSB Pre- Screening Application
SCSB Screening Interview
Full Application
Reader Review
New Charter Schools Application Evaluation Process
1
2
3
4
5
SCSB Review & Interview
SCSB Approval or Denial
USBE Committee Vote
USBE Vote
New Charter Schools Application Evaluation Process
Governing Board Interview
6
7
8
9
10
Evaluation Question 1:
Does the Governing Board Interview piece of the application
process add value, and if so, how?
Evaluation Question 2:
What are areas of improvement for the new charter schools application process?
Evaluation Question 3:
What are the strengths of the new charter schools application
process?
20
19
10
4
Stakeholders
2014-2015 applicants
2015-2016 applicants
2014-2015 &2015-2016 interviewers
2014-2015 SCSB members & staff
Evaluation Question 1:
Does the Governing Board Interview piece of the application
process add value, and if so, how?
87.18% of applicants
Agree/Strongly Agree that the GBI adds value.
Applicants
90.00% of interviewers
Agree /Strongly Agree that the GBI adds value.
Interviewers
Defines
Helps applicants define school model (SpEd, budget, personnel).
Applicants
Prepares
Prepares applicants for SCSB Interview.
Applicants
Provides Networking
Facilitates networking
with charter pros.Applicants
Allows for Feedback
Applicants
Provides helpful feedback, and improves application overall.
Identifies Capacity
Helps to identify capacity.
Interviewers
Clarifies
Clarifies intentions.
Interviewers
FacilitatesMentoring
Provides opportunity for mentoring.
Interviewers
The Governing Board Interview piece of the application
process adds value in a variety of meaningful ways for
interviewers and applicants.
Lacks Continuity
Disconnect between GBI, SCSB, and USBE.
Applicants
Lacks Consistency
Differing opinions between SCSB and USBE.
ApplicantsInterviewers
Perceived Favoritism
A couple of applicants felt the interviewers
favored a certain model. Applicants
Evaluation Question 1:
The Governing Board Interview piece of the application, while
valuable, can be improved.
Timeline
1. Provide a timeline of events so the applicants and
interviewers understand the process from start to finish in order to manage expectations
Roles
2. Clearly define roles of each decision-maker who has a say in the process
to decrease confusion.
Authority
3. Post and/or review scope of authority of each entity so the
applicants understand who is responsible for what.
Common Errors
4. Provide a list of common errors to be aware of during
the application process so applicants can avoid them.
Evaluation Question 2:
What are areas of improvement for the new charter schools application process?
Keep GBIApplicants and interviewers indicated their support for keeping the GBI even in the responses to the areas of improvement.
Informative
Applicants and interviewers indicated they learned a lot from the overall application process.
There wasn’t enough time to conduct the
interview appropriately.
Duration
Applicants
TimingNot enough time to adjust between GBI
and SCSB interviews.
Applicants
Accountability
Hold applicants accountable to the
process.
Interviewers
Reliability
Only one set of readers reviewed each application.
Interviewers
TrainingHelp applicants know all the steps of the process
and understand them well.
Interviewers
Duration
1. Expand the amount of time or narrow the focus of the GBI on
areas of improvement.
Timing
2. Allow enough time in between the GBI and the final deadline for
the application submission for applicants to finalize based on
interviewer feedback.
Dealbreakers
3. Identify items up front that could delay or terminate a school
for accountability purposes. Outline that if x doesn’t happen
by x date, the school will be delayed or closed.
Training
4. Train each stakeholder (applicants, staff, SCSB, USBE)
on each aspect of the entire process to ensure fidelity.
Evaluation Question 2:
There are several areas of improvement including
timing, duration, awareness of dealbreakers,
and additional training.
Evaluation Question 3:
What are the strengths of the new
charter schools application process?
Sound Process
Overall, the applicants and interviewers determined the
process was not only valuable but sound.
Multi-step VettingProviding checks and balances
vets schools appropriately.
Applicants
Multiple Stakeholders
Interacting with many stake- holders strengthens the
application process.Applicants
NetworkingThe applicants enjoyed networking with charter pros and SCSB staff. Getting to know others in similar
situations was beneficial.
Applicants
MissionNow that the SCSB has developed
guiding principles; mission, vision, values, it should make the
vetting process easier.
Interviewers
MentoringThe Governing Board
Interview allows space for mentoring, with charter
experts teaching applicants.
Interviewers
More board members, fewer administrators, fewer interviewers,
more SCSB members.
GBI Composition
Applicants
Additional preparation for applicants to know
what to expect.
Training
Applicants
Lack of consistency; interviewer perceptions varied from SCSB
and/or Utah State Board of Ed.
Perceived Disconnect
Interviewers
Feedback
1. Solicit stakeholder feedback annually in order to make
continuous improvements to the new charter school
application evaluation process.
Networking
2. Facilitate communication among stakeholders by providing
opportunities for new applicants to interact w/seasoned charter
professionals.
Best Practices
3. Formalize the sharing of best practices. Applicants
have innovative ideas, pros know what works. Both
benefit from sharing.
Evaluation Question 3:
There are a variety of strengths including a sound process, multiple steps and
stakeholders, mission, mentoring, and networking.
New Charter School Application Evaluation ProcessPresented to the SCSB on October 13, 2016 by DeLaina Tonks