Oregon Public Charter School Program Accountability Oregon Department of Education August 4, 2004

Public Charter Schools Similar Open to all students Non-selective Certain laws must be followed (Civil rights, IDEA, Due process, open meetings etc) Per pupil funding formula Different Created by application Schools of choice (staff and students) Operates pursuant to performance agreement (charter) Evaluated on outcomes written in charter

Charter School Reform Strategy Focus on performance-based system, not process/regulation Provide public school choice Introduce competition Allow for innovation Instructionally neutral

National Overview 41 States with charter laws State charter laws vary widely Federal support growing  Large charter grant program  Regulatory burden growing

Traditional Paradigm School District Board Central Office District Schools Goals Charter Schools

New Paradigm School District Board Central Office Charter Schools District Schools Goals ESDs – Other Service Providers

A Different District- School Relationship District is not responsible for making the school succeed District is responsible for holding the school accountable for its success or failure

A Different District- School Relationship For special education: District is responsible for the student’s special education. District is responsible for the oversight of implementation at the charter school.

Components of Oregon’s Law Any person or group may propose/develop New, “conversion”, or school w/in existing school Proposals approved by school districts SBE sponsorship on appeal Up to 5 year term

Charter Law, continued Minimum of 25 students Non-discriminatory admissions, lottery Up to one-half of teachers/administrators may be non-TSPC licensed Funded through districts

Accountability Accountability is a cornerstone of charter schools Charter schools are subject to ALL accountability regulations, including NCLB, IDEA, civil rights, etc. The sponsoring district is responsible for carrying out the NCLB (Title I, II, etc.) accountability provisions and elements of IDEA and civil rights.

NCLB Allocation of funds Charter schools are treated as a school with in the district The LEA (sponsoring school district) allocates funds to charter schools on the same basis as other district schools

IDEA Allocation of funds Charter schools are treated as a school with in the district The LEA (sponsoring school district) allocates funds to charter schools according to statute and charter. The LEA treats the charter school as any other school in distributing special education services.

School Choice Charter schools may be listed by an LEA as a choice option (but not yet for IEP teams). Must have met AYP and not identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring

School Choice (cont.) If more students apply for admission than can be admitted, the school may weight the lottery in favor of students seeking to change schools under the public school choice provisions of ESEA Title I, for the limited purpose of providing greater choice covered by those provisions Example: Each student seeking to transfer under Title I, receives two or more chances to win the lottery, while all other students would have only one chance.

AYP… part of the contract? NCLB holds charter schools accountable for making AYP, just like other public schools Sponsoring districts may incorporate the AYP definition into the charter contract, especially a new school Possible for a charter school to meet its contractual requirements, but fail AYP  Also possible for the reverse, meeting AYP, but fail to meeting contract obligations

Supplemental Services Eligible to become supplement service provider Charter school may not be in “school improvement”

Current charter school successes Increased student performance Innovative curriculum and instruction Innovative management, operations and facilities High staff satisfaction and engagement High parent/student involvement and satisfaction

Charter School Struggles Facilities and funding Unclear goals and limited performance data Internal governance disputes Inadequate planning Inexperienced leadership and staff Inadequate, non-existent or “overkill” oversight Implementing special education requirements Implementing civil rights laws

Keys to Success Realistic plan and timeline Detailed school design upfront Clear, common and coherent mission/vision Positive relationship with sponsor Strong team with broad expertise Training Funding independent from State School Funds (SSF)

Responsibility of Sponsor Application process  Clarity  Fairness  Rigor Performance Contracting Ongoing Oversight Renewal Decision-making

Contacts Margaret Bates , Ext Rendy Delvin , Ext Rae Ann Ray , Ext. 2311