Company LOGO Georgia Charter Schools Commission: Lessons from 2009 Cycle 2010 Georgia Charter Schools Association Conference March 11-12, Marietta, Georgia Dr. Ben Scafidi; Andrew W. Broy

Growth of Charter Sector

Types of Charter Schools Start-up (Traditional or LEA Start-up) Conversion System Charters Locally Approved State Chartered Special Schools State Approved Charters Start-up Schools authorized by Georgia Charter Schools Commission Commission Approved

Georgia Charter Commission Creates 7-member “Charter School Commission” Members appointed by State Board of Education on recommendation of Governor, Lt. Governor, and Speaker of the House Commission given power to authorize charter schools Commission authorized to award “full” funding to approved charter schools Calculated on allotment sheet HB 881 Requires petitioners seeking commission authorization to file with a local school district first; commission can only act 60 days after submission to local district Exception for charter school proposing to enroll students from five or more districts State Board can overturn the decision of the Commission with a supermajority vote (2/3 of members) HB 881 Authorizing Process

Georgia Charter Commission State Chartered Special Schools: Can seek commission authorization at end of current charter term or sooner if State Board allows. Start-Up Schools: Can seek commission authorization at end of current charter term or sooner if State Board and local board allow. Conversions, Charter Systems: Cannot seek commission authorization. HB 881 Existing Charter Schools

Commission Applications Commission application on Department of Education website Application Due August 1, 2010 to Commission Make sure to comply with all requirements listed on application Number of copies, length, etc. Nonconforming applications Deadline Received 125 letters of intent for start-up charter schools Interest

Charter Period Initial Charter Five to Ten Years Renewal One to Ten Years

Application Process 1.Review of application  legal compliance, educational plan, governance framework 2.Interview Process  Used to determine capacity of school leadership team to carry out plan 3.Recommendations  Communication from the Commission staff to the full Commission explaining recommendation and rationale

Application Process  Application  Local denial issue  Revisions to submitted application  Law requires “joint submission” and does not permit the Commission to act until 60 days after local submission  SBOE Rule requires a school to respond in writing to the reasons for local denial  Explanation should be organized to respond to each concern raised by local board

Application Process Once applications are submitted, they will be reviewed for completeness by Commission staff Only complete applications will be reviewed After review, applicants will be contacted in writing about status of application and interview process After Submission

Interview Process Founder (principal) Board Chair CFO Additional Team Members Leadership Team: Determine the capacity of the leadership team Ask clarifying questions about the application Judge the effectiveness of the proposed leader Determine whether the school will be able to serve students well Interview Allows the panel to: Capacity and plan Can the school handle LEA status? Key to Success:

Interview Process Curriculum Assessment Plan Performance Goals Academic Plan Financial plan, including facilities Local support for enrollment Cash flow, timing of funding Capacity Governance structure and board Teacher quality and school leadership Relationship with EMO/CMO Business Plan

Recommendation and DOE Role Panel recommendations Commission consideration and vote Possible SBOE reconsideration

What is innovation? Characteristics of Georgia Charter Schools Uniforms: 34 Extended day: 28 International Baccalaureate: 8 Single gender classes or school: 8 Career academy: 6 Range of annual facilities costs: $0 - $1,350,211

Commission Considerations Quality, Quality, Quality Geographic location of Charters Rural districts and districts with exceptional need Urban areas with no start up charter schools (Macon, etc.) High Schools Multi-district schools Truly unique models New management company Theme offerings Performing arts, military themed, single-gender, dual language

Charter Commission Lessons Sound financial management Strong student performance goals Leadership (effective principal) Quality teachers A realistic facilities plan Effective governing board High levels of local support Stable/increasing student population Focus on academic outcomes Organizational and governance vision

Commission Applicant Mistakes 1.Weak student performance goals  Imprecise, not targeted, not set out by year  Not sufficiently rigorous  No use of norm referenced in addition to CRCT 2.Inconsistencies in the application  Poor writing, lack of attention to detail 3.Power imbalance between management company and governing board 4.No understanding of waivers 5.Unrealistic budget assumptions

Commission Applicant Mistakes 1.Examples from actual applications  Management company contract terms inconsistent with budget  Lack of connection between waivers sought and curricular approach  Student goal baseline set below district average  Goals included for three of five years of proposed charter  No goals for all five years of term  Attendance zone not explained  3% Commission withhold, TRS contributions, and health care costs not included in budget

Race to the Top Stimulus (ARRA Funding) $787 Billion in additional funding Roughly $120 Billion devoted to education Most allocated through existing formulas and state fiscal stabilization $5 billion reserved for Innovation $4 Billion for Race to the Top for states $650 million for Investing in Innovation Fund (50, 30, 5)

Race to the Top  4 Assurances: Teacher quality and distribution State data system Turning around low performing schools Standards and assessments link to college, work ready standards and benchmarked  Other considerations  Legal ability to link state assessment systems with individual teachers and schools  No cap on charter school authorization  Common core standards

Company LOGO Georgia Charter Schools Commission: Lessons from 2009 Cycle 2010 Georgia Charter Schools Association Conference March 11-12, Marietta, Georgia Dr. Ben Scafidi; Andrew W. Broy