Author Archives: Stan Jester

Rewriting DeKalb Charter School Policies – Part II

Posted on July 9, 2015 | 20 comments

DeKalb Schools administration has taken another stab at rewriting the charter school board policies and it is on the agenda for the July 13 board meeting.  They have provided answers to many financial and HR autonomy questions.  Let me know your thoughts.
Highlights
•  Autonomy – Because the recommended amount of autonomy for charters has changed several times in recent years, the new policies do not address it.
•  The district can review the amount of autonomy requested by each petitioner and gauge the charter petitioner’s capacity to operate with that autonomy.
•  Substantial Autonomy – The state acknowledges each district will need to define what substantial autonomy looks like.
•  The state’s current conversion charter contract template includes a provision that allows district to define the autonomy received by conversion charter schools.
•  Funding – DCSD will fund its charter schools in accordance with state laws and rules.
Supporting Documents

[This section added on 7/10] Charter school petitioners are given this document to give them guidance in the roles and responsibilities of the charter governance board.  The autonomy described in this document effectively gives conversion charter governance boards the same autonomy as traditional school councils.

Autonomy Personnel Decisions Financial Decisions
Conversion Charter Governing Board
or
Local School Governance Team Roles and Responsibility		 1. Participates in the process to hire the principal, submitting two to three candidates for District consideration.2. Conducts stakeholder surveys regarding school and principal performance3. Provides input … [for this and that] 1. Provides input into the school budget2. Utilizes undesignated funds
System Level GovernanceRoles & Responsibility 1. Establishes types of positions2. Manages all hiring decisions 1. Manages number of positions budgeted2. Manages fiscal affairs3. Establishes the compensation model including salary schedules, bonuses or performance-based increases

Conversion Charter School Funding & Autonomy in Proposed Board Policy IBB & IBB-R
Stan Jester – Question: “We discussed that the state gives guidance on funding independent charters and little guidance in funding conversion charters. How to fund conversion charters, financial and HR autonomy are some of the biggest pain points for conversion charters right now. Many conversion charters are looking to renew their charter in August and need guidance from the district congruent with the state memo. The charter policy updates do not address conversion charter funding and finance/hr autonomy. What is the status of updating the charter policy changes to reflect hr and finance? I don’t see any reason we can’t fund conversion charters like independent charters if they are high performing charters requesting that autonomy. ”

Answer: District staff, upon prior conference with the District’s legal counsel, provides the following explanations and information to the inquiry regarding conversion charter schools, in relation to Proposed Board Policy IBB and IBB-R, currently pending Board of Education approval. In addition to the response below, the District has provided a “Board Policy lBB Revisions Chart” upon Board request on June 1, 2015.State Law & Regulation: The proposed IBB and IBB-R incorporate by reference the most recent state law, State Board Rules, and Guidelines, thus the district does not need to repeat the state’s requirements for autonomy within its own rules. This prevents the district from having to revise its policies every time the state changes its policies, which happens often with charters.a. The State Memo referred to is not the most current State Board Rule or Guidance on the autonomy granted to charter schools, both start-up and conversions, and thus is not controlling law, rule, or guidance. The Georgia Department of Education’s Charter Division captured their final policy recommendations in the new charter school rules and guidelines passed by the State Board of Education in November of2014. The proposed IBB policy reflects the most recent state law, State Board Rules, and State Board Guidelines on charters.
1. Substantial Autonomy: The new rule regarding the autonomy to be given to charter schools, both conversions and start-ups, is not final autonomy but substantial autonomy.
a. “Substantial autonomy” is defined as “the nonprofit governing board of a charter school shall have authority to make, but is not limited to, personnel decisions, including selection of the principal or school leader; financial decisions and resource allocation decisions, including establishing the number and type of personnel, curriculum costs, supply costs, equipment costs and maintenance and operations costs; selection of a curriculum and accompanying instructional materials; establishment and monitoring of the achievement of school improvement goals, including approval of the school improvement plan and oversight of its implementation; and operations that are consistent with school improvement goals. The local board shall only override decisions of a conversion charter school’s governing board in those areas where the local board has constitutional authority and has a reasonable belief that a decision will be substantially detrimental to students and is not in the public interest.”
b. The State Board recognizes that districts can define how the autonomy above is operationalized for conversion charters within the district’s current operational framework, a point which is included in the conversion charter contract that is signed between the state, the district, and the charter school.
3. There is nothing in the proposed IBB or IBB-R that prevents a charter school, conversion or start-up, from requesting whatever level of autonomy they desire. Some governing boards may be high quality and request a high level of autonomy–if the Board feels that the level of autonomy requested is appropriate, the Board can approve the charter school. If the Governing Board is not believed capable of wielding the autonomy requested, the Board can vote to deny that charter. By addressing autonomy requests through the approval process, this allows the DeKalb Board to take into consideration specific schools and whether a particular governing board has the capacity to handle the level of autonomy requested. Ultimately, the state cannot take away the District and the Board’s constitutional obligation to control and manage its schools, and so all of these requirements must be read in the context of that obligation.
4. Funding: Both the current and proposed IBB state the district will fund its charters, conversion and start-up, according to law, State Board Rules, and Guidelines. The only legal requirement for conversion charter school funding is that they are funded no less favorably than traditional charter schools. Of course, districts can always choose to provide funding in excess of what is required by law, but this would require the district’s financial office to vet the impacts such a policy change would incur. As it stands, the proposed IBB and IBB-R were drafted to be cost-neutral changes to improve the district’s charter policies and practices and increase transparency. Changing how the district funds its conversion charter schools would have impacts that have not been considered or vetted by the district and would make the policy change cost-incurring for an undetermined amount.

Georgia Department of Education Rules
Charter School Rule and Guidance which was approved by the SBOE at their November, 2014

Related Links and Documents

20 Comments

Posted in Board Policy, Charter Schools

DeKalb County Facility Educational Adequacy Assessment

Posted on July 6, 2015 | 10 comments

Parsons & MGT of America provided DeKalb Schools with the questionable facilities condition reports which were used to determine the capital projects list in the current SPLOST IV. I have consulted with credible sources and they indicated to me that they believed the data previously produced by MGT was manipulated to produce a particular outcome. This past February, Parsons & MGT of America were contracted again for the same service.  Their data and report to the DCSD and the BOE will drive the SPLOST V projects slated to start in 2018.
Kirk Lunde is a parent and an advocate for children. Mr. Lunde asked me to share this open letter he wrote to Sam Mandola at Parsons, a capital project management firm.
———— Original Message ————

From: Kirk Lunde
Subject: DeKalb County Facility Educational Adequacy Assessment
Mr. Mandola,
I am a resident of DeKalb County, GA whose sons were in an elementary school which was incorrectly identified as having two gyms the last time Parsons & MGT of America assessed the facilities of the DeKalb County School District, DCSD. When Mr. Wilkins, DeKalb’s former COO, contacted MGT of America regarding the incorrect number of classrooms at my sons’ elementary school, Mr. Humble replied, “Our process for determining instructional capacity included a definition of what a classroom is and a detail review of the inventory of space with the principal at each school.”
When you compare the classroom count for Midvale Elementary previously done by MGT of America in 2012, 41 classrooms, to the classroom count for Midvale Elementary done by DCSD employees in 2013, 32 classrooms, the magnitude of the error becomes obvious. In fact, the errors in the work performed by MGT of America were so egregious, the DCSD planning department had to redo the classroom count at every school in the district. A comparison of the two reports shows more than 80% of the schools have different numbers of classrooms and different building capacities.
That is not what I want to speak to you about.
_____
The tools used in Facility Educational Adequacy Assessment (FEAA) currently being done for DCSD by Parsons are not posted on the S.P.A.C.E.S. page of the district’s website. Based on the absence of any inclusion of space considerations for special education in the previous Facility Condition Assessments prepared by Parsons, I assume the current FEAA will not address special education. I may be wrong.
For two years, I tried to get the DCSD facilities department to assess the needs of students with disabilities for physical space. They refuse to do so.
I am attaching a document I presented to the SPLOST IV oversight committee which includes a survey for school personnel to identify the space needs of students with disabilities and itinerate employees. It was updated this morning to include a link to GaDOE Rule 160-4-7-.14 which reads, in part:

Children, with an IEP designating the service location for the delivery of goals and objectives to be the regular classroom environment , shall be reported in their special education program category if instruction is provided in a :
A. Team/Collaborative Model; or
B. Consultative Model .

This is relevant because those models of instruction are also known as “inclusion.” These are general education classrooms which include students with disabilities. Earlier in the text of Rule 160-4-7-.14 it states:

(d) The LEA shall provide a classroom of suitable size in a distraction-free area, as required by the type of program or services to be established, with appropriate furniture, materials, supplies and equipment to meet the needs of the class or individual children to be served. GaDOE has established this policy as a safeguard to prevent placing children with disabilities in classrooms that are too small, have visual or auditory distractions or do not have items necessary to provide appropriate instruction.
(e) Thirty-eight square feet shall be provided for each child in the class with a variance of 10 percent depending upon the total number of personnel in the class at any time, the type of children and class, the kind and amount of furniture and equipment required and the necessity for storage capabilities

Adhering to this rule means general education classrooms are to limit the number of students during segments which include students with disabilities and instruction is provided with one of the three models listed.
Rule 160-4-7-.14 will affect the building capacity calculation. It seems to me this is relevant to the FEAA being conducted for DeKalb County Schools.
The FEAA needs to include an assessment of the physical space needs of students with disabilities to identify where small group instruction and testing takes place. I am writing to you to ask if that is part of the FEAA. If it is not, what steps can be taken to add it?
Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I plan to address the Board of Education regarding this issue on July 13.
Kirk Lunde

10 Comments

Posted in Board Meetings