Purple Apple

Charter Accountability Public Hearing

10/2/2021

Charter School Performance Public Hearing, Monday 4 Oct 2021

Please consider testifying at the public hearing to reinforce the importance of including information relevant to parents and public and including standards that better represent whether charters serve all students.

You must register to participate in the public hearing (see link) and to testify (see question on the registration form).

Link to register (from TEA): The public may participate in the hearing by linking to the meeting at https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAld-2upjwuGd3aeJct4ecE2MgDiWbU4Nrn.
You must register online by 9:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing (Monday, 4 Oct) to testify via Zoom.
You may also send written testimony to charterschools@tea.texas.gov, by 9 a.m. on the day of the hearing.

Testimony will be limited to three minutes per speaker. The hearing will conclude once all who have registered have been given the opportunity to comment.

Why the Charter School Performance Framework (CSPF) is important

TEA is required by statute to create a Charter School Performance Framework (CSPF) that rates charter school performance using indicators in three areas: Academic, Financial, and Operations.

TEA is updating the CSPF using 2020 data and taking comments from the public that are due on October 4, 2021.
TEA uses the CSPF ratings for a variety of important determination including, oversight, eligibility for charter expansion amendment, charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation. A charter school rated “high quality” on the CSPF is given preferential treatment.

Concerns have been raised that the indicators used in the CSPR do not provide a comprehensive picture of charter performance. For example, the indicators do not measure whether charter schools underserve English Learners or students with special needs.

TEA uses the CSPF to benefit charter schools rated “high quality,” even those charters that underserve English Learners or students with special needs.
TEA uses the CSPF ratings for a variety of important determinations including oversight, eligibility for charter expansion amendments, and charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation.
For example, a charter school that serves only 2.1% students with special needs received a “high quality” rating on the CSPF in 2019 and has had 10 new charter campuses approved through the amendment process over the last three years.
The CSPF is required by statute [TEC 12.1181(a)]

Key Points: Recommended changes to the 2020 CSPF

Weight the indicator that requires all charter school teachers to meet statutory qualifications. Given the valuable role that qualified teachers play in our classrooms, meeting the minimum standard for teacher qualifications as required by law should receive more points on the CSPF than an indicator for simply turning in a report on time. Currently, teacher qualifications and filing documents on time each receive only one point on the CSPF.
We agree with TEA that the 2020 CSPF should be “informational only” since the academic performance standards are heavily weighted in the CSPF (70 percent) but are not available in 2020 (page 27). As such, we strongly recommend that the 2020 CSPF not be used to give preferential treatment for charter expansion amendments or renewals.
We also recommend that TEA expand the stakeholder groups that are formally involved in the revision of the 2021 CSPF at the front-end of the process before the rules have been proposed. The statute directs TEA to involve “interested parties” in the development of the framework. These “parties” should include education organizations such as those that have submitted comments on the 2020 CSPF, school districts, and the elected State Board of Education. Each of these organizations has an interest in how TEA measures charter school performance and how the CSPF is used for charter expansion, renewal, and oversight.
We also agree with TEA that parents and the public can benefit from receiving comprehensive information about charter school performance. However, in reviewing the proposed changes to the 2020 CSPF, we believe that TEA misses an opportunity to provide more meaningful and relevant information in the CSPF that will help parents make important educational choices for their children. Including additional indicators in the CSPF from data that is already reported to TEA will increase the CPSF’s usefulness to parents and help TEA better achieve its goal to provide “a comprehensive body of data that is reflective of charter school performance.”
TEA states that the Academic Standard in the CSPF answers the following question: “Is the academic program a success for all students?” Yet, the current CSPF indicators leave gaps in the performance standards for students with special needs and English Learners. In fact, under the current CSPF indicators, a charter school that underserves students with special needs, or does not report an adequate number of certified teachers for Bilingual/ESL students or students with special needs, can still claim it is a “high quality” charter school, and as a result, its expansion amendments are likely to be routinely approved.
For example, a charter school that serves only 2.1 percent students with special needs was rated “high quality” on the 2019 CSPF, and 10 new campuses were approved through the charter amendment process over the last three years. We recommend adding indicators to the 2020 CSPF that will address these educational equity issues and better inform stakeholders about whether charter schools adequately serve these special student populations.
We recommend the addition of performance indicators to the Academic Standard in the 2021 CSPF that reflect what matters most to parents: how charter schools implement practices and make budget decisions that have the greatest impact on what happens in the classroom for their children. Indicators recommended include: class size, teacher turnover, student attrition, closed campuses that abandon students, and expenditures that directly impact students in the classroom.

In summary, we believe that the current CSPF misses an opportunity to better inform state decision-making, safeguard public funds, and provide performance standards that are more relevant to parents and the public. In some cases, the data in the CSPF can result in a misleading rating of “high quality” for a charter school that is not serving all children equitably.