Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opportunity Charter Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board debates accountability framework for new Opportunity Public Charter Schools
Summary
Tennessee officials proposed an Opportunity Public Charter School accountability framework that would delay consequential letter grades in Year 1, apply continuous‑enrollment weighting, and offer adjusted growth and ACT pathways; board members raised concerns about definitions, data limitations and potential effects on operators and traditional districts.
The State Board received a departmental recommendation for an accountability framework tailored to Opportunity Public Charter Schools, a new category created by Public Chapter 10‑66. Jonathan Crystal and David Laird of the Tennessee Department of Education explained statutory eligibility and the department’s modeling assumptions.
Jonathan Crystal summarized the statute: Opportunity schools must serve at least 75% ‘at‑risk’ students as defined by income (household at or below 400% of the federal poverty level) plus at least one of eight specific criteria (for example, migrant status, homelessness, foster care or chronic absenteeism). Legal counsel Rachel Soupet confirmed the statute’s two‑part eligibility requirement.
The department proposed several adjustments to its standard accountability model for these schools. David Laird said the department recommends exempting Opportunity schools from receiving a consequential letter grade in Year 1 to allow time for data collection and modeling. He outlined three main technical adjustments: (1) modestly reduce the absolute achievement weight (from 50% to 45%) and reallocate the difference to growth (middle schools) or college/career readiness (high schools); (2) implement a continuous‑enrollment weighting so students who remain enrolled multiple years count more heavily in achievement and college/career indicators; and (3) offer alternative growth and college‑and‑career criteria—using a growth percentile metric and permitting an ACT pathway in which a student who increases their composite ACT score by four points can be counted toward the college/career indicator.
Board members pressed on definitional and policy implications. Mr. Holt and others asked whether the proposed adjustments would deter operators if Opportunity schools still received low letter grades under the adjusted model; Jonathan Crystal and David Laird said further modeling and outreach were planned and that the department would return with additional scenarios. Several members recommended more engagement with districts and raised the question whether traditional public schools with similarly high concentrations of need should be considered under the same framework.
Department staff committed to run additional scenarios (including a focused analysis of schools exceeding the 70th percentile for chronic absenteeism) and to return to the board for further review at the special call meeting in December.
