How do you define a quality charter school? It is up to us to answer this question.
As a member association of charter schools and supporters, we must act. If not, we may have the definition mandated upon us. With 460 charter schools in Arizona, we have plenty of fertile ground in which to nurture and mature our definition and implementation of a quality charter school.
Several standards-based paradigms have surfaced around the country. These standards focus on core outputs including student achievement, governance and leadership, continuous evaluation and improvement, and fiscal accountability. We should come up with our own consensus of what works in Arizona!
What do you think are the hallmark characteristics that produce a rich learning environment which is integral to the success of our students? We need to hear from you. Over the course of the next six months, we invite you to engage in conversations regarding key success indicators of a quality charter school.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to azcharterblog.
azcharterblog is sponsored by the Arizona Charter Schools Association. Its puprose is to discuss issues important to Arizona charter school stakeholders. The current topic for azcharterblog is Quality Standards. We will be discussing this important issue between now and March 2008. Please contibute to this discussion; this is your opportunity to give your input on the question, "What is a quality charter school."
As a professional community the Arizona Charter Schools Association seeks to foster a collaborative, supportive environment for charter stakeholders; therefore, please refrain from personal attacks and inappropriate language.
As a professional community the Arizona Charter Schools Association seeks to foster a collaborative, supportive environment for charter stakeholders; therefore, please refrain from personal attacks and inappropriate language.
1 comment:
From: Gerry Baumann
AZ Consultant
SIATech Charter High Schools AZ
Subject: Thoughts from our First Meeting Charter Standards Meeting and Sue’s email
I have spent some time over the last few weeks reviewing the summary of our meeting and Sue Douglas’ timely response.
Here are some thoughts for discussion:
My Questions/Observations
• In reviewing the actual California Standards documents and two other certification websites, I had a better view of the scope of the project. It was not negative—just gave me some perspective. I have attached three documents to this email as well. Beware; they can be time consuming if you chose to read them word by word. Their organization was helpful to me to try to get my thoughts organized in a sequential way.
• We were confused between the Standard descriptor/”focus area” and the indicators. It is not necessary to put all the indicators in the Standard descriptor. The descriptors should be short and to the point like a mission statement. I have a suggestion below.
• There seemed to be the most confusion about Academic Quality vs. Academic Standards, vs. Academic Performance, and the use of the word “academic” itself.
• We need more input from Assoc. members about these focus areas: Academic Quality, School Culture/Leadership, Policy Governance, Financial Transparency, and Business Integrity. Are these the ones we want to go forward with?
• Most of the other models separate academic program from academic achievement. Should we add this focus area—separate from Program?
• Can we use one or part of some of those models that are already out there—with their permission—why re-create the wheel?
• Why did we include the topic of Parent/School Choice? Isn’t that the role of the school to define in their Mission/Vision statements, and the school’s responsibility to report to the State?
My thoughts—open for discussion!
• I would describe our first focus area this way:
o A quality charter school creates systems to promote student learning and growth through a clear mission and vision that communicates flexibility, effectiveness, and high expectations for all learners.
• I would add those other phrases: adequate academic progress, appropriate and differentiated instruction, meeting the needs of all students, standards-based curriculum, etc. as descriptors under this intro paragraph.
• Sue, I don’t think that using the word “academic” is a problem for your school. Your academic program is in your charter which focuses on your schools art focus. That is your academics.
• Sue, I agree that we have to be careful to not hold ourselves to unrealistic or even higher standards than mandated for all public schools. We can perform higher, but why try to set a glass ceiling?
• We are all stuck with AZ funding. We have to get over it and get creative with what we have.
• Sue I agree that this document has to work for all schools. That is why I am suggesting that it be more general in the focus descriptions with more descriptors that would make it more applicable. Just because there are several multiple site schools represented, shouldn’t mean that all charters could not meet the standards criteria—we should all perform to the standards that are addressed and set.
• I don’t know if we are ready yet to move ahead to the next focus areas. Especially, if we don’t get more input on these.
Thanks everyone. I hope this has been helpful to start more thought and discussion. I don’t own any of this—just want to dialogue.
Post a Comment