charter performance compact

Transcript

1 LOUISIANA CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE COMPACT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Performance Expectations for High-Quality Charter Schools 3. Annual Assessment of Performance 4. Monitoring and Reporting of Performance Accountability Decisions and Interventions 5. Appendix A: Annual Review 6. 7. Appendix B: Extension and Renewal Standards 8. Appendix C: Expansion and Replication Standards INTRODUCTION Louisiana charter schools are public schools operated by non-profit boards that are allowed increased autonomy in exchange for increased accountability. Louisiana has six types of charter schools. Three of those types of charter schools, Type 2, Type 4, and Type 5, are authorized by the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE). The Charter School Performance Compact (CSPC) is the accountability framework for all charter schools authorized by BESE, and it also ensures that the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) is accountable to charter schools. The LDOE is accountable for implementing a rigorous and fair oversight process that respects the operator autonomy that is vital to charter school success. This oversight process ensures that charter schools are serving all students equitably and ensuring the school complies with state law and policy. The objective of the Charter School Performance Compact (CSPC) is to provide charter school operators and boards with clear expectations, fact-based oversight, and timely feedback while ensuring operator autonomy. It is this mutual obligation that drives the CSPC – a collaborative effort with the common objective of providing Louisiana students with a high-quality education that prepares them for post-graduation academic and career success. The CSPC is an adaptive tool that is subject to continuous review and improvement. Charter schools and the LDOE are charged with working together to ensure that the CSPC is a strong, fair representation of rigorous expectations for high quality charter schools. The Charter School Performance Compact clearly outlines: LDOE’s expectations for all BESE-authorized charter schools, 1. 2. Procedures and mechanisms for gathering data to assess charter school performance relative to these expectations, 3. Specific measurements of school performance for each expectation, and 4. Decision points, actions, and interventions for charter schools based on whether or not they are meeting expectations.

2 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS FOR HIGH-QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS The LDOE uses the CSPC to assess schools on their ability to make academic progress with a diverse population of students while operating as sound, independent entities. The CSPC identifies the following set of expectations for high-quality charter schools: All students, regardless of background, need, or ability, are afforded an educational environment that provides them with opportunities for academic growth and achievement. • High-quality charter schools show evidence of high performance and/or substantial growth in indicators of academic quality. • High-quality charter schools Identify students’ individual academic needs and ensure that all students are making academic growth. Schools enroll and serve all students through prioritizing equity in their enrollment and discipline policies and procedures. • High-quality charter schools have a fair, transparent process for enrolling students that abides by Louisiana law and policy. • High-quality charter schools have a student body that reflects the community in which they are located. High-quality charter schools maintain steady levels of enrollment indicating family satisfaction with the • opportunities offered to students. • High-quality charter schools use discipline practices that address behavioral challenges fairly, provide due process, and do not unnecessarily interfere with the provision of instruction. All special student populations receive the services and supports they need to ensure academic success in accordance with applicable law and policy. High-quality charter schools identify students that may require additional services or accommodations • promptly and in compliance with law and policy. • High-quality charter schools have the appropriate programming to ensure all students, including those with disabilities and English Language Learners, can excel academically. • High-quality charter schools maintain compliance with all federal and state laws and policies for special populations. Schools and governing boards responsibly follow all laws, policies and contractual obligations. • High-quality charter schools provide a safe and healthy learning environment for all students. • High-quality charter schools have governing boards that operate in a way that is open, transparent, and responsive to families and the community. • High-quality charter schools develop and maintain operational policies and procedures that comply with law and policy. Schools demonstrate strong financial practices resulting in fiscally viable and responsibly maintained institutions. • High-quality charter schools fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities and act in accordance with law and LDOE requirements. High-quality charter schools use public funds properly to support the best interest of students. • 2

3 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING OF CHARTER PERFORMANCE Data and information collected through monitoring processes is used to produce the Annual Review. The Annual Review is a public document that reports the performance of every charter school according to the expectations for high-quality charter schools outlined in the CSPC. It is released each winter using data to assess the performance of each school in the prior school year. The Annual Review assesses a school in three areas that correspond to the performance expectations for high-quality charter schools. Each school receives a single score for academic, organizational, and financial performance as based on the metrics in the Annual Review. There are measurements that align to each subcomponent of each expectation. These scores are derived by looking at both quantitative measures of performance as well as compliance-based actions. Area of Annual Types of Measurement Possible Score Expectation Review All students, regardless of background, need, or ability, are afforded an School Performance Score (SPS) and Letter grade Academic educational environment that Letter Grade A, B, C, D, F, or T provides them with opportunities for academic growth and achievement. Schools enroll and serve all students through prioritizing equity in their Consideration of data related to enrollment and discipline policies and enrollment of students who are procedures. economically disadvantaged and Meets All Expectations, All special student populations students with disabilities as well as receive the services and supports they Meets Most enrollment stability, discipline rates, Organizational Expectations, or Does need to ensure academic success in and special education indicators Not Meet Expectations accordance with applicable law and Compliance with enrollment, special policy. education, governance, and safety- Schools and governing boards related laws and policies responsibly follow all laws, policies, and contractual obligations. Schools demonstrate strong financial Performance on annual audits; Meets All Expectations, practices resulting in fiscally Financial Risk Assessment; Meets Most Financial Appropriate use of funds in Expectations, or Does viable and responsibly maintained accordance with law and policy institutions. Not Meet Expectations The Annual Review framework can be found in Appendix A . Performance on the metrics in the Annual Review determines the LDOE’s recommendations to BESE related to high stakes decisions, which are described in the section on Accountability Decisions and Interventions. The . impact of a school’s performance on extension and renewal recommendations is included in Appendix B 3

4 MONITORING OF CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE Each year, the LDOE assesses each Type 2, 4, and 5 charter school on each component of the Annual Review and reports this information publicly. The LDOE collects the information needed to compile the Annual Review through a set of monitoring and oversight activities. The information collected through these activities is aligned with the performance expectations that charter schools are held to. Each year, all charter schools are subject to the following oversight and reporting activities. School Visits During the year, LDOE staff members visit each charter school at least once and use data to inform the activities that are conducted during the visit(s). Visits may be announced or unannounced. The activities conducted during the visits depend on a school’s performance and may include the following. • Classroom observations Staff interviews • Audit of student files and records • • Review of policies and procedures • Health and safety review • Facilities review • Discussions with school and board leadership Systematic Review of Data and Documents As information is reported throughout the school year, LDOE conducts systematic data reviews in order to assess school performance in a variety of areas. Additionally, the LDOE routinely reviews school policies, procedures, and other materials for compliance with law and policy. LDOE’s Annual Monitoring Plan outlines the type of data and documents reviewed and the process for doing so. This plan is assessed and updated as needed. Coordinated Monitoring of Federal Programs Each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school participates in the annual Coordinated Monitoring process through which compliance with state and federal programs are assessed. This process is conducted by the Statewide Monitoring Team and schools will receive communications regarding this process each year. Monitoring of Financial Performance All charter schools are required to submit an Annual Operating Budget, Quarterly Financial Reports, and the Annual Financial Report. Additionally, each school’s financial performance is evaluated annually using the Fiscal Risk Assessment. These processes are managed by the Education Finance Team and schools receive ongoing communications throughout the year on requirements and deadlines. As needed, the LDOE may also assess schools based on information and data collected through: • Additional school visits • In-depth reviews of student records including, but not limited to the areas of discipline, attendance, enrollment, testing, special populations, and special education • Targeted review of school policies • More in-depth facility reviews Discussions with families and community members • 4

5 ACCOUNTABILITY DECISIONS AND INTERVENTIONS The LDOE uses information collected from the processes outlined above and the metrics included in the Annual Review for three purposes: 1. To undertake actions and interventions in instances where schools fail to meet expectations in one or more areas; 2. To make high stakes decisions and recommendations related to charter school extension and renewal as outlined in BESE Bulletin 126, Charter Schools ; and To make decisions and recommendations about charter school expansion and replication. 3. 1. Ongoing Actions and Interventions Based on the information collected through its monitoring and oversight processes, the LDOE may become aware of concerns related to a school’s performance as measured by the CSPC. The LDOE may use this information to address these situations through other interventions including but not limited to: Targeted communications with school leaders and board chairs and connection with support organizations • Additional inquiry and oversight • • Restriction of growth and/or the ability to expand • Entry into the Accountability Intervention Ladder Accountability Intervention Ladder All charter schools are initially considered to be in Good Standing and in compliance with the contract they have with BESE. However, based on routine and ad hoc monitoring and oversight by the LDOE over the course of the school year, may reveal that a school is failing to meet expectations in a certain area that requires immediate remediation. In these instances, the charter school will enter the intervention ladder through the issuance of a Notice of Concern or Notice of Breach. • are given to schools in instances of less significant non-compliance of law or policy as Notices of Concern determined by LDOE staff. • Notices of Breach are given to schools in instances of significant, systemic, or repeated non-compliance of law or policy as determined by staff. Notices contain specific action steps and due dates required to remedy the issue. Upon remedying the issue, the school returns to Good Standing. • If a Notice of Concern is not remedied in the time allotted, the school progresses to a Notice of Breach with additional steps required to address the issue. • If a Notice of Breach is not remedied in the time allotted, additional accountability actions may be taken by the LDOE up to and including a recommendation of revocation to BESE. In serious situations, failure to remedy a Notice of Breach or repeated Notices of Breach in a single school year can lead to a school entering the charter contract revocation review. Receipt of a Notice of Concern or Breach is considered in the LDOE’s assessment of a school’s performance, is included in the Annual Review, and can impact decisions related to extension and renewal or expansion. Revocation Review In instances where a charter school has ongoing and significant concerns or is threatening the safety, health, and welfare of students, the LDOE can recommend to BESE that the charter be revoked, which may lead to immediate closure of the school. In these situations, the LDOE will engage in a revocation review before making that recommendation. The revocation review will involve additional data and document collection and may include visits to the school or an in-depth audit to assess financial and organizational health. Findings from the revocation review determine whether a school enters into revocation proceedings or is granted a revised Notice of Breach. 5

6 The LDOE recognizes the magnitude of revocation proceedings and only rarely uses this authority in cases of persistent shortcomings or grave incidents that threaten the health, safety, or welfare of students. If a school enters revocation proceedings, the LDOE will follow the revocation procedures outlined in Bulletin 126. 2. Extensions and Renewals Charter schools are granted an initial contract length of four years. During a school’s fourth year of operation, the LDOE assesses each school’s performance and makes a recommendation to BESE as to whether the school should be allowed to operate for a fifth year. This is known as the extension process. During a charter school’s fifth year of operation, the LDOE again assesses the school’s performance and makes a recommendation to BESE as to whether the school should receive a renewal contract to continue operation. This is known as the renewal process. The renewal process happens in the last year of every charter contract term. Decisions and recommendations for extensions and renewals are made in accordance with Bulletin 126 and based on longitudinal information over a school’s charter term as collected and reported in the Annual Review. Specifically, a charter school’s School Performance Score (SPS) and its various components comprise the section of the Annual Review that lays out expectations for academic performance. A school’s accountability results, considered against the academic standards for extension and renewal in policy, will inform whether the LDOE recommends a school for extension or renewal, as well as the minimum number of years for the new contract term. Once a school has been recommended for renewal, the LDOE also determines a recommended renewal term length. The length of the renewal term is guided by a school’s performance on the organizational and financial components of the Annual Review over the entire term of the current contract. Schools that continue to meet organizational and financial expectations are eligible for additional years over and above the base number of years earned by their academic performance. In instances where the school has serious, systemic, or repeated non-compliance with organizational or financial standards, the State Superintendent may recommend a term length up to two years shorter than the base number of years. Extension and renewal standards can be found in Appendix B . 3. Charter School Expansion and Replication Charter schools may seek to serve more students in one of two ways: • Expansion of the enrollment of a school currently in existence, or • The opening of a new charter school. In order to ensure that only the highest-quality schools are expanding, the ability to serve additional students is contingent upon a school’s performance as measured by the CSPC and the Annual Review. . The standards for charter school expansion and replication can be found in Appendix C 6

7 APPENDIX A: ANNUAL REVIEW The Annual Review is a publication that compiles data and information collected from the processes and actions outlined above and provides a year-long evaluation of a school’s performance. In the Annual Review, each school will receive academic, financial, and organizational performance ratings. Schools earn points for indicators where their performance meets expectations based upon a review of available data. These indicators are aligned to each expectation and are outlined below within the categories of academic, organizational, and financial performance. Schools that fail to meet performance indicators, or who enter into the Intervention Ladder for a particular concern, can lose points for organizational or financial performance. Category Overall Rating Academic SPS/Letter Grade Organizational Average of Performance Rating and Compliance Rating Meets All Expectations: 20 points Meets Most Expectations: 11-19 points Does Not Meet Expectations: 0-10 points Performance Rating: Simple average of each performance indicator (0 to 20 points) Compliance Rating: 20 points: No Notices of Concern or Breach 15 points: No more than two Notices of Concern and no Notices of Breach 0 points: Three or more Notices of Concern and no Notices of Breach Meets All Expectations: No Notices of Breach or Concern, AND Financial School is in the “no action” category on the Fiscal Risk Assessment (FRA), AND School has unqualified audit with no consecutive or material findings Meets Most Expectations: No more than one Notice of Concern and no Notices of Breach, OR School is in the “monitor” category on the FRA, OR School has an unqualified audit with no more than one consecutive or material findings Does Not Meet Expectations: More than one Notice of Concern or any Notices of Breach, OR School is in the “dialogue” category on the FRA, OR School has a qualified audit and/or two or more consecutive or material findings Academic Performance Academic Performance Indicator Measurement All students, regardless of background, need, or ability, are School Performance Score As defined by Louisiana afforded an educational environment that provides them state accountability in BESE with opportunities for academic growth and achievement. Bulletin 111 7

8 Organizational Performance Enrollment Scoring Indicator Measurement Meets required percentage in both Economically economically disadvantaged and SWD: 20 Disadvantaged points and Students As defined by law and BESE Meets either economically disadvantaged with Disabilities Bulletin 126 or SWD requirement but not both: 15 points percentage (Type 2 Meets neither economically disadvantaged and 4s only) nor SWD requirement: 0 points Schools enroll Enrollment is based on students More than or equal to 80% of students and serve all return: 20 points with no exit date and no students through graduation flag; excluding Greater than or equal to 70% but less than prioritizing equity Re-enrollment of students in the terminal grade 80% of students return: 15 points in their enrollment students at the site (February 1 count to and discipline October 1 count of the following <70% of students return: 0 points policies and year) procedures. High School/Combination School At or below the national average: 20 points National Average OR Above 100% and up to 200% of the national average: 15 points Elementary/Middle School Suspensions National Average More than 200% of the national average: As defined by Office of Civil Rights 0 points Data Collection Scoring Special Indicator Measurement Populations 0 to 5% of total evaluations out of Evaluations out of compliance compliance: 20 points with timelines as measured through a review of SER at a Students with Greater than 5% to 10% of total Disabilities single point in time during the evaluations out of compliance: 15 points evaluations spring semester (percentage of Greater than 10% of total evaluations out evaluations conducted within the of compliance: 0 points required time frame) 0 to 5% of total IEPs out of compliance: 20 IEPs out of compliance as points measured through a review of SER IEP timeline at a single point in time during Greater than 5% to 10% of total IEPs out of All special student compliance compliance: 15 points the spring semester (percentage populations of IEPs in timeline compliance on >10% of total IEPs out of compliance: 0 receive the that date) points services and Between 63.5% and 100% of total students supports they with disabilities population: 20 points need to ensure Percentage of students with IEPs academic success aged 6-21 served in a regular Between 50% and 63.4% of total students Least Restrictive in accordance with with disabilities population: 15 points Environment classroom setting 80% or more of applicable law the school day Less than 50% of total students with and policy. disabilities population: 0 points School has not been identified as “Urgent Intervention Required” for any subgroup: 20 points Whether or not school has been identified as “Urgent Intervention School has been identified as “Urgent Subgroup Required” for any subgroup as Intervention Required” for one subgroup: 15 Performance measured by the subgroup School points Performance Score School has been identified as “Urgent Intervention Required” for two or more subgroups: 0 points 8

9 Organizational Compliance Enrollment Indicator Measurement School is non-discriminatory and compliant Non-compliance with admissions, discipline, attendance, and truancy laws and policy, with laws and policies related to student Schools enroll and serve all admissions, discipline, attendance, and as documented by a Notice of Concern or students through prioritizing truancy Breach equity in their enrollment Discriminatory or non-compliant practices and discipline policies and School admissions process is non- in admissions for students with disabilities, procedures. discriminatory and compliant with laws and as documented by a Notice of Concern or policies related to students with disabilities Breach Indicator Measurement Special Populations All special student populations Non-compliance with law or policy receive the services and School complies with all state and federal governing students with disabilities or supports they need to requirements regarding services for students Limited English Proficiency (LEP), as ensure academic success in with IEPs, IAPs and LEP plans documented by a Notice of Concern or accordance with applicable Breach law and policy. Law and Policy Indicator Measurement Significant, intentional, or repeated non-compliance with state or federal governance policies including, but not Board adheres to state policies regarding limited to: open meetings laws, public governance and compliance records act, public bid laws, fire and safety laws, health laws, board structure requirements, as documented by a Notice of Concern or Breach Non-compliance by the governing board or school with the Louisiana Code of School and board have no evidence of Governmental Ethics, as determined by the Schools and governing boards violations of Louisiana ethics laws LDOE, and as documented by a Notice of responsibly follow all laws, Concern or Breach policies and contractual obligations.* Significant, intentional, or repeated non- compliance with legal and contractual School and board have no evidence obligations, including but not limited to, of violations of legal and contractual background checks, student safety, and obligations student transportation, as documented by a Notice of Concern or Breach Significant, intentional, or repeated non- compliance with state testing policies and School has no evidence of intentional procedures and/or evidence of cheating by violations of required test procedures school staff, as documented by a Notice of Concern or Breach *Notices of Concern or Breach received by a board for a board action may impact the scores of all schools governed by that board. Financial Performance and Compliance Measurement Financial Compliance Indicator Assessment measured by the most recent LDE Fiscal Risk Assessment Fiscal Risk Assessment Schools demonstrate strong financial practices resulting in Consecutive or material findings in the Annual External Audit Performance fiscally viable and responsibly annual audit maintained institutions. School uses federal and state funds in a Significant misuse of funds, as documented fiscally responsible and legal manner by a Notice of Breach or Concern 9

10 APPENDIX B: STANDARDS FOR CHARTER EXTENSION AND RENEWAL Minimum Academic Requirements Extension/Renewal Type “D” or higher letter grade in the most recent year of the contract term Extension or 1st Renewal Extension or 1st Renewal, Turnaround “D” or higher letter grade in the most recent year of the contract term OR Schools Only “F” letter grade in the most recent year of the contract term with a Progress Index equivalent to an A “C” or higher letter grade OR 2nd or Subsequent Renewal ”D” letter grade in the most recent year of the contract term and “C” letter grades for more than half of the letter grades earned during the charter term and the final letter grade earned for the charter’s prior term OR D letter grade in the most recent year of the contract term and Progress Indices equivalent to an A for more than half of the Progress Indices earned during the charter’s current contract term and the final Progress Index earned for the charter’s prior term *Please consult Chapter 15 of Bulletin 126, Charter Schools for additional provisions related to extension and renewal standards. Potential Additional Years Current Letter Minimum Term Length Grade (Based on Organizational and Financial Performance Over Current Term) No additional “Does Not Meet Expectations” in any year years 6 Years A “Meets All” and/or “Meets Most” Expectations all years ≤ 2 Years ≤ 4 Years “Meets All Expectations” all years No additional “Does Not Meet Expectations” in any year years B 5 Years “Meets All” and/or “Meets Most” Expectations all years ≤ 1 Year “Meets All Expectations” all years ≤ 2 Years C 4 Years No additional years D, F or no letter 3 Years No additional years grade Notwithstanding, the LDOE may recommend a renewal term that is up to two years shorter than the minimum term length, but no shorter than 3 years for a charter school: 1) where fewer than 50% of the school’s enrolled grades are testable under state accountability; or 2) that has significant, intentional, or repeated non- compliance with financial or organizational requirements. 10

11 APPENDIX C: STANDARDS FOR CHARTER SCHOOL EXPANSION AND REPLICATION New or Type of Other Approval Organizational and Academic Standard Existing Financial Standard Growth Requirements Process School “Meets All” or “Meets Current Most” financial All schools have a “C” or and organizational LDOE higher letter grade OR Louisiana BESE approval a “D” letter grade with a Operator – expectations for 3 recommendation for required progress index equivalent New Charter previous years, or full approval existence of school if less to an A Application than 3 years “B” or higher letter grade “Meets All” or “Meets for previous 3 years AND Notification to LDOE Automatic Most” financial Open progress index equivalent Auto- by December 31st – no BESE or to an A for previous 3 and organizational a New Replication of the year prior to LDOE approval years averaged across all School expectations for 3 opening required previous years of the operator’s charter schools “Meets All” or “Meets All schools have a “C” or Most” financial Automatic Notification to LDOE higher letter grade OR and organizational – no BESE or by December 31st Open a Growth a “D” letter grade with a expectations for 3 Plan school LDOE approval of the year prior to previous years, or full progress index equivalent required opening to an A existence of school if less than 3 years Growth up Automatic to 120% of – no BESE or None None approved None LDOE approval enrollment in required contract “Meets All” or “Meets Grow an “C” or higher letter grade Submit material Most” financial Add new grade Existing OR a “D” letter grade LDOE approval and organizational amendment request levels or grow School required with a progress index expectations in the most form to LDOE enrollment equivalent to an A recent year beyond 120% of approved School does not meet School does not meet Submit material enrollment in BESE approval performance standards performance standards amendment request contract outlined above for LDOE outlined above for LDOE required form to LDOE approval approval For charter schools run by management organizations, the performance of other charter schools affiliated with the management organization may be considered. The LDOE may also may consider the financial and organizational performance of the charter operator’s schools authorized by local school boards, as applicable and appropriate. The LDOE may waive one or more of the required performance criteria for: charter schools in the first or second year of operation that have not yet been evaluated for academic, financial, or organizational performance; alternative schools, per Bulletin 111 requirements and schools evaluated pursuant to a BESE-approved alternate framework; or a circumstance where anticipated new students would otherwise predominantly be enrolled in equivalent- or lower-performing or schools. 11

Related documents

7340.2H  Bsc dtd 3 29 18

7340.2H Bsc dtd 3 29 18

ORDER JO 7340.2H Air Traffic Organization Policy Effective Date: March 29, 2018 Contractions SUBJ: contractions used by ed word and phrase This handbook contains the approv personnel of the Federal Av...

More info »
12.09   America's Best and Worst Cities for School Choice

12.09 America's Best and Worst Cities for School Choice

Amer ica’s Amer ica’s Best (And Worst) Cities for December 2015 School Choice PRISCILLA WOHLSTETTER & DARA ZEEHANDELAAR WITH DAVID GRIFFITH Nor m ber M. J. Petrilli thern a nd Mi chael d Forewor by A

More info »
Microsoft Word   cust subm Book 251 Cover.doc

Microsoft Word cust subm Book 251 Cover.doc

Summary of Reciprocity Agreements Between Texas and Other Jurisdictions Vehicle Titles and Registration Division Austin, Texas Issued November 2002

More info »
Microsoft Word   1. Final City Charter Sept 2012.doc

Microsoft Word 1. Final City Charter Sept 2012.doc

CITY CHARTER AMENDED AS OF NOVEMBER 2, 2010 CITY OF LONG BEACH CITY HALL 333 W. OCEAN BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CA 90802 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT 562-570-6101

More info »
Online Charter Study Final

Online Charter Study Final

Online Charter School Study 2015

More info »
Eli Hertz Reply 11 6 05c

Eli Hertz Reply 11 6 05c

R Even the most sacred precepts of international law can be manipulated to e pervert the truth. In its Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, the UN's Interna - p l tional Court of Justice ruled that Israel...

More info »
ES128202 PREMS 094415GBR2650 Have you say texte web.pdf

ES128202 PREMS 094415GBR2650 Have you say texte web.pdf

“Have Your Say!” Manual on the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life

More info »
What Can We Learn from Charter School Lotteries?

What Can We Learn from Charter School Lotteries?

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM CHARTER SCHOOL LOTTERIES? Julia Chabrier Sarah Cohodes Philip Oreopoulos Working Paper 22390 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22390 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONO...

More info »
Department of Defense   Law of War Manual (June 2015)

Department of Defense Law of War Manual (June 2015)

D E A R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E P N A L O F W A R M A W U A L J U N E 2 0 1 5 O F F I C E O F G E N ER A L C O U N S E L D P A R T M E N T E O F D E F E N S E

More info »
Inside Online Charter Schools

Inside Online Charter Schools

A REPORT OF THE NATI ONAL STUDY OF ONLINE CHARTER SCHOOLS Online Charter Inside Schools October 2015 Brian Gill Lucas Walsh Claire Smither Wulsin Holly Matulewicz Veronica Severn Eric Grau Amanda Lee ...

More info »
CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW   VOLUME I RULES

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW VOLUME I RULES

Customary International Humanitarian Law Henckaerts Volume I: Rules and In 1996, the International Committee of the Red Cross, alongside a range of Doswald-Beck Customary International renowned expert...

More info »
Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the City

Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the City

Charter School 27% AVERAGE 27% AVERAGE FUNDING GAP FUNDING GAP Funding : LOCAL LOCAL FUNDING FUNDING (More) TO BLAME TO BLAME METRO METRO AREAS GET AREAS GET Inequity “C” or WORSE “C” or WORSE HOUSTON...

More info »
Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Annual Report

Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Annual Report

Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Annual Report Submitted to: Senate Education Committee Senate Finance Committee House Education Committee House Finance Committee Capital Development Committee ...

More info »
C:\Users\cb47108\AppData\Local\Temp\S1177enr

C:\Users\cb47108\AppData\Local\Temp\S1177enr

S. 1177 One Hundred Fourteenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen An ...

More info »
Michigan School Finance at the Crossroads

Michigan School Finance at the Crossroads

MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE AT THE CROSSROADS: A QUARTER CENTURY OF STATE CONTROL Michigan State University Education Policy Report January 2019 David Arsen, anner Delpier, T and Jesse Nagel Copyright © 2...

More info »
Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions

Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions

Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions 2015

More info »
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE  1960   With Watermark

CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE 1960 With Watermark

Part C -- 1960* CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE __________ * Editors Note: Part C of this publication is the Charter of the city of Syracuse -- 1960, being Local Law No. 13 of 19 60, as amended. The C...

More info »
mcl act 279 of 1909

mcl act 279 of 1909

THE HOME RULE CITY ACT Act 279 of 1909 AN ACT to provide for the incorporation of cities and for revising and amending their charters; to provide for certain powers and duties; to provide for the levy...

More info »
BergmanMcFarlin school_choice

BergmanMcFarlin school_choice

∗ Education for All? A Nationwide Audit Study of Schools of Choice Peter Jr. Bergman Isaac McFarlin y Universit Teachers College, Columbia University of Florida and NBER December , 2018 Abstract: Scho...

More info »