applying to authorize: authorizer application and evaluation

1The Washington State Board of Education

Applying to Authorize:Authorizer Application and Evaluation

Jack Archer, Senior Policy Analyst

State Board of Education

WSSDA/NACSA District Authorizer Workshop

June 4, 2013


Process for Authorizer Evaluation: SBE Goals

• Fidelity to the statute and rules.

• Transparency and fairness to school districts.

• Rigor: High but attainable standards for approval.

• Quality outcomes.


Charter Authorizer Evaluation:A Continuum for Quality


Authorizer Application: Parts

Five parts, each linked to one of the five required components of the application in statute and rule:

I. Authorizer Strategic Vision for Chartering

II. Authorizer Capacity and Commitment

III. Draft Request for Proposals

IV. Draft Performance Framework

V. Draft Renewal, Revocation and Nonrenewal Processes


Authorizer Application: Structure

• Statutory reference – RCW 28A.710.090(a)-(e).

• Guiding question for applicants and evaluators.

• Instructionso Required information for each part.o Drawn from SBE rules – WAC 180-19-030(3).

• Criteria for evaluationo Drawn from RCW 28A.710 and NACSA Principles &

Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing.


ExamplePart I: Strategic Vision for Chartering

(2) At a minimum, each applicant must submit to the state board:

(a) The applicant's strategic vision for chartering;

-- RCW 28A.710.090(2)(a)


ExamplePart II: Capacity and Commitment

(2) At a minimum, each applicant must submit to the state board:

(b) A plan to support the vision presented, including explanation and evidence of the applicant's budget and personnel capacity and commitment to execute the responsibilities of quality charter authorizing;

-- RCW 28A.710.090(2)(b)


VI. Statements of Assurance – WAC 180-19-030(4)

• A list of seven “assurances” that, if approved as an authorizer, the district will meet certain requirements set out in statute and rule.

• Incorporated in the six-year authorizing contract between the district and the SBE.

• A finding that a district is not in compliance with the authorizing contract is grounds for revocation of chartering authority. (RCW 28A.710.120)


Approval of Authorizer Applications – WAC 180-19-040(2)

Rules set two-part test for approval of applications:

1. Satisfactory in providing all of the information required to be set forth in the application.

2. Consistent with NACSA Principles & Standards in at least: Organizational capacity Solicitation and evaluation of charter applications Performance contracting Ongoing charter school oversight and evaluation Charter renewal and revocation processes.


For an application to be approved, all requirements must be met.

“A determination that an application does not provide the required information, or does not meet standards of quality authorizing in any component, shall constitute grounds for disapproval.”

-- WAC 180-19-040(2)


SBE Evaluation Process

•Rubrics for evaluation of each part of the application.

•External reviewers.

•Personal interviews with district personnel.


Rubrics for Evaluation and Rating of Applications

• Rubrics: Content constituting evidence that criteria for favorable evaluation of the each part of the application have been met.

• Derived from charters statute, SBE rules, and NACSA Principles & Standards.

•Provide clear and consistent guidance to evaluators.

• Inform districts on how applications will be evaluated.


II. Capacity and Commitment (Example)

Evaluation Criteria Evaluators will look for evidence of the following:

3. The district clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for chartering staff, and provides thorough and clear job descriptions. The organizational chart shows clear lines of reporting and authority for decision making.

•Clearly articulates where primary authorizing responsibilities reside.

• Demonstrates understanding of district functions that will need to assume some authorizing responsibilities.

• Lines of authority indicate appropriate prioritization of charter school authorizing.

•Lines of authority protect from political influence and support merit-based decision-making.


III. Request for Proposals (Example)

Evaluation Criteria Evaluators will look for evidence of the following:

2. The draft or outline of the RFP demonstrates that the district intends to implement a comprehensive application process that follows fair procedures and rigorous criteria, based on a performance framework meeting the requirements of Washington’s charter school law.

•The RFP process will be open, well-publicized and transparent.

•RFP includes a clear and realistic timeline that outlines key milestones and explains how each stage of the process is conducted and evaluated.

• RFP includes a strategy for communicating and disseminating information regarding the application process, approval criteria, and decisions to the public.

• RFP outlines applicant rights and responsibilities and procedures for promptly notifying applicants of approval or denial, and the factors that determined the decision.


Review and Evaluation Procedures – External Reviewers

• Authorized in rule -- WAC 180-19-040(1)

• Benefits of external reviewers:o Expertiseo Independenceo Higher confidence in quality of evaluation process.

• Role is to review and rate applications. Decisions to approve or deny are solely the Board’s.


Review and Evaluation Procedures – Personal Interviews

• Authorized in rule -- WAC 180-19-040(1)

• Benefits of personal interviews:o Clarify responseso Gain additional informationo Assess applicant capacity and commitment.

• Required by law (RCW 28A.140) for charter applications.


Rating the Application

Well Developed

The response meets the expectations established by the State Board of Education and NACSA’s Principles & Standards in material respects and warrants approval subject to satisfactory execution of an authorizing contract with the State Board of Education.

Partially Developed

Incomplete in that the response contains some aspects of a well-developed practice but is missing some key components, is limited in its execution, or otherwise falls short of satisfying the expectations established by the SBE and NACSA’s Principles & Standards.

Undeveloped Wholly inadequate in that the applicant has not considered or anticipated the practice at all, or intends to carry it out in a way that is not recognizably connected to the expectations established by the SBE or NACSA’s Principles & Standards.


Rating the Application, cont.

• Evaluators will assess the degree to which each criterion in the application is met, rating the response on the scale from Undeveloped to Well Developed.

• Based on the ratings, evaluators will assign an overall rating to each of the five sections of the application.

• An applicant receiving an overall rating of Well Developed would be recommended for approval.

• An applicant receiving a rating lower than Well Developed for any of the five sections would be recommended for denial, in accordance with rule.


Rating the Application, cont.

• Not a “box-checking exercise.” Evaluators will need to apply judgment about quality of responses, whether criteria for approval are met in each part of application.

• Rubrics are an evaluation tool; they are not rules.

• Standard for approval: Does the application meet the requirements set out in statute and rule?


SBE must document the reasons for denial of an application.

“If the state board disapproves an application, it shall state in writing the reasons for the disapproval, it shall state in writing the reasons for the disapproval, with specific reference to the criteria established in these rules.”

-- WAC 180-19-040(4).


Questions

Do the draft rubrics provide a fair, rigorous and valid guide for evaluation of applications?

Is the standard for approval consistent with the intent of the law?

Does the use of external reviewers raise the quality of evaluations while retaining accountability for decisions?

Overall, does the recommended framework promote the goal of quality charter authorizing?

How can the process be improved for the next cycle?


Discussion

Your Questions.

applying to authorize: authorizer application and evaluation

Documents