Monitoring & Intervention
Monitoring
Strong Portfolios Only
- Ongoing monitoring is clearly aligned with contract/charter expectations. Schools know exactly what the authorizer is monitoring and why. Similarly, because authorizer intervention is aligned with contract expectations, schools knew what things would and would not lead to authorizer intervention (although how an authorizer intervenes/responds varied; see section on use of professional judgment).
- Authorizers require detailed plans, of which every part is analyzed, for student enrollment processes and systems. Plans are typically approved annually, but the authorizer collects data to identify issues more frequently, typically monthly or quarterly.
- Authorizers have internal authorizing staff with an explicit focus on equity and access (although this was typically not the staff members’ only responsibility area). Specific to ongoing oversight/monitoring, such staff is responsible for school monitoring, performance framework data collection, and renewal decision-making information.
- Frequently collect data/monitor (monthly or quarterly) and have internal capacity to tell the difference between concerning financial performance data (e.g., data that might trigger a conversation with or notice to the school) compared to serious short- or long-term financial crises (e.g., data that required an immediate response from the school and/or immediate authorizer action).
Both Strong and Average Portfolios
- Authorizers have conversations with schools when any issues are identified prior to issuing any formal notices (and many don’t issue formal notices unless circumstances are dire and/or school is unresponsive)
- Authorizers used a number of different methods to collect and hold schools accountable for organizational oversight. While an individual authorizer typically does not use all methods, a list of commonly used methods includes meetings with schools, written inquiries, stakeholder surveys and focus groups, attending governing board meetings, online monitoring systems in which schools uploaded data, site visits, and an annual report from schools that included reporting on organizational performance indicators.
- Alignment between staff operating the authorizer’s monitoring and intervention system (with a preference for the same person or people managing both). Such a system provides schools with a monitoring-intervention process that seemed to increase the chances that corrective actions were aligned with findings from ongoing monitoring.
Charter Focus and Amendments
Strong Portfolios Only
- N/A
Both Strong and Average Portfolios
- Contracts/charters are limited in scope and focused on only two things: (a) what is required by state law and (b) what is necessary to hold a school accountable as determined by the authorizer.
- Authorizers set a high bar for charter amendments, reserving approval for changes only to areas deemed “material.” In addition, authorizers intentionally limit “material” areas that require formal authorizer approval to maximize school autonomy.
School Feedback & Site Visits
Strong Portfolios Only
- A strong feedback loops exist between the authorizer’s monitoring system and schools, which gives schools clarity on where they stand relative to authorizer expectations.
- Authorizers provide schools with feedback documenting areas of strength or concern through a variety of mediums (site visit reports, informal conversations, compliance reports) immediately or shortly after monitoring activities occurred.
- Use formal site visits to collect information about schools, and use the site visit process to facilitate difficult conversations with schools when needed. Information from site visits are used to provide a more robust assessment of school performance, and often augment and amplify other quantitative performance information. Data collected during site visits are intentionally and specifically planned, and site visits are not organized as a “gotcha” exercise.
Both Strong and Average Portfolios
- Authorizer publishes, at least annually, individual school performance reports aligned to framework expectations on at least academics, operations, and finances.
Performance Measures & Expectations
Strong Portfolios Only
- N/A
Both Strong and Average Portfolios
- Performance measures are legally binding in some way, meaning they can be legally enforced via an accountability plan or performance framework. Those measures are typically included as part of the contract between an authorizer and school (or incorporated by reference) or other means by which the authorizer had legal standing to enforce performance expectations.
- Schools can establish school specific goals that are approved by the authorizer, but authorizers varied in their encouragement of schools establishing their own indicators.
- Academic accountability frameworks typically include measures of student growth, student proficiency, post-secondary indicators, college and career readiness indicators and school specific goals. Authorizers establish a common set of required academic goals (and, as noted previously, schools can set additional goals if they choose to).
- Financial accountability measures include both near-term and sustainability measures.
- In addition to governance, other common operational areas included facilities requirements, requirements to adhere to applicable law, requirements for special populations (i.e., reporting requirements and adherence to applicable law), enrollment process compliance and results, reporting and compliance requirements, student health and safety expectations, requirements for the school environment, teacher and staff licensing requirements, and financial management reporting requirements.
- There is variance between authorizers on the degree to which financial and operational goals are uniformly applied or school-specific.