Application and School Opening

A look at what authorizers with strong portfolios do differently

Application & School Opening

Application Development

Strong Portfolios Only

  • Authorizer provides denied applicants detailed feedback to (a) provide a public record of why an applicant was denied and (b) assist the applicant in reapplying in a later cycle. Denying an applicant (with clear feedback on the reasons for that denial) is not seen as a negative outcome for the authorizer.
  • When conditional approval is granted, its purpose is to specify technical changes to the proposal that need to be made, not as a method to allow the applicant to further develop and improve their proposal.

Both Strong and Average Portfolios

  • View application process as an “iterative” process. It is not uncommon for a denied applicant to reapply in a future application round.
  • Applicants are encouraged to contact the authorizer for informal conversations regarding the application process. Authorizers may also provide formal applicant training specific to the steps in their application process and common errors prior applicants have made. They do not, however, provide evaluative feedback on any individual application prior to submission.
  • Authorizer has a multi-stage process in which applicants are provided feedback at each stage and are permitted to respond to feedback during the process.
  • Authorizer has an application amendment process and/or awards conditional approval to strong applicants, allowing some minor additional development prior to opening.

Transparency

Strong Portfolios Only

  • Authorizer provides applicants and the public detailed information about the application process including timelines, evaluation criteria, previously submitted and reviewed applications, feedback and correspondence with prior applicants, and recordings of board meetings and application hearings.

Both Strong and Average Portfolios

  • Application timelines and criteria are publicly available.

Application Staffing

Strong Portfolios Only

  • Specific authorizing staff are assigned to oversee the application evaluation process.
  • Authorizing and/or other parent organization staff members responsible for access and equity questions/issues are involved in application review.
  • Reviewers receive detailed training on the application criteria and “normed” regarding what constitutes a successful application.

Both Strong and Average Portfolios

  • Staff from across the larger parent organization participates in application evaluation process (i.e., not just the staff assigned to “authorizing”), at the direction of senior authorizing staff.
  • Multiple reviewers evaluate each application.
  • Reviewers are trained on the application criteria.
  • Application reviewers come from different professional backgrounds and have diverse expertise, but are not necessarily “external” to the authorizer.

Application Criteria, Due Diligence, and Scoring

Strong Portfolios Only

  • All application requirements have associated evaluation criteria and are formally evaluated.
  • The application only includes elements necessary to evaluate the quality of the application.
  • Evaluation criteria describe both the rigorous standard and the specific information required to meet the standard.
  • Authorizer focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of each applicant and reaches an evidence-based recommendation via discussion, debate, and professional judgment.
  • Authorizer ensures that all parts of the application are internally coherent and reinforcing. It does not evaluate an application solely by its ability to meet standards in the discrete areas of education, business/finances, and organizational capacity.

  • Authorizer does not have stated preferences for certain school missions or types of educational models. The authorizer may identify geographic areas or communities of educational need, but does not specify a preference for specific types of schools.
  • Has different requirements depending on the type of application received (e.g., start-up, replication), in-portfolio versus out-of-portfolio replications, type of school proposed (e.g., virtual, Alternative Education Campus [AEC]) and who is involved in the application (e.g., charter management organization [CMO], education management organization [EMO], independent).

Both Strong and Average Portfolios

  • Authorizer has systems to conduct due diligence on the performance of existing operators.
  • Reviewers do not simply “score” the application, but identify strengths and weaknesses in each application.
  • Require applicants to demonstrate community outreach and demand for the school. Demonstrating outreach and demand can be done through a variety of mediums including community hearings, surveys, and other sources of evidence of demand presented within the written application. Pointing to less than adequate academic performance among similar schools in an area is not enough to demonstrate demand and insufficient in demonstrating community outreach. All authorizers saw value in outreach and demand, although some noted it’s also in statute and not discretionary.

Applicant Interview

Strong Portfolios Only

  • Authorizers do not interview all applicants, but do interview all “qualified” applicants based on pre-existing standards established by the authorizer.
  • Authorizers are systematic and formal about developing interview questions. Questions are developed ahead of the interview, are based on a thorough review of the written application, are coordinated across interviewers to eliminate redundancy, and are often scripted.
  • Interview team looks for both the content of the answers and also who answers the question. They look for and evaluate the degree to which there is broad understanding of the application, issues raised, and if appropriate people are answering key questions (e.g., if the CMO/EMO is answering questions that board members should answer).

Both Strong and Average Portfolios

  • The applicant interview is an essential component of the application evaluation process.
  • Authorizer has specific “red flags” (that vary across authorizers) that indicate that an applicant group lacks the capacity to operate a school.
  • Interview questions are prepared ahead of time, are tailored to the applicant, and designed to gather more information about application weaknesses or areas of the application that lack clarity.
  • Interviews are in-person. Multiple members of the applicant group are asked to attend the interview and multiple authorizing staff members participate in the interview.

Application Decision Making

Strong Portfolios Only

  • Final submitted (and approved) application is a detailed blueprint for school opening and operation. Very little is left for later development.

Both Strong and Average Portfolios

  • Authorizer relies on successive stages and multiple sources of information to reach application decisions, and applications can be denied at each stage.
  • Authorizing staff submits recommendations for approval to the Board, but makes denial decisions without board input.

Pre-Opening Process

Strong Portfolios Only

  • Unlike other areas of authorizing practice, authorizers are very hands on (sometimes quite intensively) in the pre-opening process, including directing schools on areas for change, collaborating with school support organizations, providing explicit informational and step-by-step resources for schools, and advocating on behalf of schools when necessary.
  • Authorizers use the pre-opening process to build relationships, set expectations, and provide technical assistance to schools.

Both Strong and Average Portfolios

  • Authorizer has a pre-opening process to identify whether a school has demonstrated it is ready to open.
  • Authorizer isn’t afraid to hold schools accountable for not successfully completing pre-opening process, including not letting a school open.

Continuous Reflection and Improvement

Strong Portfolios Only

  • Authorizer reviews its application process after each cycle to improve its efficiency and validity. The authorizer typically makes small technical updates to its application process after each cycle, and when reviews suggest a need for substantial changes, makes such changes after that cycle.
  • Authorizer seeks input from staff, reviewers, applicants, and the community regarding changes to the application process.
  • N/A