IMPR MPROVING N NEW EW MEXICO COS S CHA CHARTER AND AUTHO - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

IMPR MPROVING N NEW EW MEXICO CO’S ’S CHA CHARTER AND AUTHO HORIZ RIZER A R ACCO COUN UNTABILIT ILITY SYSTEMS

PRES ESEN ENTATION TO T THE L E LES ESC JULY 18 18, 2 2018 18

VERONICA BROOKS-UY POLICY DIRECTOR LISA S. GROVER, PH.D. SENIOR DIRECTOR, STATE POLICY AND SUPPORT NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

2

3

• New M

Mexic ico’s N Natio ional al C Char arter S School L Law R Rankin ing

• St

Strengths an and R d Room f for Impr provement in in the L Law

• Polic

icy R Recomm mmendat datio ions f s for I Increase ased A Accountab abil ilit ity f for C Charter S Schools

• Polic

icy R Recomm mmendat datio ions f s for I Increase ased A Accountab abil ilit ity f for A Authoriz izers

AGE GENDA

5

6

7

8

NM’S CHARTER LAW ALSO HAS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

• Renewal Standard & Default Closure
• NM’s law is vague on renewal standards: schools must make “substantial

progress” toward academic goals

• There is no minimum threshold for closure, aka default closure
• Authorizer Evaluations
• There is no requirement for authorizers to be evaluated on their adherence to

standards

• Authorizer Sanctions
• There are no laws that require consequences for authorizers that do not follow

standards

9

(1) (1) Be e more cl clea ear i in n the l e law abo bout ut w what i is m meant nt b by “subs ubstantial p progres ess” a and nd require a author

• rizers t

to

• clos

lose chron

• nically

lly lo low-perfor

• rming c

charter s schoo

• ols

ls u unle less exce ceptional ci circu cumstances es exist

• All authorizers, charter schools, and other stakeholders should have opportunity to

engage in process to determine how best to define substantial progress and what the default closure threshold should be

• Not every authorizer would have to use same performance framework for its charters,

but would have to include certain “non-negotiable” indicators of progress

• Would cut down on authorizer shopping and provide more clarity to schools and the

public

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

10

(2) (2) Es Establ blish a a statewide e ent entity t that holds a aut uthorizer ers a acco ccountabl ble f e for abi biding b by prin inciples a s and st stan andards, an and mai maintaining a a high high-perfor

• rming p

por

• rtfol
• lio of
• of schools
• ols
• Just as charter schools should be held accountable, so should authorizers
• All authorizers should have to register with the statewide entity and agree to abide by

national principles, standards, and best practices

• The evaluation entity should annually collect and report on the performance of every

authorizer

• If an authorizer isn’t meeting the standards or has a chronically low-performing portfolio
• f charter schools, the evaluation entity should issue consequences

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

11

(3) Give a e a ne new s statewide aut uthorizer er ent entity the a e abi bility to sanct nction poor

• r-performing

ng aut uthorizer ers

• The entity would have the authority to sanction an authorizer for poor performance,

including suspending an authorizer’s authority to approve new schools

• It would also conduct periodic formal evaluations of overall state charter school

program and outcomes and publish a report

• This would also help cut down on authorizer shopping

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

12

13

KEEP IN TOUCH

veronicab@qualitycharters.org (225) 301-1759 www.qualitycharters.org /qualitycharters @qualitycharters www.linkedin.com/in/vbrooksuy/

Veronica Brooks-Uy

Policy Director

14