Charter revocation rules not yet final
The State Board of Education moved closer to adoption but has not yet passed new rules for revoking poorly performing charter schools.
At their meeting last week, members appeared to agree with using API scores to determine which charters should be annually reviewed for possible revocation. However, they also want alternatives to the proposal to consider revoking charters of schools in the lowest 10 percent of API scores and whose scores ranked in the lowest 20 percent of schools with similar student populations.
The Academic Performance Index is a single number, ranging from 200 to 1000, that measures a school’s performance based on a combination of annual standardized tests in math, English language arts, history, science and, where appropriate, the high school exit exam. It’s an imperfect measure of a school’s overall achievement, but is one that the public readily understands and has come to identify with.
Other options raised during public testimony include using a three-year average of API scores and looking at improvement in students’ test scores. A charter middle or high school whose mission is to admit low-performing, at risk students will always have API scores weighed down by initial years’ test scores. However, the schools must be able to show substantial gain by the time students reach seventh or eighth grades in middle school or their junior and senior years in high school.
State Board President Ted Mitchell said that he and other members have been frustrated over their inability to intervene when districts have renewed the five-year charters of clearly underperforming schools. The board needs tools to step in when appropriate, he said.
The board would have the option of ordering specific improvements, which it would oversee, instead of revocation.
Board member Ben Austin has said that he considered the proposal to revoke charters in the lowest decile just the first step. Since they are given freedom from restrictions binding district schools, the public should expect charters to be held to a higher standard, he said.
The board is expected to adopt the regulations at either its special Aug. 2 meeting or at its September session.
3 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
Ya’ remember the “Cowardly Lion” in the Wizard of Oz? “Let me at ‘em! Let me at ‘em!” That’s the SBE and charter schools. No “blunt instruments” and “regulatory bear traps” for the charter folks. And, for the most part, “charter folks” are the SBE. I’ve never been quite clear on how people with direct financial ties to the charter industrial complex can serve on a board with decision making power over policies that routinely advantage charters and disadvantage regular public schools. “What a world! What a world!” Also from the Wizard of Oz. Folks should watch the video of the SBE to see the “winged monkeys” in action.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I agree with Mr. Ravani, in that there seems to be a mystique to charter school as the superior model of public-sponsored education such that it’s less a matter of a “Ready, Fire, Aim” problem than “Ready, Fire”–move right along without checking the target. To the question, I don’t see how a charter school’s being “weighed down” by low initial scores is any different than the challenges faced by many of our standard public schools in neighborhoods where poverty and/or low exposure to English is prevalent. I think the labels “failing” or “underperforming” are thrown around too uncritically in the latter case. Here, you’re as your discussing judging the charters, I’d just offer that the measures appear different for no apparent reason. Don’t we really need a performance growth model that improves on the NCLB mess and that could be applied equitably?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Of the API, John says, “It’s an imperfect measure of a school’s overall achievement, but is one that the public readily understands and has come to identify with.”
Do they? As I’m sure you know, John, what comprises the API changes each year and therefore, it, too, is a moving target.
While portions of the public may finally be able to recognize “API”, it befuddles lots of urban school families.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity