P.O. Box 5280 | Sacramento, CA 95817 | T 916.287.9220 | F 916.455.9591 | www.students f i rs t .org

Holding Public Charter Schools Accountable How Effective State Laws Can Ensure High-Quality Public Charter Schools

In order to offer meaningful school choices to parents, it is vital that high-quality public charter school options are available. Even when faced with a wide range of school options, parents are best equipped to make the right choice for their children – but only when they have access to a broad base of meaningful information about schools. While accountability measures for charter schools would facilitate this flow of information, current state laws are too often silent or excessively vague about the extent to which charter schools will be held accountable in terms of student achievement, operational transparency, and fiscal practices. In addition, too few rules exist regarding the roles and responsibilities of charter authorizers. In a system with high accountability standards for public charter schools, state laws establish a framework that holds charter schools accountable for their students’ performance, proficiency and growth, fiscal health, governance, and compliance with local and federal laws. In addition, the presence of strong accountability laws rooted in transparent operations and data collection practices will openly empower parents to monitor the academic growth and performance of their child, and their child’s school. Multiple Levels of Accountability for Multiple Levels of Authority Public charter school governance is layered to reflect various oversight activities, including application, authorization, assessment, revocation and closure. In effective systems, each authoritative body must work together and hold each other accountable for their work. Otherwise, a lack of accountability at any level can negatively impact both instruction and operations. Currently, the typical charter school governance structure – if it exists in a state – is similar to the diagram below:

Sample Public Charter School Governance Model

Public Charter School Accountability

2

In this diagram, the structure represents an assumed level of responsibility that each entity holds to the entity below it. The level of authority and oversight varies by state, of course; for example, in many states, authorizers are independent from any state entity. While this can be a somewhat complex matrix, the real cause for diffusion of authority is that the actual extent of responsibility is often not clear enough or even present in statutes, rules, or regulations. For example, while it may seem that the state holds ultimate authority over all public charter schools since they are public schools, there are many cases where the state’s role is negligible due to a lack of a clear accountability structure in the law. Weaknesses of the Current System According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, several lessons learned over the past decade and a half – as charter schools have taken root alongside traditional public school systems – should inform improvements in accountability at the state and local levels:

• Charter application processes sometimes grant charters without mentioning or enforcing accountability.

• Strong performance frameworks often do not exist in legislation, allowing authorizers to sometimes grant and reauthorize charters that do not hold schools accountable for student performance and growth.

• State law is often silent or unclear about the authorizer’s powers and responsibilities. • Public charter school authorizers are usually not held accountable for the success of their

schools. • State laws often fail to address accountability measures for virtual charter schools. • State laws often fail to address renewal, revocation and non-renewal processes.1

Ultimately, state lawmakers have the ability and responsibility to set a high bar for charter school performance to ensure that students have access to excellent school choices. The first step in creating a network of high-quality public charter schools is establishing robust accountability laws that ensure meaningful oversight, transparency for results, and consequences for not meeting expectations. Strengthening State Law In order to strengthen state law surrounding charter school accountability practice, it is crucial for legislation to require the following:

• Transparent charter application, review, and decision-making processes; • Performance-based contracts; • Clear processes for renewal, revocation, and non-renewal; • Well-defined authorizer responsibility; • Strong authorizer accountability; • Virtual public charter school accountability measures; • An alternative authorizer; • Adequate authorizer funding; and • Charter replication

Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decision-Making Processes It is vital that the public charter school application process be one that strategically identifies educational institutions with the capacity or potential capacity to lead students towards academic success. The charter school application process is the first opportunity to establish clear performance expectations

1 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, A New Model Law for Supporting The Growth of High-Quality Public Charter Schools, June 2009.

Public Charter School Accountability

3

and to design strong accountability plans. As such, the application process is a tool for ensuring a high standard of excellence for public charter schools. In order to reach a high standard of excellence, applicants should submit detailed plans for achieving student success and maintaining operational competency, including objective data and a proven track record when available. An effective request for proposals from authorizers should include the following:

• Authorizer’s vision for chartering • Performance framework • Essential elements of the charter application • Criteria used to approve or deny charter applications • Specific requirements for charter school conversions and virtual charter schools

Review of submitted applications is perhaps the most important part of the application process. In current practice, decisions are sometimes made to approve charter schools by applicants without proven success models for student achievement or a clear and credible plan for creating a successful model. Charters are sometimes granted to entities that have little or no documentation that supports their ability to meet or exceed the criteria stated in the Request For Proposals. State law can effectively strengthen the decision-making process by requiring application decisions to incorporate student performance data for applicants with proven track records. For applicants without proven academic performance records, like new charter schools, it is crucial that application decisions be made based upon the strength of the applicant’s plan. Performance-Based Contracts The contract between a public charter school and its authorizer is an essential characteristic of the public charter school concept. The charter contract is the tool that sets the operational and academic standards for the school, including how student performance and growth will be assessed. Also, the contract details the measures by which the charter school will be evaluated and the expectations for the administrative relationship between the authorizer and the public charter school. Such contracts must be performance-based and include measures and metrics for, at a minimum:

• Student academic achievement status or proficiency; • Student academic growth, including adequacy of growth toward state standards; • Achievement gaps between major student subgroups; • Attendance; • Recurrent enrollment from year to year; • Postsecondary readiness, including graduation rates and postsecondary enrollment rates (for

high schools); • Special education, English language learners, and special population compliance with federal,

state and local law; • Financial performance and sustainability; and • Board stewardship (including compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and terms of the

charter contract).2 Clear Processes for Renewal, Revocation, and Non-Renewal Current state laws often overlook practices related to charter renewal, revocation, and non-renewal; and sometimes, charters are renewed without clear evidence that supports high performance patterns. Likewise, too many authorizers are too slow to close low-performing public charter schools. These low-performing schools remain open, diluting the quality of options available to students and parents.

2 NACSA, Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Accountability, June 2009. Page 21.

Public Charter School Accountability

4

Authorizer decision-making must be timely and conclusive. Low-potential schools should be prohibited from opening, and poor performers should be closed. Although authorizers should independently have the discretion to make decisions regarding charter applications, it is important for state law to emphasize practical actions and standards that promote strong accountability. States can address these practices through a legislative accountability approach that includes the following criteria:

• Charters seeking renewal must apply for it. • Charter contract renewal should be based on demonstrated student achievement. • Charter contracts should be renewed for five-year terms, with flexibility for authorizers to adjust

the term limit based upon performance. • Authorizers must issue an annual performance report, made available to the public. • Authorizers must have clear school closure protocols in place. • A charter contract should be revocable or non-renewable at any time if the authorizer determines

that the charter school failed to meet the performance goals set forth in the charter contract or it failed to comply with applicable federal and state laws.

StudentsFirst believes that by establishing a rigorous and robust accountability framework, states can support the growth of high-performing charter schools and create a network of high quality educational options available to parents. Ultimately, our goal is to replicate the highest performing charter schools, guide the middle performing charter schools to excellence through sound accountability practices, and close persistently low-performing charter schools. With increased accountability and clear data about their schools, parents are empowered to make better choices for their children that enable them to reach their full potential. Well-Defined Authorizer Responsibility While most states articulate some policies for accountability of the schools, too often, state law is silent or ambiguous about authorizer powers and responsibilities, prompting confusion, poorly interpreted expectations, and ineffective actions. The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) acts as an authority in the field of authorizer responsibility and accountability. The NACSA has published an Index of Essential Practices, derived from their Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing, highlighting the specific roles and responsibilities an effective authorizer should assume. The following list outlines some of the responsibilities put forth by NACSA that should be assigned to authorizers.

• Evaluating charter applications • Approving high-quality charter applications with potential for meeting the most pressing

educational needs • Denying weak charter applications that fail to meet criteria set forth in the RFP, and/or lack

ability to produce a high-quality charter school • Negotiating solid performance-based charter contracts • Monitoring the school’s academic performance and publicly producing annual reports for each

school • Monitoring the school’s fiscal health • Monitoring the school’s legal compliance • Determining renewal, revocation, or non-renewal for each charter contract.3

3 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, A New Model Law for Supporting The Growth of High-Quality Public Charter Schools, June 2009. Page11.

Public Charter School Accountability

5

Once authorizer responsibilities are clearly outlined in state law they can be regulated to ensure charter school success. State policymakers would be wise to establish effective oversight of authorizers to ensure they are doing their work as well. Strong Authorizer Accountability Authorizer accountability is a crucial piece to the charter accountability puzzle. In most states, however, it is almost completely absent from current statutes and practice. In order to ensure high-quality charter schools through strong accountability laws, authorizers must also have strong, supportive oversight bodies. The designated entity for authorizer oversight must be committed to the success of public charter schools and authorizers in the state. Although it is important to select an authorizer oversight body that is right for each state’s unique environment, in many states it makes the most sense for lawmakers to designate the state Department of Education as the state’s authorizer oversight body. Strong accountability is evident in two ways:

• First, authorizers should submit an annual report to their oversight body (legislative or otherwise) containing information regarding the authorizer’s vision for chartering, the academic and financial performance of all charter school overseen by the authorizer, the overall performance of the authorizer’s school portfolio, and a description of the functions and autonomy provided to charter schools under its authority.

• Second, the oversight body should review each authorizer’s performance annually and determine whether the authorizer is exercising its duties and maintaining a portfolio of high-performing public charter schools.4

Virtual Charter School Accountability Measures Virtual charter schools are on the rise all over the country, but accountability laws trail behind. Virtual schools are designed to maximize the innovation and autonomy found in the charter sector, and should be encouraged to do so. Rather than allowing virtual charter schools to operate with total autonomy, however, state law should require virtual public charter schools to not only adhere to the same accountability framework as non-virtual charter schools, but also to include in their charter contracts metrics for the following:

• Monitoring and verifying full-time student enrollment, student participation in a full course load, credit accrual, and course completion;

• Monitoring and verifying student progress and performance in each course through regular, proctored assessments and submissions of coursework;

• Conducting parent teacher conferences; and • Administering state-required assessments to all students in a proctored setting or pursuant to

state law. Creating an Alternative Authorizer A well-designed charter school law must allow an entity other than the Local Education Agency (LEA) to authorize charter schools. Currently, LEAs make up 90 percent of authorizers, leaving only 10 percent to non-school district authorizers. 5 Studies show that having only one authorizing body, like LEAs, can be problematic – especially when that entity itself isn’t succeeding, which is the case with many districts. When ranked according to the use of NACSA’s Index of Essential Practices for charter authorizing, LEA

4 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, A New Model Law for Supporting The Growth of High-Quality Public Charter Schools, June 2009. Page 12-13. 5 National Association for Charter School Authorizers, The State of Charter Authorizing 2011, January 2012.

Public Charter School Accountability

6

authorizers demonstrated the lowest number of essential practices.6 Although some LEAs have the capacity and motivation to implement excellent authorizing principles, many do not. As a result, charter applicants are often forced to seek a charter from an ill-suited LEA because an alternative authorizer does not exist. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter schools, all types of authorizers can be successful if they meet at least three criteria: a clear desire to become an authorizer; enough political insulation to allow decisions focused on the best interests of students; and the ability to create adequate infrastructure to carry out their authorizer tasks.7 That being said, alternative authorizers will look different from state to state because each state has specific laws around which entities are permitted and prohibited to authorize charter schools. Alternative authorizers can be any of the following entities:

• State public charter school commission • Mayor • City Council • Post secondary institution • Non-profit organization

By creating an alternative authorizer (other than an LEA) states are more likely to gain an authorizer who will implement strong accountability measures for the charter schools they oversee, which will increase the number of high-performing charter schools across the state. Authorizer Funding: Developing a Statewide Formula In two studies analyzing authorizing quality across the country, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found that authorizers often lack sufficient resources to fulfill their responsibilities effectively.8 In order to ensure that authorizers receive adequate funding, it is necessary for the state to create a reliable, uniform funding mechanism for all authorizers in the state. Although direct state funding is preferred, the determination of an adequate, efficient, and well-working formula for authorizer funding will depend on conditions in each state, including the variety and preexisting financial capacities of authorizers in the state.9 Expanding High-Performing Charter Schools In order to create a student-centered system that empowers parents to choose among quality education options, state law must support and encourage the expansion of high-quality charter schools. An effective state law around charter school expansion includes:

• removing the caps placed on charter school growth; • allowing for dedicated authorizing entities; and • establishing a ‘fast-tracked’ charter renewal process for high-performing schools.

6 Ibid. 7 Louann Bierlein Palmer, Alternative Charter Schools Authorizers: Playing a Vital Role in the Charter Movement, Progressive Policy Institute, 2006. 8 National Association of Charter School Authorizers, Dollars and Sense: Funding Authorizers Responsibly, 2009. 9 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, A New Model Law for Supporting The Growth of High-Quality Public Charter Schools, June 2009.

Public Charter School Accountability

7

When state law couples accountability measures with simplified charter expansion processes, high-performing charter schools are encouraged to join communities in need of high-quality school options for their students.