Charters: Quality and Choice


ACSA believes that charters can be considered as one of many options for choice and reform; however, charters must be held accountable to the same high achieving standards required of all other schools and districts that accept federal funding. Charters should not be favored over other reform options. Charters that do not show academic progress over time should be closed. Choice options for the lowest achieving 5 percent of schools need to be more diverse. The current options under the School Improvement Grant program are too prescriptive and seem to rely heavily on the charter option. More balance is needed in the discussion about what constitutes Choice which could include empowering local schools to make very specific changes rather than pick from a prescriptive list developed in Washington.


Involve Stakeholders


ACSA recommends that Congress include in ESEA reauthorization a requirement that the U.S. Department of Education consult with and involve school and district administrators, federal program administrators, teachers, parents and other stakeholders in the development of rules and regulations affecting the administration of ESEA. We also recommend Congress require states to consult with their Committee of Practitioners (COPs) before issuing state rules and regulations related to ESEA requirements and programs.


Evaluation


ESEA reauthorization must include a sunset and a comprehensive evaluation of whether statutory reforms have been effective.


11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28