4th annual oakland charter leader · pdf file5th annual oakland charter leader welcome ......

5th Annual Oakland Charter Leader

Welcome Oakland Unified School District

Office of Charter Schools

Welcome to the 5th Annual Oakland Charter Leader Welcome

“To be in hell is to drift; to be in heaven is to steer.”

-George Bernard Shaw

2

Agenda

4:00 Arrive / Appetizers / Acquainting

4:20 Welcome / Ice Breaker / Introductions

4:35 OCS Updates: Capturing 10-11, Forecasting 11-12

4:55 OCS Annual Survey Results / Renewal Survey Results

5:15 Who is Steering your Ship? A Focus on Governance

6:00 Closure / Appreciations / Exit Ticket

3

Ice(berg)breaker

• Pair-up with the person sitting next to you

• Take turns pulling questions from the center of your table: ask your partner a question and partner answers

• Introduce your partner (name, school) and share ONE QUESTION AND ANSWER your partner shared with you

4

Office of Charter School Updates: Capturing 10-11, Forecasting 11-12

5

Office of Charter School Staff Plates Guadalupe Navarro-Ochoa

Compliance Specialist 510-336-7572

[email protected]

Primary contact for: • OCS calendar

• Fall Information Update • Charter teacher credentials

• Parent/community complaints • Closed schools / Students transcripts

• Student exits / expulsions

Minh Co Financial Accountant 510-879-2833 [email protected] Primary contact for: • Calendar and instructional minutes

compliance • Facilities charges • Special education contribution • Audits • Attendance reporting • All financial reporting and analysis

Paige Abramson Hirsch, Program Analyst 510-336-7570

[email protected]

Primary contact for: • Charter material revisions

• Documentation of OCS processes • Special Education and Section 504

• State testing administration training • SARCs

Gail Ann Greely, Coordinator 510-336-7571 [email protected] Primary contact for: • Initial petition and renewal decisions • Facilities • Federal funding compliance • Program Improvement compliance

6

mailto:[email protected]



Capturing 10-11, Forecasting 11-12

• Database Project • Facilities • Financial Review • Program Improvement Status • BTSA

7


• Key Dates Calendar • Fall Information Update • Testing Administration Training • Special Education

8


• Credentials • Student Exit Form

9

2011-2012 OCS Office Goals

10

2011-2012 OCS Office Goals (MOOs)

1. OUSD-authorized charter schools will achieve measurable improvement in

student achievement. 2. OUSD-authorized charter schools will show improved compliance with

federal, state, and local requirements. 3. OCS will develop a clear, comprehensive, rigorous set of standards and

procedures for its charter authorizing work. 4. OCS will pilot an online database containing current information regarding

the operation and performance of charter schools in Oakland. 5. OCS will improve communication with OUSD Departments on charter school

issues impacting the District. 6. OCS will facilitate the exchange of best practices through events,

communication, and coordination with charter organizations.

11

MOOs in Detail

Goal Measured By Targets 1. OUSD-authorized charter schools will

achieve measurable improvement in student achievement.

• Academic Performance Index for 2011-2012 (released fall 2012)

• 80% of OUSD-authorized charter schools will meet school API targets

2. OUSD-authorized charter schools will show improved compliance with federal, state and local requirements.

• OUSD federal sub-recipient review protocol (2011-2012 pilot year)

• OUSD Program Improvement review protocol (2011-2012 pilot year)

• Fall information update submission tracking • Financial report submission tracking

• 50% of sub-recipient schools will satisfy all review elements

• 50% of PI schools will satisfy all review elements • 80% of schools will submit all items on time; 100% will

submit all elements by December 1st • 80% of schools will submit all reports on time and without

errors; 100% will submit all reports with all errors corrected within 2 weeks of OUSD deadline

3. OCS will develop a clear, comprehensive,

rigorous set of standards and procedures for its charter authorizing work.

• Completion date • Survey of charter leaders as to clarity,

comprehensiveness and rigor • Survey of OUSD leaders as to clarity,

comprehensiveness and rigor

• Handbook complete by June 30, 2012 • 80% of charter leaders score handbook as satisfactory

across measures of clarity, comprehensiveness and rigor • 80% of OUSD leaders surveyed score handbook as

satisfactory across measures of clarity, comprehensiveness and rigor

4. OCS will pilot an on-line database containing current information regarding the operation and performance of charter schools in Oakland.

• Completion date • Time-saving in generation of data for charter

renewal reports

• Database operational by September 1, 2011 • Time to generate charter renewal reports reduced by

50%, as measured by OCS staff experience

5. OCS will improve communication with OUSD Departments on charter school issues impacting the District.

• Functionality of current OUSD Charters website

• Number and variety of other communication tools in use

• Survey of OUSD leaders regarding quality and quantity of information on charter schools

• OUSD charters website will be up-to-date with all links working by December 1, 2011

• At least two (2) new communications tools for OUSD leadership piloted by January 1, 2012

• 80% of OUSD leaders surveyed report improvement in quality and quantity charter school information

6. OCS will facilitate the exchange of best practices among OUSD-authorized charter schools through events, communication and coordination with charter organizations.

• Number of events held, either by OCS or OCS with charter organizations

• Communication among charter schools and between charter and district schools

• Reported impact of OCS efforts to facilitate exchange

• OCS will sponsor or support at least two (2) events to promote exchange of best practices by June 30, 2012

• 80% of charter leaders will report improved communication on best practices

• 25% of charter leaders will report a positive exchange of best practices during the 2011-2012 academic year

12

Role of CCSA Collaborative

13

Office of Charter Schools Annual Survey Results

2010-2011

14

OCS Survey Results - Service

15


16


17


18


19

OCS Survey Results – Best Practices

In what way can our office assist in the exchange of best practices?

• There should be more open communication opportunities between schools. • Perhaps by sending out regular bulletins about what’s happening at other charter schools,

resources, upcoming events. • Via Website postings of information received from schools and categorized for search

purposes (policies, data systems, modifications, curriculum, etc…) • Best practice is a vague term-so not really interested in getting any exchange • Creating work groups around various topics. • The office has become very bureaucratic. • Not sure –website? Convening meaningful meetings? At this point, there are so many

disparate entities out there it actually creates a lot of work for us to stay current and engaged.

• Transparency in all dealings with our charter parents. Meeting with board. • Convening forums like the early college inquiry group is an excellent way to do this.

20

OCS Survey Results - Importance

21


22


23


24


25


26


27


28


29


30

OCS Survey Results - Facilities

31

OCS Survey Results - Governance

32

OCS Survey Results – Oakland SELPA

33


34

OCS Survey Results – OUSD SELPA

35


36

OCS Survey Results – Autonomy

37


38


39


40


41


42


43


44

OCS Survey Results – Website

45

OCS Survey Results – Website

Issues? Suggested Content?

• I have had difficulty finding the most recent version of documents. During Charter Renewal last year, I was unable to locate the Staff Report prior to our hearing.

• Had great difficulty submitting reports online. • It appears that the updates are not as frequent or consistent

as they once were. As a result - I visit less frequently. • It is not always intuitive where to go to find information.

46

OCS Survey Results – Conclusion

In what other ways, within our authorizing mandate, could the

Office of Charter Schools support your school? • A contact list for district services, I have not visited the website recently so

it may be on it already. • We will see this round of renewals to see if the field is level or if district

connections matter. Ultimately- it appears that support of charters is way down the list- which is understood considering the politics.

• Some responses are related to issues above the head of OUSD charter office. CDE-required reports can be a problem and I understand the OUSD charter office is just forwarding requests.

• When parents contact the office about internal issues keep referring them back to us to follow the complaint process.

47

Office of Charter Schools Renewal Survey Results

2010-2011

48

OCS Renewal Survey Results

1. On a scale of 1-4, please rank the clarity of the following:

49


2. How valuable was the process of generating your school's Performance Report?

50


3. Did you understand the renewal standards?

51


4. Was it clear that the renewal decision about your school was based on the renewal standards?

52


5. Please describe areas of the renewal process that you found challenging. • Developing clear measurable outcomes. • Data collection. We were not on power school at that time. • The external reviewers did not look at the educational program and try to see if the school

was being true to the program outlined in the charter. I felt as if they came in with a conception of what they thought good teaching/education programs were and evaluated from there. Their report was poorly done. It was clear that portions were cut and pasted from other reports from other schools.

• Finding data on comparable schools; teacher retention stats; info on the Board of trustees . . . . .responding to 41 items was bureaucratic, the exact thing charters are breaking away from.

• The site visits were a bit overwhelming. It seemed like the office of charter schools was only spending time talking about areas of weakness. In addition, it seemed like there was a bit of overlap between the site visit and previous spring/fall site visits over the years.

53


5. Please describe areas of the renewal process that you found challenging. (continued) • I would like to see a more differentiated process for renewal, based on certain performance

and maturity indicators. I'd also like to see our K-8 and 9-12 evaluated on the same cycle (we would like to submit early for K-8 in order to do so). In my ideal, this would also be done in alignment with WASC cycle. It was challenging to balance time on the process (given we have done a similar review now for three of three years) with needs at the school. On an operational side, I found the transparency around Board timeline difficult. I know this is not something the Office of Charter Schools can control, but it was difficult not knowing when Board Meetings would be held (some changed dates) and when the Teaching and Learning Committee would review.

• Dealing with the charter office and OUSD and not getting the support to save our school and the lack of understanding and compassion.

• Didn't know how to prepare for the site visit.

54


6. Please describe areas of the renewal process that worked well for you. • Charter school office provided great support throughout entire process. • The guidelines were clear and removed subjectivity. • It was a good opportunity for organizational reflection. • Updating the charter; setting MPOs; aligning process with WASC. • Overall, good communication with the office of charter schools. It was a helpful exercise to

review and rewrite the renewal petition. • I very much appreciate and applaud the fact that time was spent in the classrooms at our

school. I also find the Office of Charter Schools to be extremely supportive and accessible in the process.

• Performance report format was easy to use.

55


7. What specific changes would you make to the renewal process? • Equitable focus on all elements of the charter not just test results. • Develop a process that does not require the full renewal if the school produces the stipulated

outcomes. • Differentiate. If a school has an API over 800 it seems like there should be a different process than

for those who are "on the bubble". Consider peer review for the outside reviewer portion. This was a very labor intensive process. It took key leaders out of the daily operations of the school for several months and therefore it can be argued that this "accountability" measure had an adverse affect on the operations than thus support for students in our small school.

• Fewer items -- focus on the essentials -- academic achievement, parent satisfaction. • Discussed in previous questions. • Schools that are not making the grade in the fifth year being able to work with the charter office on

improvement plan for 1 year to improve the school to meet criteria rather than just closing, their is no support or collaboration to improve.

• Not have to do it if over 800 API.

56


8. Do you think the renewal process should be differentiated based on a school's performance on standardized measures, like API scores? Why or why not? • I think consideration should be given based on the type of school. • I believe the API scores are part of the schools portfolio, but should not be the primary

measure used to renew a charter. However, API is an important factor and should reflect movement over time. Many factors impact test scores and should be considered when reviewing a school. I believe that changes in NCLB will expand measures and perhaps revise the threshold currently required.

• Yes. Given that the state lays out the criteria which mostly speaks to student achievement based in these measures, it seems that it is waste of resources to require a high achieving school to jump through making a big case when there is almost no case that the district can make for denial (beyond fiscal and operational oversight -- which I do think is important).

57


8. Do you think the renewal process should be differentiated based on a school's performance on standardized measures, like API scores? Why or why not? (continued) • Yes -- obviously high performing schools could have requirements adjusted. • Yes, absolutely. I understand that this isn't the only metric needed, but for a school that

meets all of the academic renewal measures, it seems unnecessary to be required to prove this component.

• Yes, absolutely. I would be inclined to look at measures such as API, attendance, and possibly achievement gaps.

• In some cases yes, but not totally on test scores, you cannot judge an entire school on a visit that occurs in the beginning of the year when you have new teachers that are still learning, should be another visit in which the school can make the changes that are needed as cited in first visit.

• Yes.

58


9. Please provide us with any other thoughts you feel will help us fine-tune the renewal process for the future. • There should be a pre-site visit meeting. • While charters differ drastically, I feel that a rubric would improve the MPO's and create a

more objective measuring system. A refinement of the current guidelines is a consideration to increase clarity.

• Less is more. Some of the items and parts of the process are good, but some are nitpicky and make the process overly long and take time and resources away from the daily operations, students, and teachers in the school. This is especially taxing for small schools and in this very tight fiscal environment where we should not have to spend (and can't) a lot of resources on outsourcing this work.

59


9. Please provide us with any other thoughts you feel will help us fine-tune the renewal process for the future. (continued) • Greater efficiency -- combine questions. • I appreciated the overall professionalism and fairness of your office throughout this process. • I think the entire feeling of the charter office is cold and non collaborative. Being a new

principal the first thing I did was to contact the charter office to see if there was any help they could give me to improve my school, all I got was "well it goes by the last 4 years, and when I said I am a new principal the reply was well your board was there. Very cold and demeaning and not wishing to help. The famous response would be well look in the renewal document on page so and so, never an effort to help in a humanistic manner., It is too bad because the feeling parents got from this whole process with OUSD was disrespect for them and their children.

• Don't want to appear before the board – scary.

60

Who is Steering Your Ship? A Focus on Governance

61

Governing Board Diagnostic Tool

•The Board has a clear action plan that delineates the key decisions it needs to make. •All Board members fully understand the critical components of the charter/key charter

promises. •The full Board is equipped to execute their fiduciary responsibility. The full Board

understands the annual budget and is knowledgeable about the short and long-term financial outlook of the school. •The Board has a comprehensive plan to conduct oversight of the academic program.

Preparation

•There is a target profile of expertise and perspective needed on the Board which sets current and future recruitment priorities with timelines. •There is strong expertise in key fields such as finance, legal, real estate, fundraising, and

education – but not too narrow a focus, and bench strength in key areas (especially finance). •Some Board members have previous governance experience. •There are no real or perceived conflicts among Board members. •Board has strong diversity relevant to community and school population.

Capacity/Composition

•The Board is of adequate size to support effective governance. •The bylaws are comprehensive, include reasonable term limits, and the full Board

understands them and their implications. •The Board has identified officers – chair, vice-chair, treasurer, and secretary. There are

written job descriptions for these positions and they are clear about their roles and responsibilities. •The bylaws delineate a reasonable number of committees and there are detailed job

descriptions for these committees.

Structure

•The Board actively discusses which elements of key decisions are governance vs.

management. •The school leader demonstrates a strong understanding of his/her role vis-à-vis effective

governance. •The full Board understands its relationship in developing, supporting, and evaluating the

school leader. •There is a strong working relationship between school leader, Board chair, and full

Board. •There is clarity about parent role(s) on the Board, if applicable.

Clarity

62

Governance Dos and Don’ts

• With your partner, have a general discussion about the statements on the “Governing Board Diagnostic Tool” hand-out (10 minutes), keeping in mind your current Board and its strengths and challenges

• Think of one Board governance strength you’ve experienced (per person) and one Board governance challenge you’ve experienced—write these on a Post-It

63

Appreciations

Thank you for attending the 5th annual

Oakland Charter Leader Welcome!

*Please take a moment to complete your exit ticket!

64

4th annual oakland charter leader · pdf file5th annual oakland charter leader welcome ......

Documents