Developing an Organizational Model

The meeting then turned to a presentation by Larry Stanton, a Chicago-based organizational development expert, on four possible organizational models for the group to consider in launching an authorizers’ organization. (The presentation slides are enclosed.) The four models Mr. Stanton presented were:

1. Informal network
2. Independent membership organization
3. Affiliation or partnership with an established national organization
4. Joint sponsorship by a consortium of national and regional organizations

Mr. Stanton first provided a comparative overview of the structure and capacities of each organizational model, including their staffing, budget and operational implications. He then led the group in a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Issues considered during this discussion included:

• Advantages and disadvantages of affiliating with one organization versus a number of partners.
• Key factors – such as political connections, ideological agendas, and organizational stability – in considering potential affiliates or partners.
• Whether the authorizers’ organization would have a muted voice or weakened identity if it were created as an affiliate of an established national group.

With a comparative understanding of each model’s implications, the group was better able to choose an organizational structure that would match their vision, goals, expected resources, and needs.

First, the meeting participants agreed that the amount of work envisioned for the organization would require at least some staff. The organization would not be fully effective if it relied only on the part-time or ad hoc actions of its members.

In addition, the independence of the organization is important. The group was wary of compromising – or even appearing to compromise – the organization’s independence and freedom of action by establishing partnerships or affiliations with other organizations having their own agendas or ideologies.

Mr. Stanton estimated that it would take six months to one year to start up the new organization. The meeting participants agreed that they need the fledgling organization to accomplish specific tasks during this start-up phase, functioning as an active entity even in its early development. Accordingly, the organizational structure chosen would have to meet this need for immediate activity.

These considerations led to the suggestion of a fifth model – an "incubator" approach – which would allow a temporary affiliation with a university or other established entity while the authorizers’ organization establishes its independence (described further below). After extensive discussion, the group selected this approach as most suitable for starting up their organization.

"Incubator" Approach: Temporary Affiliation While Working Towards Autonomy

Under this approach, the fledgling organization of authorizers would identify an established organization as a "start-up partner" for a limited period. An appropriate partner entity would:

• Be non-ideological in nature
• Serve as a temporary fiscal agent until the authorizers’ organization can secure independent 501(c)(3) status
• Provide in-kind administrative support such as office space, computers, photocopying, mailing, an Internet presence, etc.

The emerging authorizers’ organization would hire its own professional staff to launch and manage the organization’s start-up. Most likely, the professional staff required during this start-up/incubation period would take the form of a single FTE executive director, perhaps hired initially as a consultant. Appointed staff would, among other responsibilities, lead fundraising efforts for the organization’s start-up and development. Organizational partners that might serve as an "incubator" for the organization include universities and regional educational laboratories. The Organizational Planning Committee (formed later in the meeting) will take charge of identifying appropriate and willing potential incubator organizations.

Membership issues that the group discussed included:

• Membership will be open to all entities across the country that have charter-granting authority. The organization will strive to attain a geographically diverse membership, as well as one that represents the full range of agencies empowered to grant charters nationwide (i.e., local school boards and districts of varying sizes, state boards and departments of education, higher education institutions, municipal bodies, independent chartering boards).
• Other types of organizations and individuals could be recognized as "affiliates," "partners," or "friends" of the authorizers’ organization, but only chartering authorities themselves (or their designated representatives) may be members of the organization.
• Membership dues will be necessary to help sustain the organization. Possible differential fee structures could be based, for example, on the size of particular charter-authorizing agencies, or the number of students they serve. Exploring various dues-structure options and recommending a structure for the organization would be a task for the Membership Committee (formed later in the meeting).

Going Forward: Forming Working Committees

After the group achieved consensus on a preferred organizational structure and approach, each charter authorizer at the meeting then signed up to work on one of four planning committees to focus on various aspects of creating the organization. These committees met separately to lay out immediate priorities and assign tasks to individual members. The committees then reported their proceedings to the entire group.

Below is a list of the four planning committees, their areas of focus, and their designated co-chairs. In addition to these four committees, the group created an overall Steering Committee to coordinate the planning committees’ work and make final decisions on matters requiring short-term resolution.

Organizational Planning Committee

Co-Chairs: Greg Richmond (Chicago) and Jim Goenner (Central Michigan University)

This committee will be responsible for leading and carrying out an array of general planning tasks needed to form a viable, sustainable nationwide organization.

Tasks:

1. Organize a Steering Committee for interim decisionmaking, pending the appointment of a formal board of directors. The Steering Committee will have eight members, consisting of two representatives from each working committee (each committee chair plus one additional member). Consistent with one of the foremost aims of the nascent organization, the Steering Committee should exhibit diversity in both geographic representation and types of authorizing agencies.
2. Draft a mission/vision statement and identify possible names for the organization
3. Draft a business plan Identify potential incubator organizations and other possible partners —Explore viable ways to fund the organization’s start-up and development. Ideas regarding possible fee structures for non-member "partner" organizations will be referred to the Membership Committee. The Organizational Planning Committee might also identify possible consultants to help launch the initial fundraising effort.
4. Draft organizational bylaws

Issues Committee

Chair: Jude Hollins (New York City Board of Education)

This committee will identify the substantive issues and activities of greatest interest to the authorizers’ organization as it develops, design mechanisms to assess members’ interests and needs regularly, and lead in planning an organizational agenda that best meets these diverse needs.

Tasks:

1. Create an online "Issues Page" where members of the authorizers’ organization can raise and discuss issues of common concern. Use the U.S. Department of Education’s Web site (www.uscharterschools.org), because it’s already well-established and has a substantial nationwide following. Also create a "Profiles" area online, where authorizers and other Web site visitors can learn more about the member authorizing agencies.
2. Create a plan to increase the frequency and strengthen the substance of communications among authorizers throughout the country (beginning with those attending this meeting).
3. Establish a process and physical place – a "resource bank" – for collecting illustrative documents and materials useful for authorizers. Expand the collection of this resource bank.
4. Conduct outreach to identify additional issues and sub-issues (in addition to those already identified in this meeting) that authorizers would like the organization to address.
5. Publish regular " issue briefs" for authorizers, 1 to 4 times per year (depending on the organization’s resources).
6. Use the identification of priority issues to inform planning of the organization’s national and/or regional conferences.

National Conference Planning Committee

Chair: Deborah Havens (Texas Education Agency)

This committee will lead in planning the first national conference for the authorizers’ organization, which could take place in conjunction with the next Charter Schools National Conference (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education) in November 2000 in Washington, DC. Following are additional ideas brought up by the Conference Planning Committee:

1. Planning for the conference could intensify in Spring 2000.
2. The authorizers’ organization could sponsor a 1-day conference immediately preceding the next Charter Schools National Conference, similar to the authorizers’ "preconference" in Denver last year.
3. The conference will require professional facilitation. (Perhaps Deb Banks could help with this again?)
4. Purposes of the national conference for authorizers would include:

• Sharing information and learning with as large a group of charter authorizers as possible, reaching significantly further than the relatively small group represented at this meeting.
• Update this larger group of authorizers on the work accomplished by the founding members of the authorizers’ organization.
• Organize breakout sessions on about eight topics.

Membership Committee

Chair: Chris Georgacas (Minnesota State Board of Education) This committee will draft membership policies and work to build the organization’s membership nationwide.

Tasks

1. Identify as many agencies as possible nationwide that may be interested in joining the authorizers’ organization. Obtain from the U.S. Department of Education a state-by-state inventory of charter-authorizing entities.
2. Design and circulate a survey to assess the networking interests and needs of authorizers nationwide. Sub-tasks:

• Seek assistance from other organizations that could facilitate this information-gathering across the states.
• Convene a conference call for the Membership Committee in December to discuss the survey results.
• Circulate a broad mailing to authorizers nationwide in January, summarizing the survey results and soliciting more input if needed.

3. Create a financial structure for membership (and perhaps non-member contributions). Coordinate this with ideas generated from the Organizational Planning Committee.
4. Ensure broad, equitable membership representation of charter states and different types of authorizing agencies.

Steering Committee

Chair: Greg Richmond (Chicago Public Schools)

The Steering Committee will coordinate the work of the organization and its committees.

Next Steps

The meeting participants will receive this summary and share it with other interested parties. The committees will work on their designated tasks as outlined above, adhering to the specified deadlines. This leadership group will reconvene as necessary before the envisioned National Conference.

Special Discussion Topic: Approaching Charter Renewal Decisions

In addition to the day’s primary focus on organizational planning, the meeting participants also devoted some time in the afternoon to sharing their practices and approaches to charter renewal decisionmaking. Only a handful of authorizers in the room have reached the renewal decision stage; thus, the discussion was an exchange among peers seeking ideas to help address this challenge. Following are some thoughts offered by authorizers during this part of the day’s discussions. Jim Goenner from Central Michigan University (CMU) explained that his office focuses its charter renewal decisions on three central questions (essentially the same guiding questions developed in Massachusetts and used in several other jurisdictions):

• Is the school’s academic program successful? (CMU judges this on the basis of student achievement on the state’s norm-referenced test and demonstrated progress toward additional educational goals – both academic and non-academic -- in each school’s charter.)
• Is the school a stable, well-managed organization?
• Is the school operating in good faith with its charter and applicable law?

Mr. Goenner noted that his office requires schools to capture baseline student performance data in their first year of operation, to allow measurement of student learning gains in subsequent years.

Michael Kaplan from the New Mexico Department of Education reported that his state evaluates charter school performance on the following five indicators: (1) Academic tests; (2) School safety; (3) Parent and community involvement; (4) Student attendance; and (5) Discipline. New Mexico also completes an Accreditation Report for each of its charter schools every three years.

Josephine Baker from the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board shared a relevant practice developed by her agency. DC does not immediately face charter renewal decisions, as DC charters are granted for 15 years and the District’s charter law is only three years old. However, the Public Charter Board (one of DC’s two chartering authorities) has designed a "School Self-Study and Implementation Review" – a combined internal and external assessment of school performance – to help the Board monitor the progress of the schools it has chartered. Results from these reviews will also inform the high-stakes review that the Board will conduct for each school every 5 years. This Self-Study/Review was carried out for the first time last spring.

The review requires each school to: (1) examine its progress against the educational and organizational goals laid out in its Accountability Plan with the DC Charter Board, and then (2) create an Action Plan to address any weaknesses discovered. The review process is as follows:

• First, each school assesses its progress in numerous areas outlined by the Board. (This takes place in the spring of each school’s first year of operation.)
• Following a format designed by the Board, each school then provides a detailed written report on its self-assessment.
• An external team of reviewers contracted by the Board then visits the school to augment the school’s own findings.
• The reviewers submit to the Board their own report on the school’s progress, including recommendations for improvement.
• Each school is required to negotiate an Action Plan with the Board, in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding, to address major shortcomings identified through the review.

The review takes about three months, from the beginning of each school’s Self-Study to the completion of its Action Plan. By and large, because of the positive, trusting relationship between the DC Charter Board and the schools it oversees, the schools view this process as constructive and helpful rather than threatening or unproductive.

The Self-Study/Implementation Review gives the DC Charter Board important information about each school’s progress while urging continuous school improvement. Thus, this process contributes to the foundation for the Board’s five-year reviews and ultimate renewal decisions.