SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY FORUMS KICK OFF THIS WEEK

SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY FORUMS KICK OFF THIS WEEK

Clark Corbin 09/06/2016

Idaho education officials are seeking help in looking beyond test scores to determine how to successfully measure quality schools.

How should educators accurately measure student engagement?

How can you track teacher quality?

The State Board of Education will seek answers to those questions, and others, as it kicks off a series of public forums designed to help devise a new system of public school accountability.

After a Wednesday forum in Boise, another forum takes place Thursday in Nampa. Hearings will continue into late October, across the state.

The forums are an important way for educators, taxpayers and parents to learn about — and to provide suggestions for — a new accountability system.

“This is our opportunity to make it an Idaho-based system,” State Board of Education spokesman Blake Youde said.

During each forum, board officials will provide an overview of the proposed new model. They will accept public comments and written testimony, which the board will review before taking further action.

Idaho has been without a statewide accountability system since 2014, when it repealed its controversial five-star rating system.

The new system comes in conjunction with the Every Student Succeeds Act, the federal education law passed last year.

Last month, the State Board granted preliminary approval to a proposed accountability system that breaks schools down into three levels: kindergarten through eighth grade schools, high schools and alternative schools.

The system is also expected to incorporate a “data dashboard” that presents several academic and school quality indicators for each school.

Those indicators will include student testing proficiency rates, graduation rates, students’ readiness to advance to the next step in their academic careers, grade point average benchmarks, teacher quality indicators and more.

Despite the initial approval, several aspects of the dashboard are still being developed — including the teacher quality index and the index measuring student readiness. The model will be tested during the 2016-17 school year.

Youde hopes the public will be able to offer suggestions during the upcoming forums.

“Some of the important things to us, especially, are the school quality indicators, because those are not measured by your traditional ISAT (standardized test results) or anything like that,” he said. “They are going to take more effort to really develop something we think is measurable.”

Following the public comment period and public forums, the State Board will vote again on the model in November. If the board approves it, the model will go to the Legislature’s education committees, in the form of an administrative rule.

If approved, the model would launch in 2017-18.

Public forum schedule (all events run from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., local time):

·         Wednesday: Boise School District, 8169 W. Victory Road.

·         Thursday: Ridgevue High School, college lecture hall, 118800 Madison Road, Nampa.

·         Sept. 13: College of Southern Idaho, Shields Academic Building, Room 118, Twin Falls.

·         Sept. 21: Eastern Idaho Technical College, Heath Care Education Building, Room 6164, 1600 S. 25th East, Idaho Falls.

·         Sept. 22: Idaho State University, Pond Student Union, Middle/South Fork rooms, Pocatello.

·         Oct. 18: Coeur d’Alene School District, Midtown Meeting Room, 1505 N. Fifth St., Coeur d’Alene.

·         Oct. 20: Lewis-Clark State College, Sacajawea Hall, Room 115, 500 Eighth Ave., Lewiston.

August 8, 2016

There is more and more discussion around the country about closing charter schools –and it is here in Idaho as well.  There are several charters that face that situation in Idaho. Below is an article that you, as parents, and Charter supporters should take time to read!  If you have any comments after reading it, please put it on social media for us to see!

Talk to Parents Before Closing a Charter School

By Guest Blogger on August 2, 2016 9:00 AM

Education Week's blogs > Rick Hess Straight Up

Note: Our guest-blogger this week will be Max Eden, a senior fellow of education policy at the Manhattan Institute. 

One of the few points of universal agreement in education policy is that bad charter schools should be shuttered. But what exactly is a bad charter school?

Schools with meager enrollment that can't make financial ends meet? Yes.

A school that finds itself on, or even near, the wrong side of the law? Absolutely.  

A school with low standardized test scores yet high parent demand? Maybe. Maybe not.

This last question was the subject of a fascinating debate earlier this year at the Fordham Institute's "Flypaper" blog between Fordham's president Michael Petrilli and University of Arkansas professor (and former Manhattan Institute senior fellow) Jay P. Greene.

Greene argued that the predictive power of high-stakes testing is much weaker than many assume and that parents and students know more than distant regulators give them credit for. Relying solely on test scores would thus lead to some "horrible mistakes." What's more, because regulators often rely on levels rather than gains, a solely test-score-centric system might deter charters from serving the most at-risk kids, or force charters to offer test-driven instruction to students who might need more comprehensive support.

Petrilli argued that the power of standardized testing may be weaker than some assume, but that testing is still more powerful than Greene made it out to be. Authorizers shouldn't rely on test scores alone, but they are a very important piece to the puzzle. Petrilli concluded that at the end of the day, "We can either use reading and math gains as imperfect indicators of effectiveness while working to build better measures—buttressed by school visits and the like—or we can succumb to 'analysis paralysis' and do nothing."

Fortunately, we don't need to be paralyzed. Last week, the American Legislative Exchange Council introduced some model legislation that promises to help the charter sector move forward carefully and responsibly.

The idea behind the Student and Family Fair Notice and Impact Statement Act is simple and compelling: a charter authorizer should engage in a deep and meaningful conversation with students and parents before shuttering a school.

In brief, the proposal would require: 

·         Timely notice to parents for an intended closure or significant restructuring.

·         A survey of students, teachers, and parents to gain a more holistic sense of how and why they value their schools.

·         An analysis of the likely effects of a charter closure on its students.

·         A public forum to present the Impact Statement and offer the community one more chance to make their voice heard.

The proposal would not prevent an authorizer from shuttering a low performing charter school; but it would require more due diligence before such a decision is made.   

There's a whole lot to like here.  

It takes a big step toward a balanced resolution to the earlier debate. Greene argued that there's a whole lot that students and parents know that authorizers don't, and Petrilli argued that there's also a whole lot that authorizers know that students and parents don't.

Both are right. This proposal would give both authorizers and parents a fuller picture by requiring a robust engagement process.

The idea would also guarantee that students and parents at least have their voices heard. We know that parents don't particularly value test scores when choosing a school; things like school safety, a socially welcoming environment, a motivating sense of mission matter a great deal, too. When the Nevada Charter School Authority weighed closing an academically low-performing online charter school, one father testified that if his son were "in the average school he was in before, he'd be on the street. ... This is what these online schools provide—the comfort to know their kids are not going to become hoodlums, or do drugs."

His testimony, and the testimony of others like him, caused the Nevada Authority to postpone its decision to close the school. Parents should always have the forum to tell an authorizer what a school means to them.

Some charter advocates might say that "anecdotes aren't enough" to keep low-performing charters open. Hear, hear!

The Impact Statement would take us past anecdotes to data.

Authorizers would have a much more comprehensive sense of why parents may value a school despite its low test scores. It would also help authorizers make a data-driven case directly to parents that their kids would be better served in another school.

There are, however, some reasonable objections to the proposal as its currently drafted. There's no doubt that the Impact Act would impose a burden on an authorizer, and legislators should take great care that the red tape is effectively targeted and tailored.

Here are three areas where the proposal could use some work:

First, when it comes to talking to parents, teachers, and students the work seems well worth the burden. But there are some other requirements, such as assessing impact on the public school to which a student would be assigned, which seem like second-order concerns that may end up distracting from deep stakeholder engagement.

Second, the process is initiated when an authorizer considers "termination, revocation, non-renewal, or significant restructuring as a condition of continued operation." It may be better to have a differentiated process for when an authorizer is considering restructuring rather than shuttering. As written, this proposal may inhibit efforts to reform low-performing charters by making that process just as onerous as closing down a school.

Finally, for a school with stable demand but low test scores, a robust engagement process seems sensible; after all, there's probably a lot that authorizers would need to hear from parents. But for schools where the immediate trouble is financial or legal, a less intensive process might be more in order; in those cases there might be more that parents need to hear from authorizers.

These are details that should be subject to further scrutiny and debate.

But in a movement dedicated to parent choice, the principle that authorizers ought to engage parents and students before making a final decision to close a charter school should command broad assent and spark a productive conversation in state legislatures across the country.

--Max Eden

May 26, 2016

Coalition News

Urgent!

Reminder that the deadline of June 1st is approaching for YOU and a friend to sign up for the 2016 Parent Advocacy Boot Camp in Washington, DC on July 10th - 12!!  We only have 2 spots remaining!! We want YOU to fill one of them!!!

Call Jane at 208-859-9656 today and say, Yes, I want to make sure charter schools remain an option!!! Sign me up for the 2016 Boot Camp!!

Airfare and rooms are paid for you!  Call now!! Deadline is June 1, 2016!

Other news:

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article79468817.html#storylink=cpy

Six Washington charter schools get a second start

(WA) The Olympian | May 25, 2016
Six of Washington’s charter schools will get another lease on life under the state’s new charter law, after action by the Washington State Charter School Commission. The commission, meeting in Tacoma last week, voted to approve five-year contracts with existing charter schools in Tacoma, Seattle and Kent. Contracts are to be signed by the commission chairman, Steve Sundquist, and representatives of the schools by June 2.

Texas students deserve transformational funding reform (Op-Ed)

(TX) Austin American Statesman | May 23, 2016
The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion on school finance got one thing right: Students deserve “transformational, top-to-bottom reforms” for the school funding system. Such reform is especially necessary to address students attending a public charter school. The court rightly acknowledged that charter school students are public school students subject to constitutional protections. However, they altogether dismissed the undisputed fact presented during the litigation that public charter schools receive on average $1,000 less per student than traditional school districts. Public charter school students are not worth less.

Bill provides needed funding for Idaho charter schools.

Bill provides needed funding for Idaho charter schools.

May 16, 2016 Valley Times Page 7

By Tom LeClaire, President, Coalition of Idaho Charter School Families

As a college intern for then-Idaho State Senator Terry Sverdston, Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, I worked on an issue regarding transfer students. I learned that schools receiving these students did not get funding until the next fiscal year. At the time, in 1987, the amount of money involved was so low nothing was done.

Imagine my surprise last year when I learned the Coalition of Idaho Charter School Families (CICSF) was supporting funding for schools who receive students during the school year! What was a small problem in 1987 had become a big problem by 2015. These days, there are thousands of “mobile students” because there is more school choice and parents and students frequently decide to change schools to meet their needs during the school year. One school, the Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA), starts the year with about 2,000 students. For each of these students, IDVA provides a computer and all the textbooks, work books and reading material for an entire year of coursework. IDVA’s costs per student are approximately the same for all of their students, no matter when they enroll. Unfortunately, the State of Idaho does not pay IDVA the complete cost for “mobile students.” By January of each school year, about 500 new students transfer to IDVA. The policy creates a shortfall of approximately $1.8 million of the $2.5 million in costs associated with adding those students. It doesn’t quite put them out of business, but it certainly makes life difficult.

The Idaho Department of Education and State Board of Education studied this issue for years. Whenever they brought “stakeholders” together to talk about it, it became clear the stakeholders were only interested in keeping the status quo. After all, the schools the students were leaving weren’t losing any money. The funding stayed at the school where the student was enrolled in August. If a student moved to another school, the original school had the same money and lower costs. After many years of working on this issue, CICSF asked a handful of dedicated school choice legislators to help resolve the matter in 2015. Their bill passed the legislature but was vetoed. In 2016, those dedicated legislators came back with a modified bill that passed the legislature and was signed by the governor. CICSF sends a big thank you to the legislators who pushed this needed legislation through the Idaho Legislature.

Senator Sverdston is retired now but still an active leader in Idaho as a member of the Idaho Forest Owners Association board of directors in Cataldo. I think he would be proud of inspiring my volunteerism on this issue. By the way, if you support charter schools, join CICSF. I was so impressed with CICSF, I joined the board of directors. Go to http://www.idchartercoalition.org/join/, sign up with our organization and let us know if you want to be on our board

Parent Advocacy Boot Camp 2016

Parent Advocacy Boot Camp 2016

PublicSchoolOptions.org 2016 Boot Camp: July 10th – July 12th, 2016

Residence Inn Arlington Capitol View Hotel (2850 South Potomac Avenue Arlington, VA 22202)

Please note important registration guidelines below: 

FLIGHTS: Recommended that you book flights into Reagan National Airport (DCA) as soon as possible. If attendees have difficulty booking into DCA because of prohibitive flight costs, limited flight routes, etc., attendees should book their flights into Dulles International Airport (IAD, 40 minutes away from hotel) or Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI, 50 minutes away from the hotel). However, we HIGHLY recommend attendees fly in and out of DCA due to its close proximity to the hotel (short 5 minute drive to the airport AND a complimentary shuttle is available!). 

CONFERENCE START/END TIMES: Please ensure you arrive in time on Sunday (7/10) to attend our welcome reception at 7pm. Attendees should expect to arrive back at the hotel on Tuesday (7/12) at 2:00pm following Capitol Hill meetings and lunch, and should book their departing flight accordingly. **Note: Reimbursement for your flight and any related travel costs (i.e. your cab ride to and from the airport) will be arranged through your coalition manager.

HOTEL INFORMATION: Your rooms on the nights of Sunday (7/10) & Monday (7/11) will be reserved and paid for by PublicSchoolOptions.org. However, if you wish to extend your stay beyond these two days at this hotel, please select those additional dates below! You will be responsible financially for those additional nights, and a credit card maybe required at check-in to cover those expenses. 

**Do not call the hotel and book your own room** PSO will be providing the hotel with a master rooming list of all attendees (including additional nights for those who are planning to extend their stay).

In order to ensure space for conference attendees and to guarantee the group’s full participation, conference activities at the hotel and off-site activities Monday night will be restricted to registered conference attendees only. Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

After registration, you will begin receiving logistical and conference information from the PSO staff in the weeks leading up to the conference. 

Pleas Click Here to sing up!