Charter School Strategic Plan, 2011-2016

Minnesota Department of EducationCharter School Center

Produced in cooperation with the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA)

May 2011

1

Executive Summary

Minnesota adopted the nation’s first charter school law in 1991. Since then, charter school attendance has grown but charter school performance has lagged. In 2009 the Minnesota legislature approved major revisions to Minnesota’s charter school law that focus on increasing the accountability of charter school authorizers. The legislation called for a much more rigorous process for the review and approval of charter school authorizers. Since the legislation was adopted, the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) Commissioner has approved 15 authorizers through two rounds of applications and is now reviewing a third set of authorizer applications.

In fall 2010, MDE received a grant from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers’ Fund for Authorizing Excellence to support the development of a Charter School Center strategic plan. The plan was intended to clarify the roles of the department and authorizers in the charter school system and identify a limited set of strategies to improve charter school quality.

Planning began in December 2010 with focus groups and interviews with charter school authorizers and operators. A planning committee, made up of MDE staff, developed a draft plan with support from an outside consultant. The plan includes: a theory of action for improving charter school performance; a description of core functions for charter schools, authorizers and MDE; and core values for the MDE Charter School Center.

The plan focuses on the following five strategies that will drive the Charter School Center’s work.

Develop a charter school accountability framework

Build and implement a robust authorizer evaluation system

Support replication of successful school models and practices

Support development of high quality charter schools in high-need communities

Provide stakeholders with clear, accurate information while also engaging them in dialogue about charter school policy and practice.

For each strategy there is a detailed work plan that identifies each of the major activities required to advance the strategy.

During April MDE staff will meet with stakeholders to solicit input on the draft plan before it is finalized in early May. The department will also establish a Charter School Stakeholder Advisory Committee. The Committee will serve as a sounding board for the MDE Charter School Center. The Department will provide periodic reports on plan progress to the Committee.

2

Table of Contents Page

Introduction 3

SWOT Analysis 5StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreats

Theory of action 7

Core functions 7Charter schoolsAuthorizersMDE Charter School Center

Core values of the MDE Charter School Center 9

Strategies 10

Strategy action plansStrategy 1—Accountability framework 12Strategy 2—Authorizer evaluation 13Strategy 3—Replicating effective schools 14Strategy 4—Targeting high need communities 15Strategy 5—Communicating about charter schools 16

MDE capacity and resources 17

Appendix: Strategy implementation timeline 18Charter School Center organizational chart 19

3

I. Introduction

Minnesota is proud of its pioneering role as creator of the nation’s first charter school law in 1991. Charter schools have flourished in Minnesota since passage of the law and number of students enrolled in charter schools continues to grow. Since 1992, 190 charter schools have opened, and in the 2010-11 school year, over 37,000 students, 4.5 percent of Minnesota’s total K-12 public school enrollment, attended 149 Minnesota charter schools.

While Minnesota has led the nation in school choice policy development, average student achievement in Minnesota charter schools has lagged behind state averages. In an effort to address unsatisfactory academic achievement and student performance, the Minnesota Legislature approved major revisions to Minnesota’s charter school law in 2009. An increase in charter authorizer accountability was at the center of the new legislation.

Since charter schools began operating in Minnesota, the quality of charter school authorizing has varied dramatically. The 2009 legislative changes placed responsibility with the MDE to standardize and advance the quality of authorizing through review, approval, oversight and evaluation of charter school authorizers. The Minnesota Legislature’s intent is clear; quality authorizing is a necessary means to raise the achievement of students enrolled in Minnesota charter schools.

MDE’s new authority to approve charter school authorizers is identified in Minnesota Statutes, section 124D.10, subdivision 3. Eligible organizations must submit an application to the commissioner for “approval as an authorizer before submitting any affidavit to the commissioner to charter a school”. The approval is based upon an authorizer’s: “1) capacity and infrastructure; 2) application criteria and process; 3) contracting process; 4) ongoing oversight and evaluation processes; and 5) renewal criteria and processes.”

Since the new charter school law was passed, MDE has conducted two rounds of authorizer application reviews and is now conducting a third review of authorizer applications. Authorizer review and approval standards are based on the statutory criteria above and are aligned with the National Association of Charter School Authorizer’s (NACSA) Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing. In the first two review cycles, 29 authorizer applications were reviewed and 15 organizations were approved. Eleven organizations submitted applications for the current review cycle.

In 2010 MDE submitted a proposal to NACSA’s Fund for Authorizing Excellence to support the development of a MDE charter school strategic plan. NACSA awarded the grant to MDE and planning began in December.

The plan was intended to clarify the roles of the department and authorizers in the charter school system and identify a limited set of strategies to improve charter school quality. The plan has a five year term through the renewal of the initial cohort of authorizers. While the plan’s primary focus is on the work of the state Department of Education, it has implications for authorizers and charter school operators.

Laurence Stanton, a consultant to NACSA, facilitated the planning process. Mr. Stanton conducted the focus groups with 10 authorizers and 12 charter school operators, conducted individual interviews with 5 authorizers, charter school support organizations and facilitated and documented the charter school Center staff planning activities. Planning took place from December 2010 through March 2011. In addition to David Hartman, Cindy Murphy and Stephanie Olson of the CSC staff and Rose Hermodson, assistant commissioner, also participated in the planning.

4

The MDE planning team also met on two occasions with Brenda Cassellius, the state superintendent who provided input on the strategies.

II. SWOT Analysis

Based on the focus groups, interviews and a review of charter school performance data, the planning team organized its findings into a SWOT format: describing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The SWOT analysis was a starting point for the planning committee’s conversations about the department’s charter school strategy.

Strengths – Minnesota has a rich history of thoughtful discussion and debate about school reform and charter schools that

should be recognized and built upon in this plan.

– The new charter school law provides the department with a tool to improve the quality of schools by requiring the high quality standards for authorizing schools.

– Fifteen authorizers have been approved and should be prepared to effectively authorize new and existing schools.

– At least four of the approved authorizers are studying new ways of measuring school performance, i.e., Pillsbury, MPS, Friends and VOA.

– New and increased funding for authorizers makes it possible to for them to provide increased support to schools; there is evidence that several authorizers are “staffing up” to provide such supports.

Weaknesses – The change and confusion caused by the recently completed authorizer selection process created substantial

animosity toward MDE within parts of the charter school community.

– Relatively few authorizers have substantial experience and knowledge of authorizing and/or charter schools within their staffs.

– MDE’s Charter School Center is perceived by many in the charter school community as primarily a compliance operation that adds little value to authorizers or schools.

– Path to accessing valuable and needed non-charter related resources within MDE is unclear to some authorizers and charter school leaders.

– Authorizer funding falls far short of what would be required to provide robust support to schools; most authorizers supplement their fees with additional funds from their parent organization.

Opportunities– Approval of new authorizers for five years provides a chance to “reset” the relationship between MDE,

authorizers and charter schools.

5

– By clarifying the affidavit review process (i.e., new school affidavits, supplemental affidavits, and change of authorizer requests) and providing support for closing low performing schools, MDE may be able to help all the new authorizers establish higher expectations.

– Build on the current work by several authorizers to develop a robust and varied menu of performance metrics from which authorizers and schools can select.

– Use a consistent set of performance metrics to create transparency and encourage a self-policing of both charter schools and authorizers.

– Leverage Minneapolis’ participation in the Gates-funded District-Charter Collaboration Compact to build specific supports for urban districts that are trying to highlight and share best practices and knowledge among public charter schools and traditional public schools.

Threats– The state lacks “proof points” demonstrating that charter schools can be more effective than district schools

with low income, high need and immigrant populations.

– The large number of “orphan schools” seeking new authorizers creates pressure on the newly approved authorizers to take on more schools that they have the capacity to manage.

– The continuing “innovation vs. performance” debate among authorizers and advocates could further divide the charter community.

– A perception among some approved authorizers that MDE trusts some authorizers more than others could make collaboration and “self-regulation” difficult.• Arms-length relationship between MDE and approved authorizers reinforces perception among some that

MDE is taking a “gotcha” approach. • Additional MDE rejections of recommendations by new authorizers could damage the credibility of both

the authorizers and the MDE authorizer selection process.

– Perception among some authorizers that MDE wants to eliminate charter schools serving low-income, high-need and immigrant populations in order to “raise charter school performance.”

Based on the SWOT, the priorities of MDE leadership and available opportunities for support, the committee the following assumptions on which the plan is based:

• Minnesota has a rich history of thoughtful leadership, discussion and debate about charter schools, school choice, and educational innovation that must be acknowledged and built upon in the future.

• The state’s shift toward higher expectations for charter schools will be a process that takes place over several years rather than an event completed in a single year; identifying and communicating key implementation milestones will help provide perspective and focus for all stakeholders.

• In addition to identifying the resources necessary to implement MDE’s responsibilities and the specific performance measures and milestones for tracking and evaluating MDE’s work, the plan must also define

6

the respective roles of MDE, state and national resources, authorizers and charter school operators in building and sustaining high performing charter schools.

• The plan should have a 5 year term, through renewal of the recently approved authorizers.

• MDE will apply for a federal CSP grant and an implementation grant from NACSA’s Fund for Authorizing Excellence to support elements of the plan.

III. MDE Charter School Theory of ActionBased on the SWOT, the Planning Committee developed a theory of action. The theory of action is a statement about cause and effect. It describes the goals we hope to achieve and the specific actions that we will undertake in order to achieve the goal.

If MDE establishes ambitious goals for student achievement based on both growth and attainment on multiple measures, selects authorizers who have the capacity and commitment to meeting the authorizing standards, and monitors authorizer performance,

then over time all students enrolled in charter schools will outperform legitimate comparison groups, exceed state averages, eliminate the achievement gap, and graduate from high school prepared for college and career readiness.

The first half of the theory of action describes what MDE needs to do, and the second half describes what MDE believes will happen as a result.

The theory of action also frames how to evaluate both the implementation and the resulting outcomes of the plan. Did MDE establish ambitions goals for student achievement? Do the selected authorizers meet standards? Did the state monitor authorizer performance? If the answers to each of those questions are “yes,” the evaluator moves to the second half and looks at outcomes. Did charter school student performance improve? Did the achievement gap close? Are charter school students better prepared for college and careers?

IV. Core functionsOne of the strong themes from the SWOT analysis was that following the new legislation and the initial rounds of authorizer selection, both schools and authorizers are confused about who is responsible for what. They want greater clarity about the processes for authorizing, opening, evaluating, and closing schools. MDE staff had similar concerns so, as part of the planning process, they defined core functions for charter schools, authorizers and MDE consistent with the new law. The core functions of each level of the system are intended to complement and support each other.

Charter school operators develop and operate high quality schools consistent with the terms of the charter school contract and state accountability expectations.

Charter school authorizers are responsible for maintaining high standards for schools, upholding school autonomy, and protecting the interests of students and the public. Authorizers focus their work on the following:

1) Support the start-up and development of high performing schools

7

• Recruit and support organizations with the capacity to operate high performing charter schools• Conduct a fair and transparent new schools application process• Facilitate school access to the resources necessary for their success

2) Set clear expectations for schools • Execute contracts with charter school operators with clear, measurable and attainable performance

standards and targets

3) Monitor and evaluate school compliance and performance • Monitor school compliance with terms of the charter school contract and state and federal laws

including student achievement and fiscal, ethical, operational and student service requirements • Regularly evaluate charter schools and prepare interim and summative reports concerning each

school’s performance and compliance• Make high-stakes charter renewal decisions based on the performance of the school and the terms of

the charter contract

4) Intervene and, when necessary, close schools that fail to meet standards and performance targets• Provide schools with timely, clear evidence-based notice of contract violations or performance

deficiencies• Close failing schools in a manner that minimizes disruption for students and their families

Minnesota Department of Education Charter School Center leads the development of a state charter school culture by facilitating internal and external collaboration and cooperation that encourages and supports academic excellence through high expectations, continuous improvement, choice and innovation. The Center focuses its work on the following:

1) Set expectations and managing performance• Establish performance expectations for charter schools• Establish and hold charter school authorizers accountable for meeting performance expectations

2) Support effective charter school authorizing• Approve, support, monitor and evaluate charter school authorizers• Provide technical assistance to help authorizers navigate the state charter school process• Recognize and support the dissemination of authorizer best practices

3) Communicate about charter schools • Communicate a state vision of the role of a charter school in improving student achievement• Communicate expectations for charter schools and charter school authorizers• Publicly report on authorizer and charter school performance • Respond to public inquiries regarding charter schools

4) Support development of high performing charter schools• Facilitate charter school/authorizer links to other MDE resources• Support development and expansion of high performing charter schools and dissemination of charter

school best practices through federal grants and other external resources • Recognize and support the dissemination of charter school best practices

8

Core functions define a system of support and accountability for charter schools

MDESet expectations and manage performanceSupport effective authorizingSupport development of high performingcharter schoolsCommunicate about charter schools

AuthorizersSupport the start-up and development ofhigh performing schoolsSet clear expectations for schoolsMonitor and evaluate school compliance andperformance Intervene and, when necessary, closeschools that fail to meet standards andperformance targets

Charter School Operators

Develop and operate high quality schoolsconsistent with the terms of the charter schoolcontract and state accountability expectations

V. MDE CSC Core ValuesIn addition to defining core functions, the planning team also defined core values for the MDE CSC. While core functions define the nature of the work, core values describe the way in which the office conducts its work. The department intends to hold itself responsible for acting consistent with its core values by regularly surveying stakeholders to determine their perception of MDE performance.

1) High expectations for student academic success We ensure that Minnesota families have access to charter schools that are better than other public school choices available to them; schools that “raise the bar” for all students and “close the achievement gap.”

2) Clear communication We provide internal and external stakeholders with clear, relevant and timely information about charter schools, charter school authorizing and charter school performance.

3) Fair and transparent decision-making We base our decisions on publicly-available standards, rigorous and transparent processes, and the best data available.

4) Continuous learning We work to identify, share and promote new knowledge and effective practices with charter schools, authorizers, resource organizations and stakeholders.

5) Stakeholder focus We provide responsive, timely and respectful service to charter school stakeholders.

9

Settingexpectations

andmonitoring

performance

Accountabilityfor schoolsuccess

Supportingeffective

authorizing

Communicatingabout charter

schoolsSupporting

developmentof high

performingcharterschools

GOALCharterSchoolStudent

AcademicSuccess

Clearcommunication

Fair andtransparent

decision-making

Stakeholderfocused

Continuousimprovementand learning

COREFUNCTIONS

COREVALUES

MDE Charter School CenterCore Values and Core Functions

VI. Strategies

Five strategies for improving the Minnesota charter school system are at the center of the plan. They represent a set of coherent actions that MDE will initiate with charter school stakeholders to put the theory of action into practice and achieve the state’s ambitious goals. Implementation will be staged throughout the term of the five year plan.

1. Work with authorizers, resource organizations and other stakeholders to develop a charter school accountability framework based on multiple measures of a charter school’s academic contributions to both student growth and attainment at all grade levels.

2. Develop and implement a robust authorizer evaluation system aligned with the authorizer standards, new school accountability framework and the new state charter school law.

10

1. Accountability

Framework defines charter

school effectiveness

2. Authorizer evaluation

system identifies effective

authorizers

3. Identify effective

schools for possible

replication

4. Support creation of

effective new schools in high-

need communities

5. Clarify charter school

policy and process while

engaging stakeholders

3. Work with authorizers, resource organizations, school districts and other stakeholders to support replication of successful school models and practices with a documented record of success located both within and outside Minnesota.

4. Identify communities, geographic or socio-economic, with a need for high performing public schools and work with authorizers, charter resource organizations and stakeholders to support development of high quality charter schools within those communities.

5. Work across MDE units to provide clear, timely and relevant information about the charter school system to authorizers, school operators, parents, policymakers and other stakeholders while also regularly soliciting stakeholder input on state charter school policy and practices.

For each strategy, the plan includes a chart that describes “who does what when.” The charts are intended to be the starting point for a project tracking system that makes it possible to manage the work and track progress toward milestones in a transparent manner.

11

Strategy 1: Develop and implement a charter school accountability frameworkWork with authorizers, resource organizations and other stakeholders to develop a charter school accountability framework based on multiple measures of a charter school’s academic contributions to both student growth and attainment at all grade levels.

Activity/deliverable Primary responsibility

Secondaryresponsibility/Consulted Started Completed

Fundingrequired/possible source(s)

1a-Engage all approved authorizers in discussion about plans for developing a robust school accountability framework with the following characteristics:

• Include a mix of academic, operational, and financial measures • Consider both student growth and attainment • Utilize measures that differentiate between K-8 and 9-12 • Appropriate for special student populations • Include “leading indicators” of student success

MDE CSC supervisor

MDE CSC authorizer specialist April ‘11 April ‘11 NA

1b-Submit proposal and receive NACSA implementation grant to support development of a school accountability framework.

MDE CSC supervisor May ‘11 August ‘11 NA

1c-Determine whether RFP for accountability framework consulting services is required; prepare RFP if required; engage appropriate consultant.

MDE CSC supervisor May ‘11 August ‘11

1d-Following NACSA grant award, engage consulting group to facilitate a process that engages authorizers and other stakeholders to develop a state-wide charter school accountability framework that builds on the ongoing work of authorizers on performance measures.

“ Authorizers Sept. ‘11 NACSA Implement-ation Grant

1e-Prepare accountability/data specialist position description, post, recruit and hire. “ August ‘11 Oct. ‘11 CSP grant

1f-Convene authorizers to engage in development of accountability framework (2-3 meetings). “ Sept . 11 July ’12 NA

1g-Complete accountability framework. “ MDE CSC authorizer

specialist May ’12 NA

1h-Encourage the use of the new accountability framework to inform authorizers’ school renewal decisions. “ MDE CSC authorizer

specialist Jan ’13 Ongoing NA

1i Roll-out of new accountability framework to charter schools, authorizers and other stakeholders with communications plan. “ MDE CSC authorizer

specialist Jan ‘13 Jan ‘13 NA

Measures of success:• # of authorizers using the accountability framework as their basis for school renewal decision-making.

12

Strategy 2: Develop and implement an authorizer evaluation systemDevelop and implement a robust authorizer evaluation system aligned with the authorizer standards, new school accountability framework and the new state charter school law.

Activity/deliverable Primary responsibility

Secondaryresponsibility/

consultedStarted Completed

Fundingrequired/possible source(s)

2a-Develop an authorizer evaluation process and guide that includes the following elements:

• Periodic reviews of authorizer practice including monitoring and reporting protocols

• Opportunities for recognition for exemplary practice • Intervention protocols• Summative pre-renewal evaluations

MDE CSC with assistance fromaccountability framework consultant

Authorizers June ‘11 June ’12

Amount—TBDNACSA Implementation Grant

2b-Use interim measures of high quality charter schools to determine school eligibility for CSP grant.

MDE CSC CSP prog. dir.

MDE CSC supervisor June ‘11 Ongoing NA

2c-Initiate regular monitoring consistent with new evaluation system; conduct required interventions consistent with new protocols.

MDE CSC authorizer specialist

MDE CSC supervisor July ‘12 Ongoing NA

2d-Establish authorizer recognition process, i.e., application process and incentives to recognize promising and best practices.

MDE CSC authorizer specialist

MDE CSC supervisor July ‘12 Ongoing TBD in planning

process

2e-Report on individual authorizer performance consistent with expectations.

MDE CSC authorizer specialist

MDE CSC supervisor July ‘12 Ongoing NA

2f-Conduct summative authorizer renewal evaluation consistent with new process.

MDE CSC authorizer specialist

MDE CSC supervisor

July ‘13-June ’14 Ongoing NA

Measures of success:• Produce above-described products on schedule. • Greater engagement of stakeholders as reported on a survey.

13

Strategy 3: Replicate successful school models and practicesWork with authorizers, resource organizations, school districts and other stakeholders to support replication of successful school models and practices with a documented record of success located both within and outside Minnesota.

Activity/deliverable Primary responsibility

Secondaryresponsibility/

consultedStarted Completed

Fundingrequired/possible source(s)

3a-Establish charter school advisory committee (CSAC) made up of authorizers, charter school directors, school district leaders, charter resource organizations and other stakeholders to advise on replication issues.

MDE CSC Supervisor

MDE CSC CSP prog. dir Sept. ‘11 Ongoing NA

3b-Identify criteria, with input from CSAC, on replicable best practices and school models.

MDE CSC Supervisor

MDE CSC CSP prog. dir Jan ’12 Jan ’12 NA

3c-Work with the CSAC to identify top performing charter school models both within and outside of MN based on accountability framework and other data.

MDE CSC Supervisor

MDE CSC CSP prog. dir Jan ’12 Ongoing NA

3d-Conduct annual “expos” featuring proven high performing schools and practices for authorizers, charter schools and district schools.

CSAC/MDE CSC July ’13 Ongoing

annually CSP grant

3e-Use 2011 CSP grant funds to encourage and support the successful operators to develop replication plans.

MDE CSC CSP prog. dir. July ’13 Ongoing CSP grant

3f-Work with charter resource organizations and interested authorizers to encourage top performing school operators to consider MN.

MDE CSC Supervisor

MDE CSC CSP prog. dir July ’13 Ongoing NA

Measures of success:• # of replications of high-quality MN schools.• # of replications of high-quality schools from outside MN.

14

Strategy 4: Target high-need communities for new charter schoolsIdentify communities, geographic or socio-economic, with a need for high performing public schools and work with authorizers, charter resource organizations and stakeholders to support development of high quality charter schools within those communities.

Activity/deliverable Primary responsibility

SecondaryResponsibility

/consulted

Started Completed

Fundingrequired/possible source(s)

4a-Commission a community-level study (e.g., IFF St. Louis study) of the availability of quality schools to identify areas in need of high quality charter schools.

MDE CSC supervisor Authorizers Jan. ‘13 July ‘13

2nd NACSA grant or MDE resources

4b-Engage community stakeholders in analyzing community needs.

MDE CSC supervisor

Authorizers/CSAC Winter ‘13 July ’13 NA

.

4c-Work with authorizers and high need communities to encourage operators to open new schools and/or expand existing high performing schools in those communities.

MDE CSC supervisor

MDE CSC CSP prog. dir./ Authorizers

July ‘13 Ongoing CSP grant

4d-Target resources available through the CSP grant to support location of replicated schools in high need communities.

MDE CSC CSP prog. dir. Authorizers July ‘13 Ongoing/

July ’15 CSP grant

4e-Based on experience during 2013 and 2014,identify common obstacles to locating high performing schools in high need communities and develop appropriate responses, e.g., policy changes.

MDE CSC supervisor Authorizers Winter ‘14 July ’15 ??

Measures of success:• Completion and publication of the community study.• # of high performing schools that expand in high need communities.• # of high performing schools that are replicated in high need communities.

15

Strategy 5: Communicate with stakeholders about charter schools Work across MDE units to provide clear, timely and relevant information about the charter school system to authorizers, school operators, parents, policymakers and other stakeholders while also regularly soliciting stakeholder input on state charter school policy and practices.

Activity/deliverable Primary responsibility

Secondaryresponsibility/

consultedStarted Completed

Fundingrequired/possible source(s)

5a-Work with communications consulting firm and MDE communications staff to develop a charter school communications plan aligned with the overall MDE communications strategy that meets the needs of MDE and major charter school stakeholders.

• Conduct a communications inventory/audit to identify existing MDE communications/information about charter schools by target audience.

• Identify the primary information needs of authorizers, charter school operators and developers, policymakers, charter partner organizations, charter school families, district administrators and the public.

• Develop a detailed communications plan addressing all stakeholder groups.

MDE CSC supervisor

MDE Communications director

Oct. ‘11 Jan ‘12 NACSA Implementation Grant

5b-Publish a regular newsletter (e.g., Charter Schools Update) targeting schools and LEAs that reports information important to charter schools from across MDE.

MDE Communications officer

MDE CSC supervisor

July ’11;frequency TBD

Ongoing ??

5c-Conduct regular surveys of charter school stakeholders. MDE CSC supervisor ?? Jan ’12;

quarterly Ongoing ??

5d-Establish a Charter School Stakeholder Advisory Committee MDE CSC supervisor Sept. ‘11 Meets

quarterly NA

5e-Conduct periodic “dialogue sessions” and surveys with authorizers and charter partner organizations to inform them of relevant MDE initiatives and to get their input on charter school system policy and processes and MDE CSC performance.

MDE CSC supervisor

MDE CSC authorizer specialist/CSAC

July ’11 Ongoing NA

Measures of success: • Authorizers and school operators and developers report improved clarity and advance notice on relevant MDE policy and procedure changes. • Authorizers and charter partner organizations report that they had an opportunity for input on implementation of MDE charter school plan

elements.• Policymakers report increased understanding of MDE charter school policy and procedures.

16

VII. Charter School Center capacity and resourcesThis plan calls for the MDE CSC to do more and do it better. That will require additional resources, but it will also require the repurposing of existing resources. As part of the planning process, the CSC staff identified several activities that they will stop doing. Otherwise, the activities intended to advance the strategies will have to compete for resources with work that does not advance the strategies and move the state toward its goals.

Consistent with the new law and the core functions described above, the MDE Charter School Center will stop doing the following work:

Authorizing charter schools – approved authorizers will authorize all charter schools; Providing pre-application training to school developers; this will be the responsibility of authorizers; Providing post-application training to school developers; this will also be the responsibility of authorizers;

and Handling complaints from families; responsibility for that activity will be shifted to another division within

MDE.

The CSC staff also anticipates that the accountability framework, once operational, will make it easier to access school performance data which should reduce the staff time spent gathering such data.

In order to execute the plan with fidelity the Charter School Center will also need additional resources. The plan assumes that the state will receive a federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grant in August 2011. The MDE CSC submitted a proposal for $50m funding in March 2011. In addition to funding activities described throughout the strategies, the grant will provide a new charter school accountability specialist who will be responsible for facilitating the work described in Strategy 1.

The plan also assumes additional support through an Implementation Grant from NACSA’s Fund for Authorizing Excellence. The MDE CSC submitted a letter of intent to NACSA in March 2011 and will submit a full proposal later in the spring with an expected award by August 2011. The grant would support consulting assistance to develop the accountability framework described in Strategy 1 and the authorizer review process described in strategy 2, and consulting support to develop the communications plan described in Strategy 5. MDE CSC also intends to submit a second proposal to NACSA’s Fund for Authorizing Excellence in 2013 to support the community needs study described in Strategy 4.

The MDE CSC will also fill an existing Charter School Authorizer Specialist vacancy during summer 2011. The specialist will support the work to develop an accountability framework described in Strategy 1 and support the CSC’s quarterly dialogues with authorizers described in Strategy 5.

The plan also calls for increased support for CSC activities from the MDE Office of Communications, particularly to advance Strategy 5. The director of the office has been engaged in the planning discussions and is anxious to use the resources of her office to advance the charter school plan.

MDE will establish a Charter School Stakeholder Advisory Committee by September 2011. The department will report on plan progress to the Advisory Committee each quarter. The Advisory Committee will also advise the department on communication, assist with development of stakeholder surveys and help facilitate the periodic stakeholder “dialogue sessions” described in Strategy 5.

17

Appendix: Strategy Implementation Timeline

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

(S1) Initiateaccountability

frameworkdiscussion

withstakeholders

(S1) ReceiveNACSA grant

to supportAccountability

Frameworkwork

(S1) Beginaccountability

frameworkdevelopment

work

(S1) Completeaccountability

framework

(S1) Roll outnew

accountabilityframework

(S2) Begindevelopment

of newauthorizerevaluation

process

(S2)Complete

newauthorizerevaluation

process

(S2) Initiateregular

authorizermonitoring

(S2) Reporton authorizerperformance

(S2)Establish

authorizerrecognition

process

(S2) Beginauthorizerrenewalsusing new

process

(S4)Establishcharterschool

advisorycommittee

(S4)Identifycriteria forreplicablepractices

and schoolmodels

(S4)Beginto identify

topperforming

charters

(S4)Conductannual best

practice/bestmodels expos

(S4)Encouragetop schooloperatorsto open in

MN

(S3)Commissioncommunity-level studyof need for

qualityschools

(S3) Engagecommunity

stakeholdersin analyzing

need

(S3) Identifyobstacles to

locatingschools inhigh need

communities

(S3) Workwith

authorizers toencourage

highperformingschools to

locate in highneed

communities

(S3)Make changes

to facilitatequality school

location inhigh need

communities

(S5) Beginwork on a

charterschool

communication plan

(S5) Completethe

communicationsplan

(S5) Beginregular

publicationof a

charterschool

newsletter(website)

(S5) Beginconducting

periodicDialogue

sessions withcharter school

stakeholders

18

LegendPink—Strategy1—Accountability frameworkOrange—Strategy 2--Authorizer evaluationGreen—Strategy 3—Identifying high performing schoolsBlue—Strategy 4--Identifying high need communitiesPurple—Strategy 5--Communications

MDE Charter School Center Organizational Chart

19

David Hartman, supervisor

Cindy Murphy, CPS program

director

Stephanie Olson, charter school

specialist

Vacant, authorizer specialist Vacant

Marsha Davis-Busch,

administrative assistant