As if Seattle Schools Didn't Have Enough on the Plate...

...both mandated and non-mandated, along comes charter schools.

Yes, some mysterious Board member (I'm taking bets but remember I will win) asked staff about the district becoming a charter authorizer.

Now when some Board members ask staff for analysis, staff waffles, balks or just ignores their requests.  Or, Charles Wright, Deputy Superintendent, will call them out in public for making "too many requests."

That's if they don't like the topic asked about and/or the volume of work it might take to get answers.

But ask about charter schools and well, staff has lots of time.

The timeline on all this is a bit confusing but somewhere during the summer (while Banda was still here?) some Board member asked for info on the advantages and disadvantages of becoming a charter authorizer.

So staff, at least from this memo of August 7, 2014 , sprung into action.  Because:

As you are aware, staff has been asked to understand and communicate the implications of charter schools on Seattle Public Schools. We have formed a cross- departmental working group to better understand the implications for the district. The working group includes representatives from Budget, Enrollment, Facilities, Legal, DoTS, Policy and Strategic Planning. Staff is not a making recommendation in this memo, but is simply outlining the information and current understandings. 

But to review:

• The district cannot get capacity management under their control.
• The district does not have the funds to maintain their buildings (although they just crossed their fingers and told the State that they did).  
• The district is likely to NOT be fully ready to give the Smarter Balanced assessments because of the technology needed to be bought and installed.
• The district does not even have a head of Enrollment currently.
• The district pushed back and back and back against the Bell Times work.

And yet, at least seven people at SPS did this work on charter schools.  

Priorities, kids, priorities.  (Or, what memo did the Gates Foundation send this week?)

Most of the memo is accurate.  I don't think it's as well explained as it could be (especially around levy money) but it is accurate.

There is mention of the lawsuit challenging the charter school law but not the implications of the outcomes of that lawsuit.  The basic issue is are charter schools "common schools" under the Washington State Constitution as all need to be to receive state funding dollars.

Basically, I see two things depending on the ruling:

1) if the plaintiffs prevail that means charter schools are NOT "common schools" and may be eligible for zero funding or part of the state funding.  That would be for the lawyers to duke out (or maybe the Supremes will help us out there).

2) if the plaintiffs lose, meaning charter schools ARE "common schools," then that means, under the law, that they are eligible for state funds BUT also under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction (at least in some manner if they get those dollars).  I note that Superintendent Randy Dorn has recently softened his stance against charters.

One item I find confused/troubling is this:

We are still researching all of the implications charter schools will have on the Department of Technology Services, but we have recently been asked by the Director of OSPI to provide data/internet access to a new charter school opening this fall. We are still investigating the district’s capacity, as well as the fiscal impact of this request.

I have an inquiry into what charter is asking for our help (but since only one opened this fall, it's probably First Place).   I suspect that First Place wants to come to an SPS location to test its students under Smarter Balanced.

Why OSPI is asking the district for help, I don't know.  As well, I have no idea if the district would do this for free or charge for such help. 

Note: the timeline in this memo is now void.  The Board of Education did make some rule changes.  More on that in a minute.

But to the central questions:

Why would SPS want to become a charter school authorizer?

Becoming a charter school authorizer affords the School Board the opportunity to have more influence over the management of the enrollment planning process. For instance, the Spokane Public Schools RFP process outlines the types of schools and the locations where they find the greatest need. Charter school applications that best meet these criteria would be prioritized during the charter school application process. 

Analysis: I don't think so. I found nothing in the law that says a charter has to coordinate its enrollment timeline or process with its authorizer, be it the Charter Commission or a district.  A district authorizer can "prioritize" locations all they want but that doesn't mean a charter could not be authorized anywhere in the district.  I think the first district authorizer that tries to control where charters are located would get their hand slapped by the Board of Education.
 

Charter schools have the potential to contribute to the overall portfolio of options SPS offers families.

o Traditional
o Creative Approach 

o Option
o Charter 

Analysis: Of all the reasons to become an authorizer, this is not one of them.  Seattle has one of the most diverse groups of schools in the nation.  I have heard this first-hand from people in other states who do not have the plethora of types of schools already created by this district.

Becoming an authorizer allows us to ensure there is systems alignment with respect to enrollment, student information systems, student data etc.

Analysis: I don't even understand what they are saying there.  They don't even have their systems aligned with the schools they have.

Seattle Public Schools would have oversight over the academic progress, operational and financial stability of each charter school within our boundaries. 

Analysis: with what staff?  You'd HAVE to hire more people for this work.  And it's not like SPS does a stellar job itself.

What are some reasons SPS might not want to become a charter school authorizer?

Managing this process will require additional resources. The District does not currently have capacity to manage charter schools. Spokane opted to implement a new department with a dedicated “lead” and administrative support.

No kidding more resources. 

The timeline for making this decision (for authorizing schools to open fall 2016) is quickly approaching. The deadline to submit a letter of intent is October 1st, 2014.

This has since changed.

Public perception may view us as being a “supporter of charter schools”. Given the contentious nature of this topic, we would need to have a robust communication plan to mitigate this negative perception.

Robust isn't exactly the word for it.  

Then there was the Friday Memo, dated September 12, 2014, from Superintendent Nyland to the Board. 

He references the morning's Executive Committee meeting which is wrong because that meeting was the Wednesday before.

He reports that the Board of Ed changed the timeline for submitting Letters of Intent and then applications to be a charter authorizer.

The deadline of Oct. 1, 2014 is true for this year.  ( So unless someone in the district has gotten their act together, I don't believe there will be an SPS letter of intent.) 

But starting next year, districts can submit a LoI by June 15, 2015 and an application by October 15, 2015.  If approved, they would be sent an approval letter by Feb. 1, 2016.  That would then set up any new district authorizers to start work for the 2017-2018 school year.  

The BOE made these changes based on their experience and feedback from districts.  

There are many things I could say at this point but I'll leave it to you to make comments. 

 I'll just say why do we worry about the City taking over the district?  It appears that (senior) staff already has.