Guide to State Board of Education Charter School Sponsorship

Transcription

1 Guide to State Board of Education Charter School Sponsorship 2011 Prepared by The Oregon Department of Education

2 Guide to State Board of Education Charter School Sponsorship Table of Contents Foreword...1 Appeal and Sponsorship Phases Phase One: Request for Review and Mediation...2 Phase Two: Request for State Board Sponsorship...2 Phase Three: Charter Proposal Review and Analysis...3 Note on Adverse Impact...4 Note on Proposal Revisions During Review Process...4 Phase Four: Recommendation and State Board Action...5 Phase Five: Follow-up to State Board s Action...6 Flowchart of Process...7 Checklist of Process...8 Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric ORS (2) Review and Analysis Rubric...9 ORS (2) Review and Analysis Rubric...20 Relevant Statutes, Rules and Policies ORS , , OAR , -0331, State Board Policy # Oregon Department of Education 2011

3 Foreword Oregon s Public Charter School Law, Chapter 338 of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), was enacted in May This legislation provided an opportunity for parents, educators, and community members to take responsible risks to create new, innovative, more flexible ways of educating all children within the public school system (ORS 338). The Legislature s goals for Oregon public charter schools are to: Increase student learning and achievement; Increase choices of learning opportunities for students; Better meet individual student academic needs and interests; Build stronger working relationships among educators, parents and other community members; Encourage the use of different and innovative learning methods; Provide opportunities in small learning environments for flexibility and innovation, which may be applied, if proven effective, to other public schools; Create new professional opportunities for teachers; Establish additional forms of accountability for schools; and Create innovative measurement tools. Charter schools are semi-autonomous public schools of choice. Student admission to a charter school is open and lottery-based; the only admission criteria are age and grade. Charter schools are operated by non-profit corporations rather than by local school districts. A charter school is authorized, or sponsored, through a charter contract with a local school district board (or, through appeals, the State Board of Education). Charter schools must incorporate all state content standards into their curriculum, participate in the statewide assessment system, and comply with all health and safety, instructional minutes, special education, and civil rights laws. However, they have some flexibility in terms of curriculum, structure, schedule, staffing, and are exempt from some regulations applicable to traditional public schools. The Guide to State Board of Education Charter School Sponsorship was developed to provide information in a clear and consistent manner to assist stakeholders (districts, applicants, etc.) to better understand the State Board of Education (SBE) sponsorship process. Research indicates a rigorous, fair and high-quality authorizing process is critical to the success of the charter school sector. The SBE takes its role as a potential authorizer very seriously. This Guide is based on current research, common practices of high-quality authorizers throughout the country and the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) staff s experience and expertise in charter school development and implementation. Oregon Department of Education

4 Phase One Request for Review and Mediation Charter developers must request sponsorship from the school district board in which the charter school will be located. If a school district board denies sponsorship of the public charter school, the charter developer may request the State Board of Education (SBE) review the school district board s decision. The SBE delegates to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction all administrative functions necessary to conduct the review (OAR ). To initiate a review of the district board s decision to deny sponsorship, the charter developer must submit to the SBE a written request for a review within 30 business days of the local school board s decision to deny. This should be accompanied by the most recent charter proposal submitted to the district and the district s written response to that proposal. Upon receipt of the request, the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) will assign a staff member to serve as the review process coordinator. The review process coordinator will be the primary contact for the applicant and will manage the review process. Pursuant to ORS (3), at any time during the review process, the SBE may reject a proposal to start a public charter school if the school fails to meet the requirements of ORS Chapter 338. Therefore, upon receipt of a request for review, the first step will be a review of the proposal to determine if it meets the minimum criteria in ORS (2). (Examples of proposals failing to meet minimum criteria might be the absence of a description of the types of assessments used to measure student achievement and growth or nominal information regarding community involvement and support.) If it is determined the proposal does not meet minimum requirements, a recommendation will be made to deny sponsorship of the charter school. If the proposal meets minimum criteria, the review process coordinator will arrange mediation between the applicant and the school district. The mediator will notify ODE in writing of the outcome of mediation. Mediation will be completed within 60 business days of ODE s receipt of the developer s written request to review. The time period may be extended for good cause. Phase Two Request for State Board of Education Sponsorship If mediation is not successful and the school district does not accept recommended revisions, the applicant may request State Board sponsorship of the charter school. The request for sponsorship must be submitted in writing to the State Board of Education within 30 business days of the notice of completion of mediation. The request should be accompanied by the most recent charter proposal submitted to the district. This may include any revisions mutually agreed to by the district and the applicant during mediation. Oregon Department of Education

5 Phase Three Charter Proposal Review and Analysis In the review process, the SBE is a prospective sponsor. As a prospective sponsor, the State Board of Education review parallels school district boards in their role and activities. As outlined in OAR , the State Board of Education/Superintendent of Public Instruction/Oregon Department of Education may: 1. Adopt policies that clarify proposal content and chartering process, given it remains consistent with law. 2. Establish internal protocols and tools to use in evaluating the proposal. 3. Require any additional information the (State) board considers relevant to the formation or operation of a public charter school, in accordance with ORS (3). ODE will conduct an evaluation of the charter proposal in good faith, using the same criteria prospective district board sponsors must use, specifically those stipulated in ORS (2). The ODE review process coordinator, in conjunction with the ODE Director supervising charter schools, will convene a proposal review team comprised of individuals with expertise in areas relevant to the charter school proposal. The review team s evaluation will be based on the proposal requirements in ORS and evaluation criteria ORS , and will involve two steps: Phase Three, Step One: The reviewers will use the Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric. Each review team member will review and rate the proposal using the requirements designated in ORS Ratings will be based on the evidence found in the documents requested for review. Within the Review and Analysis Rubric are Evidence descriptors the reviewers will use to determine the merit of the section and Preferable Factors to further determine the quality and readiness to operate a charter school. Phase Three, Step Two: Using the Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric, each review team member will analyze the charter proposal to determine whether or not the charter school meets the eight criteria outlined in ORS (2). The entire proposal will be considered during the analysis of each of the eight criteria. The reviewers will use the Evidence descriptors to determine the merit of the section and Preferable Factors to further determine the quality and readiness to operate a charter school. The review team members will provide comments explaining the rationale for each rating. Comments will identify strengths and evidence that enables the proposal to meet the criteria, as well as any weaknesses that prevent the proposal from meeting the criteria. The eight criteria listed in ORS (2) are: a) The demonstrated, sustainable support for the public charter school by teachers, parents, students and other community members, including comments received at the public hearing held under subsection (1) of this section; b) The demonstrated financial stability of the public charter school, including Oregon Department of Education

6 the demonstrated ability of the school to have a sound financial management system in place at the time the school begins operating; c) The capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive instructional programs to students pursuant to an approved proposal; d) The capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to specifically provide, pursuant to an approved proposal, comprehensive instructional programs to students identified by the applicant as academically low achieving; e) The extent to which the proposal addresses the information required in ORS ; f) Whether the value of the public charter school is outweighed by any directly identifiable, significant and adverse impact on the quality of the public education of students residing in the school district in which the public charter school will be located; g) Whether there are arrangements for any necessary special education and related services for children with disabilities pursuant to ORS ; and h) Whether there are alternative arrangements for students and for teachers and other school employees who choose not to attend or who choose not to be employed by the public charter school (only applicable to developers proposing to convert all or part of an existing public school to a public charter school). Note Adverse Impact If the district board denied the charter proposal on the basis of the value of the public charter school is outweighed by any directly identifiable, significant and adverse impact on the quality of the public education of students residing in the school district in which the public charter school will be located (ORS (2) (f)), a person familiar with district and school finance will verify the district s data and rationale used to determine adverse impact (i.e. enrollment projections, State School fund projections, identifiable adverse impact etc.) The application will also be evaluated using the procedure outlined in Phase Three, Step 1. Both the charter school applicants and the local school district staff may be asked to present on the value or adverse impact (respectively) of the charter school. Note Proposal Revisions During Review Process In accordance with (5), individual elements in a public charter school proposal may be changed through the proposal and chartering process. The SBE, like prospective district board sponsors, may define the time, process, and nature of any changes that might occur during the chartering process. The charter developer must submit to ODE the version of the charter proposal denied by the local school board and any modifications agreed to during mediation. Changes in the proposal such as updating budget figures based on new state revenue projection and/or other changes may be allowed at the discretion of the review process coordinator. Should the developer wish to make substantial changes to the proposal without ODE s agreement, the developer will need to terminate the review process by submitting a written notification to ODE. The developer may submit the revised application to its local school district board. Oregon Department of Education

7 Phase Four Recommendation and State Board Action Phase Four, Step One: The ODE review process coordinator will collect the completed Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubrics from review team members and synthesize all input. The review process coordinator may conduct a structured interview with the developer to clarify any process or substantive issues related to the written proposal and/or probe for greater understanding of the interrelationship and coherence of various components of the proposal. Phase Four, Step Two: ODE staff will prepare a summary document and recommendation regarding sponsorship. The recommendation and supporting documentation will be given to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the developer, and the local district. The recommendation will be based on information gathered throughout the review process. ODE staff will make its recommendation to the Superintendent of Public Instruction within 60 days of the request for SBE sponsorship. The time period may be extended for good cause. NOTE: To receive a recommendation for sponsorship, the proposal must meet ALL criteria listed in ORS Phase Four, Step Three: The Superintendent of Public Instruction or his/her designee shall recommend in writing to the SBE to either deny the proposal or sponsor the public charter school (OAR (3)). ODE staff will notify the developer and the local district of the date the recommendation will be presented to the SBE as a first read agenda item. The developer and the district will be given an opportunity to address the Board at this time. The intent of this opportunity is to provide time for the developer to describe in more detail and clarify any portions of the proposal they deem necessary and for the district to describe in more detail or clarify the decision of denial made by the local district board. A written outline of the testimony must be submitted to the review process coordinator no later than 15 business days before the scheduled SBE meeting. The final recommendation must be presented to the Board within 60 business days of the Superintendent s receipt of the staff recommendation. Phase Four, Step Four: At a SBE meeting, following the first reading of the recommendation to either deny the appeal or sponsor the public charter school, the SBE will make a decision on the recommendation of the Superintendent. This action will take place within 75 days of the Superintendent s recommendation (OAR (5)). Oregon Department of Education

8 Phase Five Follow-up to SBE Action If the SBE approves the charter application, a charter agreement is negotiated between ODE and the charter school board and adopted by the SBE. If the SBE denies the charter school application, the applicant may seek judicial review (ORS (4)). Research has shown adequate planning time to develop a quality infrastructure is critical to a charter school s success. After State Board of Education approval, a charter school will need a minimum of nine months of planning before the school opens to students. If a developer can demonstrate the capacity to open and operate a fully functioning school in a shorter time period, special permission may be granted. Oregon Department of Education

9 1. At any time the State Board of Education of Education may reject a proposal if the school fails to meet the requirements designated in ORS and the criteria listed in ORS At any time, the Charter School applicant may withdraw their request for the State Board of Education sponsorship. 3. Timelines may be extended for good cause. Guide to State Board of Education Charter School Sponsorship 2011 Public Charter School Appeal to State Board of Education Charter School Proposal is denied by local school district Phase One Request for Review and Mediation Applicant requests review within 30 business days of local district's decision to deny. Staff reviews proposal for minimum criteria. Does not meet minimum criteria recommended to deny. minimum requirements. Mediation completed within 60 business days of request for reveiw. District approves proposal. Phase Two Request for SBE sponsorship Applicant requests SBE sponsorship: In writing Within 30 business days of notification of completion of mediation. Phase Three Charter proposal review and analysis. Review team evaluates proposal based on critieria in ORS and ORS Phase Four Recommendation and SBE Action 1. Staff reviews and synthesizes review team's evaluations 2. Staff makes recommendation to Superintendent of Public Instruction within 60 business days of request for SBE sponsorship. 3. Superintendent of Public Instruction makes recommendation to SBE: "First read" agenda item, applicant and district testimony, if submitted in writing prior to SBE Meeting. 4. Action Item: SBE approves or denies proposal within 75 days of Superintendent of Public Instruction's recommendation. Approved: Charter negotiated and adopted by the SBE Phase Five Denied Deveopment Phase Minimum nine monts Applicant accepts action to deny. Applicant may seek judicial review Oregon Department of Education

10 Guide to State Board of Education Charter School Sponsorship 2011 Checklist: Charter School State Board Sponsorship Phase Action Status One Two Three Four Five Request for review and mediation Applicant requests review (in writing, within 30 days of district s decision to deny). Staff reviews proposal for minimum criteria If criteria are not met, proposal is denied and process resumes at Phase Four, Step Two. If criteria are met, mediation convenes. Request for SBE Sponsorship Request from applicant for SBE sponsorship (in writing, within 30 days of completion of mediation) Charter proposal review and analysis 1. Review team convened. 2. Review team evaluates proposal based upon ORS and using the Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric. Recommendation and SBE Action 1. ODE staff synthesizes review team s evaluations. 2. Staff gives recommendation to Superintendent, applicant and local school district (within 60 days of request for SBE sponsorship). 3. Applicant and local school district are notified of timeline for submission of testimony outline. 4. Superintendent makes recommendation to SBE as a first read agenda item. If written testimony is received, applicant and local district will have the opportunity to address the Board. SBE acts on recommendation within 75 days of Superintendent s recommendation. Follow-up to SBE action If approved, charter school and ODE negotiate a contract that is approved by the SBE. Applicant accepts SBE decision to deny. Applicant seeks judicial review. Development to Operational Phase minimum nine months Oregon Department of Education

11 Charter School Name Reviewer Name Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric Proposal Requirements ORS (2) (a) The identification of the applicant Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale Applicant identification is evidenced by a listing of the names of key school founders. Specification of each person s role with the proposed school and relevant experience/expertise. (b) The name of the proposed public charter school The proposed public charter school name is evidenced by a clear indication of the name. A consistent use of the name throughout the proposal. (c) A description of the philosophy and mission of the public charter school The philosophy is evidenced by a clear description of the proposed school s approach to education. The mission is evidenced by clear statements that convey the school s vision for the education of its students. Clear, focused and compelling Likely to improve education outcomes Expresses a clear guiding purpose Identifies priorities that are consistent with the intent of ORS (d) A description of the The curriculum description is evidenced by an explanation of the Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 9

12 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) curriculum of the public charter school Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale instructional approach/methodology and an outline of each content area addressed within the public charter school. The description includes how the school s comprehensive education program will meet the needs of ALL students, particularly academically low-achieving students Curriculum framework is clearly presented, aligned with the school s mission, and provides an appropriate level of detail for objectives, content, and skills for each subject and for all grades the school will serve Curriculum is supported by research and/or by applicant experience Educational program is a good match for the target student population A clear outline of how the school will monitor the implementation of the curriculum A cohesive and coherent description of all components (e) A description of expected results of the curriculum and the verified methods of measuring and reporting objective results that will show the growth of knowledge of students attending the public charter school and allow comparisons with public schools Proposal outlines in detail the expected results of the curriculum, such as student and school outcomes and goals. Plans to measure outcomes with verified methods and objective reporting are evidenced by a well- developed and comprehensive plan for assessing student and school goals. Oregon State Assessments and other means of yielding data allowing comparisons with other public schools are clearly described. Alignment with school s mission Goals are clear, specific, measureable, ambitious and attainable Objectives follow clearly from the goals A clear plan for the school to meet AYP Clear realistic strategies for improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps Understanding of and strategy for complying with state achievement and reporting requirements Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 10

13 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale (f) The governance structure of the public charter school The governance structure is evidenced by assurances of nonprofit and tax-exempt status and description of key features of the school s governance model. : Proposed board members will contribute a wide range of experience and expertise needed to oversee a successful charter school such as education, management, financial planning and community outreach Comprehensive plan for providing board training Clear description of selection and removal procedures, term limits, meeting schedules, and powers and roles of board members Clear distinction between the roles and responsibilities of the board members and school administrators Plan for meaningful involvement of parents and community members in the governance of the school Sufficient time, money and personnel allocated for planning and start-up prior to the school s opening (g) The projected enrollment to be maintained and the ages or grades to be served Enrollment and ages/grades served is evidenced by a clear description of anticipated enrollment (by age/grade) for at least three years (and for the duration of the desired charter term, if longer than three years). A complete description of the student population the school intends to serve Evidence of strong support from an adequate number of parents, or community members, or any combination thereof Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 11

14 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) (h) The target population of students the public charter school will be designed to serve Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale The target population to be served is evidenced by a description of student demographics and characteristics. Evidence that founders understand key student populations and demographics within the district which are likely to influence the proposed school s student body and needs Evidence of targeted student s current levels of achievement and instructional needs Evidence of a need in the community to serve the target student population Evidence of sufficient interest in the school to fill the proposed number of student openings (i) A description of any distinctive learning or teaching techniques to be used in the public charter school Distinctive learning and teaching techniques are evidenced by a detailed description of educational model(s), activities, and/or delivery strategies that will characterize the school. Clear, focused and compelling Likely to improve educational outcomes Expresses a clear, guiding purpose aligned with the mission and vision Supported by research, applicant experience, and/or sound reasoning behind techniques (j) The legal address, facilities and physical location of the public charter school, if known School s address, if known, and legal/mailing address. If a facility has been identified: Designation of the proposed facility Evidence the facility will be appropriate for the educational program of the school and adequate for the projected student enrollment Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 12

15 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale Adequate reflection of the costs associated with the proposed facility in the budget, including rent, utilities, and maintenance Assurance the proposed facility will be in compliance with applicable building codes, health and safety laws, and with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Sound plan to identify needed renovation as well as the funds and timeline for the completion of those renovations If a facility has not yet been identified: Description of anticipated facilities needs including evidence the facility will be appropriate for the educational program of the school and adequate for the projected student enrollment Inclusion of costs associated with the anticipated facilities needs in the budget, including permits, rent, utilities, and maintenance Evidence to indicate facilities-related budget assumptions are realistic based on anticipated location, size, etc Assurance the proposed location will be in compliance with applicable building codes, health and safety lows, and with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Plan for finding a location, including a proposed schedule for doing so (k) A description of admission policies and application procedures The admission policies and application procedures, including lottery procedures are evidenced by specific descriptions aligned with ORS Chapter 338. Clear description of the enrollment policy, including lottery procedures consistent with the requirements of ORS Clear procedures for withdrawals and transfers from the school that will support an orderly transition for exiting students or a clear plan for developing such procedures Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 13

16 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale (L) The statutes and rules that shall apply to the public charter school Statutes and Rules that apply to the school are evidenced through an encompassing written statement of compliance with all laws listed as applicable to charter schools in ORS (1). Citation of any statutes or rules in addition to those listed in ORS (1) and copies of policies or a timeline for policy development (m) The proposed budget and financial plan for the public charter school and evidence that the proposed budget and financial plan for the public charter school are financially sound Demonstration of a sound budget and financial plan is evidenced by documentation of a detailed three-five year budget, accurate projection of revenues and expenditures based on prevailing costs and other factors that contribute to solvency. Budget assumptions and financial planning based on realistic revenue and expenditure projections for the term of the contract, including based on minimum enrollment needed for solvency Spending priorities aligned with the school s mission, curriculum, and plans for management, professional development, and growth Realistic cash flow projection for the first year of operation, including a plan for funding cash flow shortfalls Sound financial management systems Plan for making required school and employee contributions to PERS Adequate and reasonable plan to manage start-up costs Description of how the school will conduct an annual audit of the financial operations Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 14

17 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) (n) A description of the financial management systems for the public charter school and a plan for having the financial management systems in place at the time the school begins operating Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale The financial management systems are evidenced by documentation of board and staff management responsibilities, fiscal policies, budget development and oversight system, creating and using budgets, balance sheets reflecting assets, expenditures and liabilities, accounting systems, payroll, insurance and benefits, financial reporting, internal controls (staffing policies and procedures), the audit (understanding, conducting and preparing for an audit and using 990s. Clear description of the financial responsibilities of the charter board as it compares to the staff responsibilities A check and balance system described for budget development and the oversight system during the budget year Board policies describing the internal controls for receiving revenue and paying bills Clear operating standards for financial management with a consistent foundation, institutionalized practice in the event of leadership or staff turnover Processes reflecting annual review of such systems by both the public charter school and sponsor (o) The standards for behavior and the procedures for the discipline, suspension or expulsion of students Clear description of standards for student behavior and accompanying discipline procedures, which include suspension and expulsion procedures. Policies for addressing expulsion, suspension and education of expelled or suspended students providing adequate safety of students and staff; provide due process for students; serve the best interest of the school s students; create a positive environment for learning OR A description of student standards for behavior A clear plan for developing such policies including a schedule for doing so An explanation of how the proposed school will conduct appeals for students facing expulsion Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 15

18 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale A description of how students will be expelled, for what offenses and which schools they will be expelled from if the expulsion hearing is conducted by the proposed charter school (p) The proposed school calendar for the public charter school including length of school day and school year The school calendar is evidenced by a description or calendaring of school days; the length of the school year and the length of a school day that meet the instructional time requirements in OAR School day and school calendar are structured in ways that align with the educational program (q) A description of the proposed staff members and required qualifications of teachers at the public charter school All proposed staff positions and qualifications are described. Explanation of the relationship that will exist between the charter school and its employees Employment policies of the school OR clear plan for timely development of such policies Plans for ensuring all staff meet ESEA Highly Qualified Teachers requirements Staffing plan that clearly describes qualification, roles and responsibilities of each staff member, including school administrator Description of ongoing professional development for staff, aligned to school s mission (r) The date upon which the The operational date is evidenced by a clear statement of Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 16

19 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) public charter school would begin operating Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale projected start date. A description of the process for opening the school on the projected start date A timeline outlining the significant items needed to open the school by the projected date. (s) The arrangements for any necessary special education and related services provided pursuant to ORS for children with disabilities who may attend the public charter school The arrangements for special education and related services are evidenced in a comprehensive description which aligns with ORS Realistic plan to identify and meet the general education learning needs of, resident and non-resident students with disabilities Timeline, lead contact, and intervention process with specific action steps for meeting learning needs of students with suspected special needs Plans for serving special populations align with the overall curriculum, instructional approaches, and the school mission Plan for contracting with resident districts for providing Identification and IEP services for students with suspected or special needs. (t) Information on the manner in which community groups may be involved in the planning and development process of the public charter school Plans to involve the community in the planning and development of the public charter school are described in detail (e.g., identification of key community groups or members the developers will access given the school s mission and target population, tactics to engage key community constituents, the process of how community input will be sought, etc.). Sound outreach plan to inform parent and members of the community about the operations of the school, including Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 17

20 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale providing information about the school to students of all races, languages, and abilities, a timeline for implementation, a lead contact, and specific action steps Evidence the proposed school is welcomed by the larger community, has formed partnerships with community organizations, and is viewed as an attractive educational alternative that reflects the community s needs and interests (u) The term of the charter The term of the charter is evidenced by a proposed beginning and ending date for the charter contract; proposed term must be a minimum of one year and maximum of five years. (v) The plan for performance bonding or insuring the public charter school, including buildings and liabilities The insurance plan is evidenced through a description of the types and levels of insurance coverage the school plans to purchase or a description of the plan to secure performance bonding. Budget reflects insurance costs (w) A proposed plan for the placement of public charter school teachers, other school employees and students of the public charter school upon termination or nonrenewal of a charter The plan for placement of staff and students (in the event of nonrenewal or termination) is evidenced through a written description of the process to be used; student plans should include collaboration with the local school district. Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 18

21 Charter School Name Proposal Requirements ORS (2) (x) The manner in which the program review and fiscal audit will be conducted Reviewer Name Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale The plans for annual review of educational program and operations, and municipal fiscal audits will be evidenced in a detailed description of how both will be accomplished The process and timeline for arranging the annual fiscal audit The process and timeline for a sponsor site visit The manner in which fiscal audit and program review results will be incorporated into school improvement planning The plan and timeline to submit audit and annual program review to ODE (y) In the case of an existing school being converted to charter status: (A) Alternative arrangements for staff or students who choose not to be in the public charter school is evidenced by a detailed plan that addresses the needs of each group and does not create an adverse impact or violate the rights of an individual. (A) The alternative arrangements for students who choose not to attend the public charter school and for teachers and other school employees who choose not to participate in the public charter school; and (B) The relationship that will exist between the public charter school and its employees, including evidence that the terms and conditions of employment have been addressed with affected employees and their recognized representatives, if any. (B) Description of the relationship between the public charter school and its employees, should they choose to remain at the school once converted to charter, with evidence that all employment terms and conditions have been addressed. Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 19

22 Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric Evaluation Criteria ORS (2) (a) The demonstrated, sustainable support for the public charter school by teachers, parents, students and other community members, including comments received at the public hearing held under subsection (1) of this section Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale Demonstration of sustainable support is evidenced by substantial documentation, e.g., market research, marketing plans, results of community meetings/presentations, community partnerships, and/or survey results, as well as documentation of community testimony provided during the public hearing conducted by the school district. (b) The demonstrated financial stability of the public charter school, including the demonstrated ability of the school to have a sound financial management system in place at the time the school begins operating Demonstration of a fiscal stability is evidenced by documentation of a detailed three-five year budget, balance sheets reflecting assets, expenditures and liabilities, accurate projections of revenues and expenditures based on prevailing costs and other factors that contribute to solvency, as well as GAAP and other sound fiscal management practices. Annual reserve, minimal reliance on soft funds Sound financial management policies and strategies including but not limited to cash management, investment practices, financial reporting, segregation of duties, and processes reflecting annual review of such systems. (c) The capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive instructional programs to students pursuant to an approved proposal Evidence of the applicant s capacity to support, plan and provide comprehensive instructional programs, including relevant expertise and experience of the applicant, a proposed comprehensive curriculum aligned with state standards and based on research-based instructional practices, adaptable for all achievement levels. Effective staffing, professional development Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 20

23 Evaluation Criteria ORS (2) Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale Assessment plans that support effective delivery and measurement of the instructional program. (d) The capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to specifically provide, pursuant to an approved proposal, comprehensive instructional programs to students identified by the applicant as academically low achieving Evidence of the applicant s capability to support, plan, and provide comprehensive instructional programs that will meet the needs of academically low achieving students is evidenced by a plan for identifying low achieving students, specific program planning/ implementation to close anticipated achievement gaps and assessment plans to measure individual progress. (e) The extent to which the proposal addresses the information required in ORS Evidence that the proposal addresses the information required in ORS to a satisfactory extent. (f) Whether the value of the public charter school is outweighed by any directly identifiable, significant and adverse impact on the quality of the public education of students residing in the school district in which the public charter school will be located Evidence from the proposal demonstrates the value of the public charter school. Evidence from the school district response demonstrates an explicitly identifiable, significant and adverse impact on the quality of education of students within the district. (A score signifies there is NO adverse impact) Explain rationale of rating: Value- Adverse Impact- Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 21

24 Evaluation Criteria ORS (2) Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale (g) Whether there are arrangements for any necessary special education and related services for children with disabilities pursuant to ORS Evidence of arrangements for necessary special education and related services for children with disabilities include detailed plans aligned with ORS , i.e., recognition that student resident districts to retain responsibility for providing all special education and related services, plans for charter school to contract with sponsor district and other districts for payment of ADMw for special education students and specifying respective responsibilities related to the provision of special education and related services to the student. Professional development for charter school staff related to identification and referral, modifications and accommodations, discipline, attendance reporting, communication with parents, and charter school s role on IEP team. (h) Whether there are alternative arrangements for students and for teachers and other school employees who choose not to attend or who choose not to be employed by the public charter school Applicable to conversion schools only Alternative arrangements for staff or students who choose not to be in the public charter school is evidenced by a detailed plan that addresses the needs of each group and does not create an adverse impact or violate the rights of an individual. Oregon Department of Education 2011 ORS (2) 22

25 Relevant Oregon Statutes Proposal requirements; technical assistance; buildings. (1) An applicant seeking to establish a public charter school shall submit a written proposal to a school district board. (2) The proposal shall include, but need not be limited to: (a) The identification of the applicant; (b) The name of the proposed public charter school; (c) A description of the philosophy and mission of the public charter school; (d) A description of the curriculum of the public charter school; (e) A description of the expected results of the curriculum and the verified methods of measuring and reporting objective results that will show the growth of knowledge of students attending the public charter school and allow comparisons with public schools; (f) The governance structure of the public charter school; (g) The projected enrollment to be maintained and the ages or grades to be served; (h) The target population of students the public charter school will be designed to serve; (i) A description of any distinctive learning or teaching techniques to be used in the public charter school; (j) The legal address, facilities and physical location of the public charter school, if known; (k) A description of admission policies and application procedures; (L) The statutes and rules that shall apply to the public charter school; (m) The proposed budget and financial plan for the public charter school and evidence that the proposed budget and financial plan for the public charter school are financially sound; (n) A description of the financial management systems for the public charter school and a plan for having the financial management systems in place at the time the school begins operating; (o) The standards for behavior and the procedures for the discipline, suspension or expulsion of students; (p) The proposed school calendar for the public charter school, including the length of the school day and school year; (q) A description of the proposed staff members and required qualifications of teachers at the public charter school; (r) The date upon which the public charter school would begin operating; (s) The arrangements for any necessary special education and related services provided pursuant to ORS for children with disabilities who may attend the public charter school; (t) Information on the manner in which community groups may be involved in the planning and development process of the public charter school; (u) The term of the charter; (v) The plan for performance bonding or insuring the public charter school, including buildings and liabilities; (w) A proposed plan for the placement of public charter school teachers, other school employees and students of the public charter school upon termination or nonrenewal of a charter; (x) The manner in which the program review and fiscal audit will be conducted; and (y) In the case of an existing public school being converted to charter status: (A) The alternative arrangements for students who choose not to attend the public charter school and for teachers and other school employees who choose not to participate in the public charter school; and Oregon Department of Education

26 (B) The relationship that will exist between the public charter school and its employees, including evidence that the terms and conditions of employment have been addressed with affected employees and their recognized representative, if any. (3) In addition to the requirements of subsection (2) of this section, the school district board may require any additional information the board considers relevant to the formation or operation of a public charter school. (4) At the request of the applicant, the school district board may provide technical assistance in developing the proposal for operation of the public charter school. (5) School districts, education service districts and other public bodies, as defined in ORS , shall make available to the public lists of vacant and unused public buildings and portions of buildings that may be suitable for the operation of a public charter school. The lists shall be provided to developing or operating public charter schools within 30 days of a written request. Nothing in this subsection requires the owner of a building on the list to sell or lease the building or any portion of the building to a public charter school or a public charter school governing body. [1999 c.200 6; 2007 c.671 1; 2009 c.691 4] Approval process; public hearing; evaluation criteria; notice of decision; fees prohibited; timeline extensions. (1) Within 60 days of receipt of a proposal submitted under ORS , the school district board shall hold a public hearing on the provisions of the proposal. (2) The school district board shall evaluate a proposal in good faith using the following criteria: (a) The demonstrated, sustainable support for the public charter school by teachers, parents, students and other community members, including comments received at the public hearing held under subsection (1) of this section; (b) The demonstrated financial stability of the public charter school, including the demonstrated ability of the school to have a sound financial management system in place at the time the school begins operating; (c) The capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive instructional programs to students pursuant to an approved proposal; (d) The capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to specifically provide, pursuant to an approved proposal, comprehensive instructional programs to students identified by the applicant as academically low achieving; (e) The extent to which the proposal addresses the information required in ORS ; (f) Whether the value of the public charter school is outweighed by any directly identifiable, significant and adverse impact on the quality of the public education of students residing in the school district in which the public charter school will be located; (g) Whether there are arrangements for any necessary special education and related services for children with disabilities pursuant to ORS ; and (h) Whether there are alternative arrangements for students and for teachers and other school employees who choose not to attend or who choose not to be employed by the public charter school. (3) The school district board must approve a proposal or state in writing the reasons for disapproving a proposal within 30 days after the public hearing held under subsection (1) of this section. (4) Written notice of the school district board s action shall be sent to the applicant. If the proposal is not approved, the reasons for the denial and suggested remedial measures, if any, shall be clearly stated in the notice sent by the school district board to the applicant. If the proposal is not approved, the applicant may amend the proposal to address objections and any suggested remedial measures and Oregon Department of Education