Charter System Background Information Table of Contents This
Charter System Background Information
Table of Contents This Presentation is intended to serve as a reference • Charter System—The Big Picture • Basic Components and Philosophy of the Charter System • What “Flexibility” Means • • • Waivable vs. Non-Waivable Laws/Rules • Practical Considerations for Flexibility • Examples of Flexibility-Driven Innovation Increased Accountability in a Charter System • Goals and Expectations • Consequences Distributed Leadership to Schools • • • Local School Governance Teams (“LSGT”): Role, Purpose and Requirements Common Questions • Charter schools vs. Charter System Schools • LSGTs vs. LSACs Flexibility in Georgia Update 2
Charter System — Basic Components To innovate, District Requires Flexibility from State Law, Policy and District Policy Commitment to Innovation and Changing District Culture Freedom and Flexibility in Exchange for Increased Accountability Goals Charter System Required Distribution of Substantial Autonomy to School (LSGT) The Charter System Philosophy: A district must want to truly change how it does business and believe that, in order to increase student achievement, schools must be operated in a different way, with greater parent and community buy-in at every single school. Schools are empowered to develop solutions free from the established educational bureaucracy of legislature-driven education mandates, State Board rules, and even the district’s own policies and practices. With this freedom from the law, the district and its schools in turn agree to be held accountable for significant increases in student achievement. 3
When we talk about "Flexibility, " what do we mean? The ability to waive, i. e. , not observe: A large amount of Georgia’s education laws (located in Title 20) State Board Local Board of Education Department of Education Rules, Regulations, Policies and Policies, and Procedures* Procedures *In practice, the most difficult to waive. Discussed more in depth on slide __.
Flexibility from Title 20 of the Georgia Code Duties of Actors How to earn/spend your money How to treat children legally Program Mandates The 499 pages of Georgia educational laws located in Title 20 primarily consist of laws that can be categorized in these four areas. Waivable areas include: Requirements for how districts spend their money (but not how it's earned) and educational/school program mandates/requirements (think middle school organization, # of instructional minutes, specific character education programs) Districts cannot waive the legal duties of actors, such as the Local Board of Education, or requirements on how to treat children legally.
State Board of Education Rules and Guidelines = Prime Waiver Territory Examples of Waivable State Board of Education Rules Operational Requirements: School Day/School Year, Middle School Program Criteria, Class Size, Minimum direct classroom expenditures HR Requirements: Personnel Required, Mentor Teacher Program, Salary Schedule Programmatic Requirements: Career Education, Values & Character Education, Work-based learning, Textbook Selections State Board of Education (“SBOE”) Rules present the most waivable requirements for charter systems. Georgia’s education laws are generally high level and often depend on the SBOE to flesh out programs, requirements, mandates, etc. , through SBOE rule. As such, most of the detailed requirements for how districts must structure their schools and educational programs are located in SBOE rules.
What can't we waive? See the underlined for the less obvious non-waivable areas. Federal Law Non-educational State laws Conflicts of Interest/insurance Health & Safety Civil Rights Laws related to the concepts themselves* How we earn funding State mandated testing/accountability Unlawful conduct *For example, a charter system cannot waive the charter schools act or charter system rules.
Flexibility Problems in Practice Issue 1: While charter systems can waive the state law & rule on an issue, that doesn't mean the charter system will necessarily be allowed to waive the corresponding GADOE processes/procedures. Example: A charter system school wants to develop a new innovative course for their students. In order for What this means: The charter system the district to receive funding for this concept is still evolving at the state. course, the course must either 1) These types of discrepancies are being match an approved course code on an removed every year, but it takes time SBOE list, or 2) go through the DOE's to get an entire state on board with a course approval process (9 -18 month policy reform like charter system. process). Charter systems have not been able to waive the course approval process as of yet.
Flexibility Problems in Practice Issue 2: Currently, districts earn funding based on coding the types of classes and programs they offer, as well as the students who participate in those classes and programs. Districts cannot waive how they earn funding, but they can waive how they deliver the program. The Result: Charter systems have What this means: The way QBE a hard time coding for funding is earned does not mesh because how they want to offer well with diverging from the programs might result in less state’s education laws, SBOE funding. The state's answer so far Rules, etc. , . The Governor's new is for districts to provide QBE reforms expected next year commensurate programming to should hopefully resolve these what they're coding for—a pretty conflicts before APS ever imprecise "solution. " becomes a charter system.
Flexibility Problems in Practice Points to Consider • Even with these issues, the flexibility a charter system is afforded allows the system to reform and reinvent itself in innovative ways, free from many educational requirements handed down from the state. • That flexibility comes with meaningful cost savings and benefits. • The Charter system concept is still a work in progress. As such, there’s a fair amount of advocacy work approved charter systems take on. Through continued collaboration with the state, charter systems can advocate for state-level improvements on how charter systems are allowed to operate. Each year, improvements are made, but there’s still work to be done until the machinery operates perfectly.
Specific Examples of Flexibility-Driven Innovation at the District-Level Personnel • Waiver of certain educator contracting requirements to allow an introductory probationary period (90 days) to ensure good fit with the school placement. This allows the district to unboard or transfer new teachers without incurring Fair Dismissal Act requirements. • Waiver of teacher certification requirements in non-core subjects Academic Programs • Waiving programmatic delivery requirements of English Language Learner programs— instead of offering a limited # of segments a week, the district used more push-in services and offered a consolidated six-week summer language institute. • Waiving # instructional minute requirements and course-credit hour requirements to allow mastery-based learning differentiated for student pacing needs. Finances • Waiving class size requirements and minimum direct expenditure requirements to allow districts to spend the money they receive to meet the needs of their students. • Waiving the built-in spending requirements in QBE for funded programs to allow them to provide services differently than prescribed in law/SBOE rule. Note: these examples are from other GA charter systems and are by way of example only.
Specific Examples of Flexibility-Driven Innovations at the School Level Academic Program • Development of Graphic Arts curriculum at the K-6 level (waiver of approved course requirements) • Increased student work-based learning (waiver of student age/grade requirements for participation) School Operations • Shortening class periods by four minutes each to create new advisory period for college/career/work-based learning opportunities (waiver of instructional minutes) • Increasing professional development days for staff (waiver of school year requirements) Miscellaneous • Allowing Students to waive PE requirements at High School level if participating in varsity sports or band (PE course requirement waiver)
Increased Accountability for Charter Systems Part of the bargain is that, in exchange for increased flexibility, a charter system promises to do better. These promises are encapsulated in academic and operational goals contained in the charter system application and ultimately, the charter system contract. Academic Performance Goals • State Required • CCRPI-based goals (meet/exceed state averages) • Student growth goals Fiscal Performance Goals • Optional • APS can include goals re: clean audits, balanced budgets, etc. District Culture Goals • Optional • APS can include goals re: decreasing student/staff absenteeism, increasing staff retention, school discipline, parent satisfaction
Consequences If APS does not meet its goals, the following consequences could result: Termination of Charter System Contract (more extreme) Non-Renewal of Charter System Contract after end of 5 -year term Schools failing to meet charter system goals & meeting Opportunity School district criteria subject to state takeover. Other State Interventions for failing schools
Central Requirements of a Charter System To innovate, District Requires Flexibility from State Law, Policy and District Policy Commitment to Innovation and Changing District Culture Freedom and Flexibility in Exchange for Increased Accountability Goals Charter System Required Distribution of Substantial Autonomy to School (LSGT) Beyond the use of flexibility to drive academic and operational achievement, a charter system must also distribute meaningful decision-making power to the school level through the creation of Local School Governance Teams (LSGTs). Each school will have its own LSGT that is, by law, delegated power in certain areas.
Charter systems must distribute decision-making authority to LSGTs in these areas: Curriculum & Instruction Personnel School Improvement Budget & Resource Allocations School Operations What does decision-making authority in these areas really look like?
The Work of the LSGT IPT = Input, AUT = Autonomy. More information about the LSGT’s specific work will be provided during the Board Retreat Charter System Presentation Domain Required by State APS is Considering Additionally Personnel IPT: Selection of Principal IPT: Annual feedback on principal's performance/interaction with LSGT IPT: Interview Principal Finance & Resource Allocations IPT: Final recs for school budget IPT: #/type of personnel, curriculum costs, supply, equipment, maintenance, operations costs AUT: Develop/manage requests for funding to support new innovative proposals. Curriculum IPT: Curriculum and accompanying instructional materials IPT/AUT: Align school's curriculum offerings and modes of delivery to cluster theme. School Improveme nt AUT: Establish/monitor achievement of school improvement goals AUT: Approval of school improvement plan and oversight of its implementation AUT: Create strategic plan that incorporates school improvement and Title I planning. School Operations IPT: school operations that relate to AUT: Development of community school improvement goals and/or charter communication strategies and system goals creation of Parent/community involvement/engagement plan IPT: School system calendar and district-wide initiatives
Common Question: If APS is granted charter system status, its traditional schools will become charter system schools. So, what's the difference between charter schools and charter system schools? APS Charter School APS Charter System School • School is governed by its own Governing Board, an individual legal entity that’s operated under District's high-level control & oversight • Governing Board legally responsible for overseeing principal, school operations, and performance • Governing Board is individually responsible for the goals in the charter contract between the school, district, and state • Part of the District, overall governed by the Superintendent and the Board of Education. • Local School Governance Team (LSGT) responsible for strategic vision and deep thinking to increase school performance—not involved in day-to-day management of school • LSGT is not individually responsible for accountability goals in charter system contract between APS and state.
Charter System vs. Charter School Charter System • Governed by Board of Education • Contract is between system and SBOE • Local School Governance Team has decision-making authority in certain areas • • Schools are not independently responsible for all goals stated in charter contract Not privatization Charter School Commonalities • Governed by non-profit board of directors • Public • • Operate under a charter contract Contract is between school, school district and state • The Governing board can contract with an independent operator to manage and run the school • Schools are independent and have flexibility from state and district policies • Receive flexibility from certain state laws • Subject to GA statewide accountability assessments
What happens to APS's Charter Schools after the transition to Charter System? • Short answer: Nothing. APS's transition to charter system status does not affect APS charter schools. The charter contract between APS, the charter school, and the state still govern the relationship and responsibilities of the charter school, APS, and the state. • Charter petitioners can still submit charter petitions to start new charter schools to APS after APS’s transition to a charter system. • A conversion charter school can choose to terminate its charter contract to become an APS charter system school instead, but it requires school, district, and state approval.
Common Question: What is the difference between Local School Governance Teams (LSGTs) required for Charter Systems and Local School Councils (LSCs) required for traditional systems?
LSGTs vs. LSCs Characteristics LSGT LSC Structure Voting Body: LSGTs have defined input and autonomy in certain areas whereas LSACs could only advise. Advisory Body Primary Purpose Set strategic direction for school and vote on school improvement initiatives Advise and make recommendations to school leadership Required? Mandatory for charter systems Mandatory for traditional systems (replaced by LSGT in charter system) Legal Status Legally a part of the district Membership Strict requirements established by the State and APS Minimum requirements established by the State
Flexibility Update for Georgia Where does the rest of the state stand with the June 30 th deadline to choose a model?
As of April 2015, there are: • 32 Approved Charter Systems • 4 Approved IE 2 Systems • 16 Letters of Intent for Charter System • 20 Letters of Intent for IE 2 • 108 Systems Undecided Deadline: June 30, 2015 to submit a letter of intent. Application Deadline for Charter System: November 1 st. APS is on track to submitting its application early during summer 2015. Information taken from GADOE presentation and SBOE Meeting summaries
After submission: The Charter System Approval Process After APS submits charter system to the LBOE for approval in summer of 2015, it will then be submitted to the GADOE for processing. The Charter Advisory Committee will then review and make recommendations to the SBOE to ultimately approve or deny APS's application. Information taken from GADOE March 2015 presentation
Thank you! For questions or comments regarding APS’s charter system model, contact Angela Smith aksmith@atlantak 12. ga. us
- Slides: 26
