LSB Training Project
 
Memorandum of Agreement between Charter Schools Administrative Office of Hawaii and University of Hawaii Charter School Resource Center   The Charter Schools Administrative Office of Hawaii (CSAO) and the University of Hawaii Charter School Resource Center (CSRC) enter into this agreement for the purpose of improving the effectiveness and accountability of Hawaii charter school Local School Boards (LSB) in order more fully to carry out the intent of the Hawaii State Legislature and the Hawaii Board of Education. The first year’s project will provide data and experience for an anticipated Hawaii Charter School LSB Certification program to be implemented by the CSAO.   ·       The CSRC shall provide LSB training services as described below.   ·       The CSAO shall provide the sum of fifteen thousand dollars as described below.   1.     The period of the agreement shall be from 1 August 2005 until 31 July 2006 with the possibility of renewal on such terms as may be mutually agreeable to both parties.   2.     Immediately upon the beginning of this project, the CSRC, with the assistance of the CSAO, will publicize the project and will solicit from all Hawaii charter schools:   §       A directory of LSB members and officers §       A compilation of current LSB bylaws and policies §       A compilation of current charter school labor contracts, procurement policies, employee policies, student discipline policies, etc.   3.     The CSRC shall organize the LSB directory and policy compilations and submit them to the CSAO for posting on the CSAO web page. This will be completed by September 15, 2005.   4.     The CSRC shall create, administer, and interpret a questionnaire to all LSB leaders with questions, which it will use to formulate a training curriculum/agenda for Hawaii LSBs. The questionnaire will be administered in an electronic format through the INTERNET. The CSAO will make every effort to assist the project by publicizing the questionnaire and encouraging LSB leaders to participate. The questionnaire will be completed and disseminated to Hawaii LSB leaders no later than September 15, 2005.   5.     On the basis of the information obtained from the questionnaires (item 4) and existing LSB documents (item 2), the CSRC and the CSAO will jointly convene two ‘regional’ meetings of LSB leaders (one on Oahu and one on a neighbor island) to which each charter school will be asked to send a quorum (including the president) of its LSB. The meeting will include a collective review of the current state of governance in Hawaii charter schools and at least two key training topics. These meetings will take place in October/November of 2005.   6.     The CSRC will devise quantitative and qualitative evaluation rubrics and will visit at least four LSBs in order that CSRC may make preliminary assessments. CSRC will share these assessments with CSAO with identifying features of the individual LSBs removed for confidentiality. This portion of the project will be completed in time for the Winter charter school administrative conference.   7.     On the basis of the results obtained above, and in consultation with CSAO and local LSB leaders, the CSRC will formulate by February 15, 2005, a series of LSB training modules which will include some or all of:   §       LSB Meeting Practices §       The Extent (and Limitation) of LSB Responsibilities and Roles §       Hawaii Charter School Law §       Accountability §       Special Education §       Personnel Management §       Charter School Collective Bargaining Practices §       Others   5.     The CSRC will, after soliciting volunteers, provide follow-up training services to two Hawaii charter schools; one on Oahu and one on a neighbor island. These services shall include consultation with the LSB President and school Director/Principal, attendance at at least two LSB meetings, and a detailed evaluation/training plan. The intent of this item is to begin a process which, over time, will expand to include all Hawaii charter schools.   6.     All services will be completed by the end of the MOA period, at which time a Report will be issued to the CSAO suitable for submission (at the CSAO’s discretion) to the Board of Education and Legislature. The Report will speak specifically to the necessary features of, and steps necessary to establish, a Hawaii Charter School LSB Certification program.   7.     The CSAO will make available to the CSRC the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) to be used by it to accomplish the purposes of this MOA. Funds will be expended as follows:   $ 7292.75        Inter-island travel and miscellaneous supplies and expenses (excluding capital or equipment but including student help)   $ 7200.00        Honoraria (@ $2400 each) for:   Principal Investigator (CV attached) Dr. Robert Fox, Co-Director, CSRC   Senior Researcher (CV attached) Dr. Nina Buchanan, Co-Director, CSRC   Senior Researcher (CV attached) Dr. Randy Hirokawa, Dean, UHH College of Arts and Sciences   $ 507.25         University overhead expenses (@ 3.5%)   The funds will be transferred to an account established by the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii (RCUH), Hilo Branch and will be disbursed as needed for the purposes of the MOA. The honoraria will be released to the researchers in two installments; the first on or before 1 October 2005 and the second on or before 1 February 2006.
 
 
Progress to Date Report to the Hawai’i Charter School Community Local School Board Training Project  University of Hawaii Charter School Resource Center Robert Fox, PhD. Nina Buchanan, PhD. Randy Hirokawa, PhD. Background The Hawaii LSB Training Project is being carried out by the University of Hawaii Charter School Resource Center under contract to the Hawaii Charter School Administrator’s Office. It was initiated in mid-2005 in response both to requests for LSB “best practices” from charter schools and for heightened accountability from legislators, the Board of Education, and members of the public. From the beginning, the project was based on several presumptions: • Many LSB members are new to charter schools and to serving on Boards. They welcome training and information which help them to have a productive and enriching experience. • Identifying an appropriate LSB Training protocol should—as much as possible—be driven by the needs and preferences of the charter schools, themselves. Top down training should be avoided. • The process should be iterative. By this, we meant that each step should involve study, trial, discussion, and then modification over and over again until all parties are comfortable with the results. • We should recognize that there is a call for accountability both from charter school friends and charter school skeptics. Completion of the Training protocol should provide assurance of the basic ability of an LSB to function effectively in a complex educational, fiscal and governmental environment. The Process, So Far The first step in the process was the distribution of an online questionnaire to all Hawai’i charter school leaders asking for some guidance about training topics which were considered to be most important. Over forty leaders responded, with the most popular topic being charter school laws. Other issues such as financial training, meeting management, personnel issues, etc. were also mentioned. Following receipt of the questionnaires, the project invited all Hawai’i charter school leaders to either of two meetings (one on Oahu on the campus of the University of Hawai’i at Manoa and one on the Big Island on the campus of the University of Hawai’i at Hilo). LSB members and officers and charter school administrators were invited. Approximately fifteen charter school leaders attended each of the meetings. The agendas included planning sessions where leaders divided into small groups and identified the training information which they thought was most important. The LSB Training project contacted all charter schools in the state and asked to be allowed to observe actual LSB meetings in action. Four volunteer schools were visited and detailed notes were taken. The observations were compared to the materials from the planning sessions and this report is the result. Results of the October 2005 Planning Sessions Charter school leaders at the two planning sessions were asked to develop LSB Training curricula and then were asked to ‘defend’ their choices before the group. A group of general topics emerged. • Fiscal Management/Fiscal Responsibilities Financial, strategic and business planning Fiscal literacy, interpreting statements Fiscal protocols General accounting practices Sample budgets and monthly reports • Board Issues Roles and responsibilities Recruitment Bylaws Ethnics • Board Meetings Facilitation Styles of meetings (Robert’s Rules or others) Etiquette Legal compliance Use of time • Legal Issues Case studies specific to Hawai’i Conflicts with the BOE Laws to change • Resource Development Facilities Finding resources Developing an MOA Funding sources • Public Relations Use of technology Information dissemination Grassroots organizing Growing support structure • Personnel Issues Evaluation (teachers, directors and board members) Grievances Union relationships • LSB Training Group training with other schools Best practices menu Specialized for each school Observations The four schools, although quite different in location, size, and educational philosophy, exhibited striking similarities in the way they conduct LSB meetings. • All the meetings were conducted openly with non-Board members welcome to attend. In some cases, non-Board members were completely free to join in the discussion; in others, they just listened. In all cases, they were welcomed. Meetings tended to start at (or close to) the appointed times. Meetings tended to last approximately 90 minutes. • Meeting rooms were arranged to maximize participation. In no case was there a “President’s Table” or power center. • In none of the four cases were Financial Reports distributed before the beginning of the meeting. In most cases, Agendas and other reports were also made available only at the beginning of the meeting. Generally, LSB meetings were guided by their Agendas. In one or two cases, specific times were assigned for each activity. • In three of the four schools, attention at LSB meetings was strongly focused on one or two individuals. Although all Board members were free to participate, in most cases they adopted a passive role of listening and occasionally asking questions. In most cases, LSB members seemed satisfied with this arrangement. Little effort was made specifically to solicit comments from those who held back. • With one minor exception, everyone was treated with respect. In cases where there was disagreement, people tended to talk the matter out, rather than argue. • Robert’s Rules was infrequently used. Even when Robert’s Rules was used, it tended to be in a rather informal manner. This did not appear to create any problems for any of the groups. They managed to accomplish their goals with only minimal formality. In some instances, votes were taken. In most instances, a proposition was put forward, discussion resulted, and then consensus was assumed. • We found discussion of Financial reports to be rather sketchy. Questions tended to be few. Typically, the person who presented the report was the same person who was responsible for authorizing payments. There was no procedure for committing the report to a separate Treasurer/Finance Committee for independent review. • We noted few, if any, cases where the LSB suffered from the lack of the kind of specific legal? information described in the “Results from the October Planning Sessions” section above. When questions arose, they tended to be answered either by the school’s administrator or a long time member of the LSB. As far as we could tell, these answers tended to be accurate and widely accepted by those listening. • All the LSBs we observed had a majority of their members from staff who are employed by the school. Most of the items discussed by the LSB was brought to it by one or another member of the staff. In some cases, Parent Representatives were also staff members. Community Representatives appeared often to be individuals with long associations with the school. In general, there was the sense that most LSB members were ‘veterans.’ Conclusions and Recommendations The planning sessions generated prospective LSB Training topics that might most easily be characterized as bodies of information about which the LSB thought it should be informed. Following that model, we might plan sessions on “The Law,” or “Union Issues,” or “Special Education and Charter Schools,” or “How to Run a Board Meeting.” In addition, a supplementary CD of “best practices” could be consulted as specific issues arise. While it is probably true that most LSB members have little expertise in these areas, the LSB meetings, which we observed did not appear to suffer from such information deficit asmight exist. We did not observe a single instance where the LSB appeared stymied by lack of knowledge or information. In most cases, one or more members had the information or the LSB readily commissioned one or more people to find out what was needed and to report back. In a similar vein, although none of the LSBs we observed employed Robert’s Rules to any high degree, such decisions as they made and such consensus as they reached appeared to be the result of perfectly acceptable informal meeting procedures that had the confidence of the entire group. A third set of issues which might have been anticipated from the planning sessions deals with the relationship between the LSB and its administrator or the LSB and the staff. We observed little friction between the LSB and its employees (many of whom, it is to be remembered, are on the LSB). In the few instances where the question of whose responsibility one or another issue was, the matter was discussed and appeared to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. The single exception was when issues of periodic staff evaluation were raised. There seemed to be some confusion about whose job it was to conduct the evaluations and whether the LSB had some responsibility in this area. There was no overt expression of concern about evaluating the school administration (although we are reminded that the administrator was invariably a member of the LSB and, in most cases, ran the LSB meeting). So, having (1) administered a questionnaire, (2) conducted planning sessions on two separate islands, (3) visited four charter school Boards and, (4) consulted LSB Training best practices around the country, we have come to a number of conclusions. Before we turn these conclusions into a formal LSB Training curriculum and begin experimenting with its application, we present these conclusions in the form of this Report to the Hawai’i charter school community and solicit comments, suggestions and advice. This will be YOUR training and we want it to work for you. Conclusion # 1 – Conduct of Board Meetings A Training module should be developed which provides Board Presidents with techniques for encouraging full participation from all Board members. Board members may need training in what is expected of them at Board meetings: including offering opinions, asking questions, insisting on clarity and accountability, etc. The proper use of meeting time should be explored. How to prepare written reports prior to meetings should be examined. The different roles of the Board President and the Administrator at Board meetings should be discussed. Boards should be encouraged to recognize the difference between informative reports, general discussions, and actual decision-making. Conclusion # 2 – Fiscal Reports and Accountability A Training module should be developed which will assist fiscal personnel in the preparation of reports for a Board and will assist Board members who must review such reports. Included in the module will be besst practes related to advanced distribution of financial reports and appropriate checks and balances to assure proper fiscal oversight. Conclusion # 3 – Board Composition and New Member Recruitment A Training module should be developed to assist Boards in understanding the various roles played by representatives of different constituencies. Emphasis will be placed on Board diversity and the role of outside Board members explored. Strategies for recruiting, appointing and training new Board members will be explored. Some discussion should take place about the different purposes of having staff representatives, parent representatives and community representatives. Boards should be encouraged to explore the advantages and disadvantages of Board turnover and transitions of membership. Conflict of interest maybe included. Conclusion # 4 – Board Bylaws and Policies A Training module should be developed to assist Boards in identifying key areas requiring LSB Bylaws and/or Board-approved school policies (personnel, conflict of interest, purchasing, student discipline, etc.) Each Board should be encouraged to come to its own conclusion about the specific form of these bylaws and policies, but all Boards should be encouraged to maintain and update them. Conclusion # 5 – Specific Bodies of Information A group of Training modules (each approximately one hour in length) should be developed on specific bodies of information (charter school laws, special education, health and safety issues, etc.) from which each charter school can select those for which it determines it has specific needs. One school may be more interested in the law, while another school may feel it needs personnel training. Charter schools should be encouraged to selected from among the group. We propose a Hawai’i State LSB Training Program which would be composed of two parts. The first part would be several hours of training covering items included in the first four conclusions. This would be common to all charter schools. The second part would be specific information training selected by each school, separately. While it might be appropriate to have some initial trails conducted before groups of several charter schools at the same time, we recommend that the eventual goal be to deliver this Training separately to each charter school LSB. The format could vary to suit the circumstances of each charter school, but we envision either two whole-day sessions or one two-day retreat. All training would be heavily based on interactive learning, with simulations and interactive exercises heavily used. We estimate that, at a rate of approximately one school per month, it would take two years to complete the process. This suggests that each LSB might be invited to participate in a full Training schedule once every two years; the average length of time of a Board appointment. While this Report is being considered by the Hawai’i charter school community, the Resource Center will begin construction of a “Best Practices Library” to be made available to all charter schools. University of Hawaii Charter School Resource Center Local School Board Training Project  Report to the Executive Director Hawaii Charter School Administrative Office BACKGROUND In September, 2005, the Hawaii Charter School Administrative Office (CSAO) and the University of Hawaii Charter School Resource Center (CSRC) entered into an Agreement for the creation of a Local School Board (LSB) Training Curriculum suitable for application to Hawaii charter schools. The Agreement was unique in its reliance on a highly collaborative process wherein charter school leaders throughout the state would play a central role in determining the direction of the project and the eventual Training Curriculum. Section 7 of the Agreement specifies that CSRC “will formulate by February 15, 2006, a series of training modules....” This Report to the Executive Director chronicles our progress to date. An electronic questionnaire was created and distributed to all known charter school leaders in the state of Hawaii. Respondents were queried about their experience within their own LSB and were asked to identify those topics for which they believed that training was most needed. Both open ended and closed ended questions were employed. Forty two responses were received and the results analyzed. (see section # 4 of the MOA) Following the distribution of the questionnaire, two meetings were held (one on Oahu and one in Hilo) at which charter school leaders were further invited to participate in the identification of topics appropriate for LSB Training modules. In keeping with the basic premise of the Training project, maximum efforts were made to incorporate ideas from the people who would eventually be the targets of the training. A variety of passive and interactive processes were employed at these meetings. (see section # 5 of the MOA) From the results of the questionnaire and the two meetings, the CSRC developed qualitative and quantitative evaluation rubrics with which to make preliminary assessments of existing LSB practices. Assessment instruments were created to be used by CRRC personnel in visiting LSB meetings to which they had been invited. Members of the CSRC staff visited four charter school LSBs (Volcano School of Arts and Sciences, Connections Public Charter School, the West Hawaii Explorations Academy and Kehei Charter School) and produced copious notes. (see section # 6 of the MOA) A Report of the results of these various activities was circulated to the entire Hawaii charter school community through the use of the Hawaii charter school listserv. The Report solicited final comments prior to a formal development of an LSB Training curriculum. Subsequent to the distribution of this Report, the staff of CSRC met and identified seven areas toward which training should be directed. RESULTS We conclude that, with a limited amount of time which volunteer LSB members can reasonably be expected to devote to this process, some hard choices must be made. The results of our review of the responses of charter school leaders and our observations of actual LSB practice leads us to conclude that such topics as Legal Issues or Special Education or Facilities Planning (what we call ‘hard factual’ topics) are generally handled by the charter school professional staff. Our observations lead us to believe that the staff has, over the years, developed sufficient expertise and assimilated sufficient detail so that imposing these matters on LSB volunteers (specially in the limited time which will be available for LSB training) is an inefficient use of resources. Rather, we conclude that Hawaii LSB volunteers should be given training in the following general categories: • Running Effective Meetings • Dealing with Fellow LSB Members • Conducting Training for New Board Members • Recruiting New Board Members • Fiscal Literacy for LSB Members • Roles and Responsibilities of Charter School LSBs • Grantsmanship and Developing Community Support For each of these categories, we have developed an extensive list of specific sub-topics and, in most cases, specific training strategies. Although the CSRC is prepared to deliver LSB training in all seven categories, our current thinking is to invite leaders with specific expertise to participate with us. For instance, Dr. Barbara Leonard, Associate Professor of Accounting at UHH, will assist in our Fiscal Literacy module. We believe that Bill Woerner, past Principal of the West Hawaii Explorations Academy, and Dina Kageler, President of the LSB of Volcano School of Arts and Sciences, would be excellent resources for the Grantsmanship and New Member Training modules, respectively. APPLICATION OF THE TRAINNG The Memorandum of Agreement calls for the CSRC to provide follow-up training services to two Hawaii charter schools; one on Oahu and one on a neighbor island. We conclude that these services can best be provided in the following sequence: • Two suitable schools should be selected by the Charter School Administrative Office. Since the CSAO proposes that all Hawaii charter schools will eventually be expected to participate, the two schools selected should be informed that their involvement at this time will fulfill their obligation for the first round of training. The commitment secured by the CSAO should be (a) one meeting with the Principal and LSB President, (b) two six-hour Training sessions attended by at least 80% of the LSB members, and (c) provision of a full set of LSB and school Policies and Bylaws. • Immediately following the CSAO identification of the two schools and securing their commitment to the process (see below) , the CSRC will schedule a meeting with the school Principal and LSB President. The purpose of this meeting will be to (1) determine any modifications which the local school believes would make the Training more relevant to their specific situation, (2) solicit a full complement of LSB Policies and Bylaws and other local documents, (3) describe the training which will follow, and, (4) obtain a full list of LSB members and contact information. • We envision the Training to take place on two separate days of approximately six hours, each. We will encourage a ‘retreat’ ambience, where LSB members agree to isolate themselves from everyday concerns and devote these two sessions as part of their charter school commitment. We will provide suitable refreshments as part of the existing MOA. • It is not our intention to ‘grade’ the LSBs, although we will offer our services as ‘coach’ or monitor for future LSB meetings if this is desired. Rather, we propose to ‘certify’ LSB compliance if the requisite level of participation is accomplished. SUMMARY As is the case in most places, charter school leaders are an independent lot. This has manifested itself in the form of difficulty in obtaining participation in various activities and in obtaining full disclosure of LSB names and contact information. We conclude that active involvement by the CSAO is necessary to make this LSB Training Project a success and to assure that both geographical and ethnic diversity are achieved. Accordingly, we present this Report to the Executive Director of the CSAO and request his response in the form of the names of two Hawaii charter schools which he has identified, and whose commitment he has secured, for full participation in this final portion of the LSB Training Project. Upon receipt of the names of these two schools an the contact person (Principal, LSB President, etc.), CSRC will proceed. Success is in view. There is little question in our minds that the result of this project will be a program created with the full participation and collaboration of the Hawaii charter school movement. Further, schools which successfully complete the program can legitimately be considered to have been validated in a fashion that should satisfy the needs and concerns of the Board of Education, the Legislature, and the general public.