How does a report that exposes the Charter School Accountability Committee to such harsh criticsm get buried?

The NACSA report released in March continues to boggle the mind.   We've already learned that the DeDOE does not assign anyone to review applications in their entirety, instead carving out subsections to various education associates.  The net result has been no eyes ensuring continuity of the application to fulfilling a proposed-charter school's mission statement.  We also now know that DOE fails to ensure that Charter applicants have the capacity within in their boards and leadership to ensure that a proposed school is actually viable.  NACSA has found that DOE's criteria for educational programming "are vague, incomplete, and overly focused on alignment to state content standards."  There is no requirement for a budget narrative, financial projections, or requirements to share research/data to support a charter's specified mission. 

And that's just part of the application process. 


More from NACSA:

• "As applied and in practice, DDOE has not taken any tangible steps to determine its priorities as an authorizer for new schools. Specifically, the authorizer has not defined educational needs it could or would like to address by authorizing new or replicating charter schools. Likewise, the authorizer has not identified schools in its portfolio, or analyzed how currently operating schools - if replicated - could meet educational needs in certain in any strategic way the characteristics (strengths, weaknesses, uniqueness, etc.) of the communities or among specific demographic groups, and therefore increase quality choice opportunities in the state." (p.11)
• "the application process is not well tailored to assess school proposals that differ from traditional school designs, such as on-line models, alternative schools, or academically rigorous schools specifically focused on under-served communities." (p. 12)
• "There are no high performing schools serving significantly at-risk and disadvantaged student populations" (p. 12)
• "The application for renewal and replication of existing schools is the same as for new schools." (p. 12)
• "As applied, the review and decision making process, including timelines, is generally well understood by charter school applicants and operators. In practice, applicants are given an opportunity to respond to questions raised by reviewers, and to provide additional information prior to, or at, public hearings. However, because the timeframe for such feedback or follow-up with applicants during the review process is not specified or consistently applied, applicants sometimes get minimal advance notice of CSAC questions or concerns before public hearings." (p.13)
• "As established, the application document is not well constructed; in places, it is not clear precisely what information the authorizer is requesting. The disparate pieces of the application do not connect in such way as to allow applicants to present a coherent articulation of the entirety of the school they are proposing." (p.13)
• Specifically, the application is not aligned with a comprehensive evaluation rubric or with authorizer established evaluation criteria. Rubrics used to evaluate curriculum examine items not specifically required by the application. In addition, some application requirements do not appear to be reviewed whatsoever by the CSAC. (p.13)
• "The review process does not include a structured applicant interview of the sort that strong authorizers use to evaluate applicant capacity and cohesiveness. After a charter application is submitted, the CSAC meets with applicants during an informal “meet and greet” session." (p.14)

C&E 1st Note:  NACSA's joking right?  DOE approves charter school applications without ever having a formal interview with the applicant?  I can't get a job without an interview... how the hell can DOE approve Charters and allow children to attend them without interviewing the people applying for and running them? (Anthony White, anyone?) Nearly every highlighted point in this series of posts is a knock on DOE.  But, that's because the majority of NACSA's report is an indictment of a very broken, under-developed process, the result I believe of years of neglect on DOE's part! 

What deeply disturbs me is that at the point in time this report was completed and submitted to DOE, there were two charters going through the review process.  The same committee that has had its wool shorn in the NACSA evaluation, the CSAC, has since recommended closing these schools.  These schools are in trouble primarily because CSAC did not do a thorough job during the application and review process.  Now, rather than fix their mistakes, CSAC passes the blame and moves to close the schools.  How can the State Board of Education seriously evaluate any recommendation that comes from CSAC at this point in time?  DOE has had this report since March and the public has seen little to know action on DOE's part to address the allegations asserted by NACSA... Mind blowing...