Charter schools’ higher bar good

Hawaii’s network of 32 charter schools has now reached a critical milepost: All have signed performance contracts aimed at improving accountability for the education they deliver, using public funds. The job now is to make sure there’s proper oversight and support to make sure the schools adapt well to the new accords.

Some of the charter schools, accustomed to operating with a large degree of independence, were uneasy about the contracts. But the public funding — roughly $6,000 per student — is why instituting the contracts was such an important part of the charter schools reform law that passed last year.

The schools should represent laboratories of innovation for the public school system, providing options that conventional schools can’t accommodate. Students deserve some educational choice, regardless of whether families can afford private tuition.

Performance contracts are one way for the new authorizer of charters, the Public Charter School Commission, newly established as the principal statewide agency approving charters, to improve oversight and gain better control over all of this.

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers defines performance contracts as one of the key aspects of charter school accountability by defining standards and expectations and specifying the data needed for school evaluation.

The school contracts that are now signed, for an initial period of one year, appear to meet these criteria. The documents spell out a comprehensive list of requirements, including essential accountability to Department of Education performance frameworks (the need for some variation is acknowledged here).

There are rules about non-discrimination in admissions, requirements for policies covering conduct, conflict resolution, procurement and virtually every other facet of school operation.

The feedback from schools will include reports on enrollment, budgets and financial statements, as well as records of the schools’ governing boards.

The contract includes the commission’s stated intent to keep demands for data reasonable, with sufficient notice given. Such allowances will be needed by both parties, given that reform has caused some administrative overhauling of the commission staff as well.

The contracts were drafted before the state’s new Strive HI school-performance system was finalized, which is why the initial term was set for only one year, said Tom Hutton, the commission’s executive director. That’s also why the consequences for poor performance currently only include school monitoring and intervention, he said.

But he added that the stronger schools would eventually get a longer contract period, and that an underperforming school could ultimately lose its charter.

This initial period will require a lot of cooperation between the schools and their overseers, identifying problems and ensuring that schools have what they need to succeed. The commission can afford to assume this kinder and gentler position now, but it’s good to know that the enforcement tool is in place.