The Echo

Well, kids, its been a helluva week for education in Delaware - AG intervenes to keep the SBOE from reading your email, Reach hearing moved-up, Gov. holds off signing Charter bill, but successfully passes more transportation costs to districts...  And now a lull has descended upon us..

So, let's turn our attention back to the lovely NACSA report, commissioned by Sec. Lowery and SBOE President Teri Gray. 

http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/files/2011/06/NACSA_DE_Eval_REPORT_FINAL.pdf

The following content can be found on page 18. My thoughts - in color, Greater Emphasis NACSA text- bolding or larger font.

• "The authorizer lacks rubrics, protocols or systems of ongoing oversight of charter school academic performance." Pencader or Reach anyone?
• As applied, the authorizer's Technical Assistance Manual contains references to site visits, but in practice the visits that do occur are informal or reactive and do not rise to the level of monitoring or oversight visits.
• the authorizer does not evaluate schools' academic performance against the measures contained in the Performance Agreements on an ongoing basis, or as the basis for renewal decisions.
• authorizer does not have a prescribed approach to monitoring school academic performance.
• Moreover, the authorizer does not provide any reports or feedback to schools on academic performance until the renewal cycle begins

The following content is from page 19:

• As applied, the authorizer does not engage in a systematic approach to monitoring school operations on a recurring or annual basis, but it is able to respond to some problems that arise because pertinent data is readily available via DDOE data systems.
• The authorizer lacks established financial oversight policies, standards, and processes. Financial performance requirements are not spelled out in approved charter applications. Independent annual audits of charter schools are not required by statute. Instead, charter schools undergo audits by the state on the same basis as traditional public schools -- every three years, and per audit standards applied to traditional schools.
• In practice, the authorizer knows how schools are doing financially. Charter schools are state entities and therefore participate in state administrative (human resources, benefits, payroll, and pensions) and financial (budget and accounting) systems. CSO and DDOE financial staff have ready access to the Delaware Financial Management System (DFMS), in which accounting and transactional data for charter school financial transactions is stored, and feedback is provided to schools if financial problems or trends are detected - albeit from analysis that is not systematized or sophisticated.
• Because most charter schools do not undergo independent financial audits, the authorizer cannot review audits on an annual basis. Therefore, the authorizer is unable to examine year-to-year audited financial performance and conduct best practice ratio and trend analysis, which no doubt contributes to financial monitoring focused primarily on cash flow and cash availability, rather than on school progress toward developing financial viability over time. The authorizer also gives little attention to determining the extent to which schools are building adequate financial planning and management capacity.

On Special Populations, from Page 20:

As established, applications require adequate information and compliance assurances for serving some groups of students with special needs. The application and the review form used by the CSAC focus for the most part on students with disabilities and contain little reference to English Language Learners (ELL), exceptional children, or severely at-risk students.

As applied, the authorizer does oversee compliance with special education obligations. Monitoring of special education compliance requirements is one aspect of oversight for which DDOE has developed a detailed monitoring rubric. In addition, special education compliance oversight is conducted on an ongoing and annual basis by the DDOE. The authorizer also has a record of compliance issues that have arisen in the form of documented correspondence with operators. The authorizer's Technical Assistance Manual states that charter schools must conduct an annual evaluation of ELL programs; however, it is unclear whether or how the authorizer monitors compliance with any of the ELL-specific requirements.

• The authorizer has no established process, tools, instruments, or mechanisms to monitor or provide feedback to school operators on any aspect of school operations. The authorizer's Technical Assistance Manual spells out the right of the authorizer to engage in site visits and access student records; however, the authorizer has developed no process or protocol for conducting monitoring-focused site visits.
• The authorizer evinces little evidence of systematic monitoring and oversight. Monitoring is conducted largely on an ad hoc basis. The authorizer provides feedback to schools only when problems directly tied to compliance with statutory provisions arise - such as when schools fail to meet minimum annual enrollment thresholds.
• Similarly, the authorizer responds when problems or issues identified by DDOE -- or called to its attention -- surface with regard to a school's financial viability, compliance or reporting requirements, or legal status. in such cases, the authorizer has responded to complaints (or issues it has flagged) and has engaged in comprehensive and diligent information gathering and fact finding in order to make and support decisions. But such actions were not defined or prescribed by policy or clear and transparent guidelines and process.