City of Milwaukee and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School Chartering Processes: Academic Accountability Issues   by Alex Molnar   Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation School of Education University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee PO Box 413 Milwaukee WI 53201 414-229-2716   May 3, 1999     CERAI-99-9

City of Milwaukee and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School Chartering Processes: Academic Accountability Issues* (CERAI-99-9) Alex Molnar Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 3 May 1999   Table of Contents Introduction Charter School Reform Overview Charter School Accountability Charter School Accountability Under Wisconsin Law University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Charter School Accountability City of Milwaukee Charter School Accountability Discussion Conclusion Recommendations Endnotes Tables 1-5 Tables 6 and 7 Appendices   Table 1   CHARACTERISTICS OF CHARTER SCHOOL REFORM RELEVANT TO ACADEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY 1. Academic accountability focus is on ends not means.1 2. The academic accountability role of the charter school sponsor is well defined and clear.2 3. Accountability agreements between the sponsor and the charter school are specific and precise.3 4. Charter school sponsor is responsible for monitoring the academic performance of the school and for sanctioning the school if it fails to meet the agreed upon academic standards.4 5. Accountability data about charter school performance are publicly available from the sponsor and there is a plan for disseminating the information.5 6. Chartering process insures the charter school’s academic program can be used as a model for broader reform.6   Notes 1 Bruno V. Manno, "Charter School Accountability: Problems and Prospects," in Charter Schools in Action (Washington, D.C.: Hudson Institute, 1997), 2; An Evaluation: Charter School Program, Report 98-15 (Madison, Wis.: Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, 1998), 9. 2 Ted Kolderie, "What Does It Mean to Ask: ‘Is "Charter Schools" Working?’" posted on the website of the Charter Friends National Network (http://www.charterfriends.org/working.html), cited on 14 April 1999; Amy Stuart Wells, et al., Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform: A Study of Ten California School Districts (Los Angeles: UCLA Charter School Study, 1998), 5; and Lynn Schnaiberg, "Charter Schools Struggle with Accountability," Education Week 17, no. 39 (10 June 1998): 1, 14-15. 3 Wells, et al., Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform, 7; Schnaiberg, "Charter Schools Struggle with Accountability;" An Evaluation: Charter School Program, 6. 4 Kolderie, "What Does It Mean to Ask: ‘Is "Charter Schools" Working?’" and Wells, et al., Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform,5. 5 Wells, et al., Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform, 7; Schnaiberg, "Charter Schools Struggle with Accountability;" An Evaluation: Charter School Program, 5; and A National Study of Charter Schools: Second-Year Report, 1998 (Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education, 1998), 7. 6 Bruno V. Manno, Accountability, the Key to Charter Renewal: A Guide to Help Charter Schools Create Their Accountability Plans (Washington, D.C.: Center for Education Reform, 1999), 2; Wells, et al., Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform, 5; Gregg Vanourek, et al., "The Educational Impact of Charter Schools," in Charter Schools in Action (Washington, D.C.: Hudson Institute, 1997), 8; and Bruno V. Manno, "How Charter Schools Are Different: Lessons and Implications," in Charter Schools in Action (Washington, D.C.: Hudson Institute, 1997), 5. Back to Report     Table 2 State Requirements for Charter Student Assessment Wisconsin's requirements are highlighted in bold italicized text Approach States Charter must use state tests. Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin Charter schools must use assessments required of other public schools. Delaware, District of Columbia, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania Charter document must contain the schoolÕs approach to assessment. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, and Rhode Island Charter school negotiates assessment requirements with sponsoring district. Alaska Legislation does not specify assessment requirement. Hawaii and Wyoming Based on information in A National Study of Charter Schools: Second-Year Report (Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education, 1998), 21-23. Back to Report     Table 3 State Approaches to the Revocation of Charters Wisconsin's requirements are highlighted in bold italicized text Approach States Sponsor can revoke charter for the following: violation of charter, financial mismanagement, violation of law, failure to meet student outcome goals, or good cause. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming In addition to the grounds listed above, charter can be revoked if majority of the staff and parents vote to end the charter. Georgia and Mississippi In addition to the grounds listed above, charter can be revoked if two-thirds of the instructional staff vote to end the charter. Arkansas and North Carolina Charter can be revoked for violation of charter, violation of law, financial mismanagement, failure to meet student performance goals, or if district determines charter is not in the best interest of children in district. Illinois Grounds not specified. Hawaii, Nevada, and New Mexico Based on information in A National Study of Charter Schools: Second-Year Report (Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education, 1998), 21-23. Back to Report     Table 4 Charter Duration by State Wisconsin's requirements are highlighted in bold italicized text   Approach States Mandatory annual review Pennsylvania 3-year charter duration Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, and South Carolina 3-to-5 year charter duration Illinois 4-year charter duration Hawaii and New Jersey 4-to-6 year charter duration Mississippi 5-year charter duration Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming 10-year charter duration with mandatory review every seven years Michigan 15-year charter duration with reviews every five years Arizona and District of Columbia Duration not specified in the law; must be specified in charter contract Texas Based on information in A National Study of Charter Schools: Second-Year Report (Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education, 1998), 21-23. Back to Report     Table 5 State Approaches to the Charter Renewal Process Wisconsin's requirements are highlighted in bold italicized text   Approach States Mirrors the charter-granting process. Connecticut, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island Mirrors the charter-granting process and school must also demonstrate improvement in academic performance of students as described in their charter. Louisiana Renewal is at the discretion of the sponsor. Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas Renewal is at the discretion of the sponsor, but legislation provides for appeal to the State Board of Education. Minnesota Renewal must be approved by both sponsor and State Board of Education. North Carolina Process for renewal must be included in schoolÕs charter. Arkansas Legislation does not specify a renewal process. Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Wyoming Based on information in A National Study of Charter Schools: Second-Year Report (Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education, 1998), 21-23. Back to Report   Table of Contents Introduction Charter School Reform Overview Charter School Accountability Charter School Accountability Under Wisconsin Law University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Charter School Accountability City of Milwaukee Charter School Accountability Discussion Conclusion Recommendations Endnotes Tables 1-5 Tables 6 and 7 Appendices     Return to Projects and Publications "City of Milwaukee and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School Chartering Processes: Academic Accountability Issues" (CERAI-99-9) was produced for the Institute for Excellence in Urban Education, UW-Milwaukee.