Accountability Challenges for Underperforming Charter Schools

New Jersey Department of Education

Office of Charter Schools

April 2013

Office of Charter Schools

NJDOE Overview

• State Education Agency • Sole Authorizer in NJ • Decision-making body: Commissioner of Education

• 86 schools currently operating serving approximately 30,000

students. • Charter students are disproportionately African American and

Hispanic (86%) and economically disadvantaged (70%).

PMRC Summit

• 3-part document (academic, fiscal, organizational) that sets forth expectations of performance and compliance.

• Established in the charter agreement and in current regulations.

• Basis for school evaluation, monitoring, and intervention that informs the NJDOE’s high- stakes decision making.

• Academic Performance will carry the most weight in all high- stakes decision making

Autonomy

Accountability

Performance Framework

What is the Performance Framework?

3

4

Guiding Questions

Academic Framework

Academic Financial Organizational

Is the academic program a success?

Is the school financially

viable?

Is the school equitable and

organizationally sound?

• Focuses on outcome measures that align with the goal of providing a high-quality education for all students.

• Allows for greater transparency between the NJDOE and the charter schools it authorizes by setting clear standards for charter school success.

• Provides continuity of charter cycle with consistent language from the application to renewal.

• Allows stakeholders, including NJ families, to make informed decisions about charter school performance and quality.

Performance Framework

Performance Framework Goals

5

Application Cycle

Charter Agreement

Annual Review

Intervention (if applicable)

Renewal Process

Charter Cycle

6

Charter Cycle

7

Performance Framework: Intervention

Tier System

• Replication or Expansion Top Tier

• No intervention likely Middle

Tier

• Probation / Remedial Plan

• Closure

Bottom Tier

• Separate evaluations based on Elementary/Middle Grades and High School

• Academic Framework does not currently roll up into a single score, or letter grade

• Most of the measures within the academic framework use a four-tier target system

Academic Framework

Academic Performance Framework Overview

8

• Proficiency Status (LAL/ Math)

• Advanced Proficiency (LAL/ Math)

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

• District Comparison (LAL/ Math)

• Peer School Rankings (LAL/ Math)

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE

• School-Wide Adequate Growth (Media SGP)

• Subgroup Adequate Growth (Median SGP)

STUDENT PROGRESS OVER TIME

Academic Framework

• State Performance Targets Achieved

STATE AND FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY

• ACT/SAT Performance

• ACT/SAT Participation

• Graduation Rate

• Enrollment in post-secondary institutions (6 months)

• Enrollment in post-secondary institutions (18 months)

POST –SECONDARY READINESS

• By School (Approved by DOE)

MISSION-SPECIFIC ACADEMIC GOALS

9

Measures

Financial Framework

Financial Performance Framework

10

• Financial Performance Framework serves as a tool to monitor the financial health of charter schools

• It is used as a screening tool to identify schools that may be in financial distress or may be trending toward financial difficulty

• It is not a score card or relative measure of financial heath

Financial Framework Indicators and Measures

Near Term Indicators

• Four measures that test a school’s near term financial health

• Current Ration, Unrestricted Days Cash on Hand, Enrollment Variance, and Default on Loans

• Viability in the upcoming year

Sustainability Indicators

• Four measures that depict a school’s financial position and viability over time

• Debt to Asset Ration, Total Margin, Cash Flow, Debt Service to Coverage Ratio

• Viability in the future

Financial Framework

• Expectations the charter school is required to meet through state and federal law or the charter agreement:

– Spend public funds responsibly;

– Practice sound governance; and

– Adhere to laws and charter requirements

• Balance between appropriate oversight and infringement on autonomy

Organizational Framework

Organizational Framework

12

• Essential Terms of Charter

• Curriculum Alignment

• Data Use

• Education Requirements

EDUCATION PROGRAM

• Admissions and Enrollment

• Students with Disabilities

• English Language Learners

• Attrition/Enrollment Stability

EQUITY

• Mission Alignment/High Expectations

• Family and Community Involvement

SCHOOL CULTURE

Organizational Framework

• Governance

• Accountability of Management

GOVERNANCE

• Safe and Secure Facilities

• Safe and Secure School Environment

FACILITIES / SAFE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

• Reporting / Compliance

• GAAP

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT / OVERSIGHT

• Federal and State Compliance

• Other Compliance

REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE

13

Renewal Charter School 1

14

Demographics School

Percentage District 1 State Total Special Ed 6% 16% 16% FRPL 38% 49% 35% LEP 0% 1% 4% Black 60% 56% 16% Hispanic 5% 10% 22% Asian 2% 3% 9% White 33% 29% 51%

Performance Framework Targets for 2011-2012

Detailed Indicators

Exceeds the Standard 0

Meets the Standard 0

Does Not Meet Standard 2

Falls Far Below Standard 6

1. Student Achievement (Absolute) Year

NJASK Grades 3-8 Schoolwide 2010-11 2011-12

# Test Eligible 80 157 % Pass (Proficient & Advanced) - LAL 45% 41% % Pass (Proficient & Advanced) - Math 46% 46% % Advanced Proficient - LAL 3% 1% % Advanced Proficient - Math 11% 8% 2. Comparative Performance Year

NJASK Grades 3-8 Schoolwide vs. District Avg.

2010-11 2011-12

District Comp - LAL (% Pass vs. District) -7% -10% District Comp - Math (% Pass vs. District) -13% -9% 3. Student Progress Over Time (Growth) Year

NJASK Grades 4-8 Median SGP 2010-11 2011-12

Schoolwide Median SGP LAL 32 Schoolwide Median SGP Math 36

15

Name of School Renewal Charter School 1 Year School Opened 2009 Current Grade Levels K-5 Current Enrollment 469 Comparative District District 1

Site Visit Findings Leadership: Administrative turnover this year.

Weak instructional leadership. Board is inexperienced and does not understand effective board governance.

Class Visits: Mediocre. Lack of classroom

management in some cases and low-level instruction.

Equity: Lower SPED numbers than district. Not

confident in child study team.

Operational/Fiscal: Fiscally viable.

67% 66%

52% 51%45% 41%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2010-11 2011-12

% P

rofi

cie

nt &

Ad

van

ced

Language Arts and Literacy % Pass - 4 Year Trend

Statewide

Winslow Twp

Institute Of Excellence C

76% 75%

59% 55%46% 46%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2010-11 2011-12

% P

rofi

cie

nt &

Ad

van

ced

Mathematics % Pass - 4 Year Trend

Statewide

Winslow Twp

Institute Of Excellence C

District 1

District 1

Renewal Charter School 2

16

Performance Framework Targets for 2011-2012

Detailed Indicators

Exceeds the Standard 0

Meets the Standard 1

Does Not Meet Standard 3

Falls Far Below Standard 4

2011-2012 Demographics

School Percentage District 2 State Total

Special Ed 19% 19% 16%

FRPL 0% 13% 35%

LEP 0% 0% 4%

Black 1% 2% 16%

Hispanic 2% 5% 22%

Asian 2% 1% 9%

White 96% 92% 51%

1. Student Achievement (Absolute) Year

NJASK Grades 3-8 Schoolwide 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

# Tested LAL 68 67 73 74 % Pass (Proficient & Advanced) - LAL 62% 58% 60% 51% # Tested Math 68 66 73 74 % Pass (Proficient & Advanced) - Math 63% 65% 62% 66% % Advanced Proficient - LAL 4% 6% 3% 0% % Advanced Proficient - Math 13% 17% 12% 19% 2. Comparative Performance Year

NJASK Grades 3-8 Schoolwide vs. District Avg. 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

District Comp - LAL (% Pass vs. District) >50% -10% -7% -10% -12% District Comp - Math (% Pass vs. District) >50% -18% -16% -21% -18% 3. Student Progress Over Time (Growth) Year

NJASK Grades 4-8 Median SGP 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Schoolwide Median SGP LAL 56 29 Schoolwide Median SGP Math 45 54.5

17

Name of School Ridge And Valley Cs Year School Opened 2004 Current Grade Levels K-8 Current Enrollment 124 Comparative District District 2

Site Visit Findings Leadership: Strong leadership team, very

accessible to teachers, board, parents, and students. In constant communication with teachers about improvements to be made and student progress.

Class Visits: Overall strong. Evidence of higher

order thinking and high expectations. The students were well behaved. The school is a project based school with a focus on sustainability and outdoor education.

Equity: High Special Education population.

Application and recruiting materials only available in English, based on our recommendation the school plans to add additional languages.

Operational/Fiscal: The school fiscally sound. All

stakeholders are very invested in the school and participate in events and volunteer often. All school policies and clear and students and teachers adhere to high expectations.

69% 67% 67% 66%62%

58% 60%

51%

72%65%

70%64%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

% P

rofi

cie

nt &

Ad

van

ced

NJASK Language Arts and Literacy % Proficient & Advanced - 4 Year Trend

Statewide

Ridge And Valley Cs

Blairstown Twp

72% 73% 76% 75%

63% 65%62%

66%

81% 81% 83% 84%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

% P

rofi

cie

nt &

Ad

van

ced

NJASK Mathematics% Proficient & Advanced - 4 Year Trend

Statewide

Ridge And Valley Cs

Blairstown Twp

District 2

District 2