The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative by The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.

The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine Deuteronomy 11:19 | Isaiah 28:9-10

The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”

Vol. VII, Issue XXVII – Q-1 January| February| March 2021

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. Helping Individuals, Families and Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 | 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Atlanta, GA 30303 Rev. Mark L. Merrill Executive Director Northeast Region

(878) 222-0450 Voice | Fax | SMS

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org

Page 2 of 49

Page 3 of 49

Biblical Authority

Deuteronomy 11:19 (KJV) 19

And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

______ Isaiah 28:9-10 (KJV) 9

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Page 4 of 49

Page 5 of 49

Table of Contents The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative

Biblical Authority I.

Introduction

II.

Structure and Characteristics

III.

Funding

IV.

Public Opinion

Nationwide Studies

VI.

Criticism

VII. Waiting for Superman ______ Attachments How to Start A Charter School B. No Child Left Behind Charter Schools Program C. Lessons Learned D. Charter School FAQ’s A.

Page 6 of 49

Page 7 of 49

Introduction Purpose Charter schools operate in a different manner than traditional public schools. All charter schools seem to have the same purpose. The main purpose is having an alternative means within the public school system to increase innovation in learning creative ways outside the traditionalism of the public system. Another purpose is having the teachers, both new in the system and ones that have experience, be responsible for their own education program and teaching methods. Teachers and student both get the opportunity to explore new ways of learning through education this system. Charter schools are the fastest growing innovation resulting from education policy to challenge the public schools notion. Chartering sometimes caters to the needs of the community by providing after school activities and programs to keep the student connected to the instructors while increasing their performance in academics and to aid in keeping students out of trouble with authority. For example Drew Charter School in Atlanta, Georgia is attached to their local YMCA program that serves the physical education for the school. Differences in state laws bring wide diversity in the organization, operation, and philosophies of charter schools. Some states give charter schools considerable autonomy, while other states exercise more control. The charter sponsor may be a school district, college or university, state education agency, teachers, parents, or other community members. Operations Charter Schools in the United States offer primary or secondary education without charge to pupils who take state-mandated exams. These charter schools are subject to fewer rules, regulations, and statutes than traditional state schools, but receive less public funding than public schools, typically a fixed amount per pupil. They are non-profit entities, and can receive donations from private sources. The number of American charter schools has grown from 500 in 16 states and the District of Columbia to an estimated 6,400 in 2013-14. Over 600 new public charter schools (7%) opened, serving an additional 288,000 students (13%), totaling 2.5 million students. By contrast, some 200 schools closed, for reasons including low enrollment, financial concerns and low academic performance. Waiting lists grew from an average of 233 in 2009 to 277 in 2012, with places allocated by lottery. They educate the majority of children in New Orleans Public Schools. Charter schools may provide a specialized curriculum (for example in arts, mathematics, or

Page 8 of 49

vocational training), however others aim to provide a better and more cost-efficient general education than nearby non-charter public schools. Charter schools are attended by choice. They may be founded by teachers, parents, or activists although state-authorized charters (schools not chartered by local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, or government entities. School districts may permit corporations to manage multiple charter schools. The first charter school law was in Minnesota in 1991. They sometimes face opposition from local boards, state education agencies, and unions. Public-school advocates assert that charter schools are designed to compete with public schools in a destructive and harmful manner rather than work in harmony with them. The charter school idea in the United States was originated in 1974 by Ray Budde, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, embraced the concept in 1988, when he called for the reform of the public schools by establishing "charter schools" or "schools of choice." Gloria Ladson-Billings called him "the first person to publicly propose charter schools".[12] At the time, a few schools already existed that were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles, such as H-B Woodlawn. As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school was as a legally and financially autonomous public school (without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private businessâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;free from many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements). Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law in 1991. California was second, in 1992. As of 2013, 42 states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws. As of 2012 an authorizer other than a local school board has granted over 60 percent of charters across the country. Between 2009 and 2012, the percent of charter schools implementing performance-based compensation increased from 19 percent to 37 percent, while the proportion that is unionized decreased from 12 percent to 7 percent. The most popular educational focus is college preparation (30 percent), while 8 percent focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Another 16 percent emphasize Core Knowledge. Blended Learning (6 percent) and Virtual/Online learning (2 percent) are in use. When compared to traditional public schools, charters serve a more disadvantaged student population, including more low-income and minority students. Sixty-one percent of charter

Page 9 of 49

schools serve a student population where over 60 percent qualify for the federal Free or Reduced Lunch Program. Charter schools receive an average 36 percent less revenue per student than traditional public schools, and receive no facilities funds. The number of charters providing a longer school day grew from 23 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2012. Pros & Cons There are many benefits to attending a charter school, one main benefit is that innovative systems allow for a unique way of educating. Because of school choice the parent and the student are more likely to be involved in the commitment to the school. Another pro to a charter school is the competition. Charter schools must work to maintain their academic performance, student’s retention, and finances. Another pro to charter schools act as a catalyst for improvement of the public system. One common con to charter schools is that they are funded by the government. Nevertheless, they have the potential of closing if they don’t make the numbers in the areas mentioned above. And finally the biggest debate with charter schools is that they do a better job of reaching students than public schools, because of their style of teaching and educating. The charter schools system allows for teachers to be creative in their own work. Along with the environment being welcoming and encouraging to both the parents and students there are a few downsizes to the of charter school for example the financial jeopardy the school could fall under or even potential of not making numbers. Either way it goes the pros and cons challenge people to do a true comparison of the school system they would put their children into. Advantages & Disadvantages Ever since the 19th century, public education was the main foundation of education for children. Just like charter schools, public schools have advantages and disadvantages to their system. First and foremost public education is free, since taxes pay for the child’s education. Another advantage of public schools are the various extracurricular activities, trained personnel/administration, and offering of scholarships and continual education to college. Public education also offers transportation to and from school that is hard to come by in charter schools. The few example of advantages expressed indicate that public education has been providing students with an equal amount of thumbs up whether then thumbs down for the education. One disadvantage to public school is that parents’ don’t have a say in the curriculum because of the general standard set by the government as a result innovative thinking is squashed. Another disadvantage is the large classroom sizes that can be disturbing to the student in need of the extra attention and to teachers that desire to reach all their students. One pro and con is that parents are required to have students from age five to seventeen attend school (2000). It's a pro because children need education to advance in society, even if it is basic reading comprehension and math. The con to requirement of attendance in today’s society is many school systems lack the adequate material to teach students, therefore, most of the teachers' efforts well fall short because of time and the restriction to the curriculum.

Page 10 of 49

Page 11 of 49

Structure and Characteristics Two principles are claimed to guide American charter schools: operational autonomy and accountability.

Operational Autonomy They operate as autonomous public schools, through waivers from many of the procedural requirements of district public schools. These waivers do not mean a school is exempt from the same educational standards set by the State or district. Autonomy can be critically important for creating a school culture that maximizes student motivation by emphasizing high expectations, academic rigor, discipline, and relationships with caring adults.

Affirming students, particularly minority students in urban school districts, whose school performance is affected by social phenomena including stereotype threat, acting white, nondominant cultural capital, and a "code of the street" may require the charter to create a carefully balanced school culture to meet peoples' needs in each unique context. Most teachers, by a 68 percent to 21 percent margin, say schools would be better for students if principals and teachers had more control and flexibility about work rules and school duties.

Page 12 of 49

Accountability for Student Achievement Charter schools are accountable for student achievement. The rules and structure of charter schools depend on state authorizing legislation and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a charter, a statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3â&#x20AC;&#x201C;5 years. Charter schools are held accountable to their sponsorâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a local school board, state education agency, university, or other entityâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;to produce positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract. While this accountability is one of the key arguments in favor of charters, evidence gathered by the United States Department of Education suggests that charter schools are not, in practice, held to higher standards of accountability than traditional public schools. That point can be refuted by examining the number of traditional public schools that have been closed due to students' poor performance on end-of-course/end-of-grade tests. Typically, these schools are allowed to remain open, perhaps with new leadership or restructuring, or perhaps with no change at all. Charter school proponents assert that charter schools are not given the opportunities to restructure often and are simply closed down when students perform poorly on these assessments. As of March 2009, 12.5% of the over 5000 charter schools founded in the United States had closed for reasons including academic, financial, and managerial problems, and occasionally consolidation or district interference. Many charter schools are created with the original intent of providing a unique and innovative educational experience to its students that cannot be matched by the traditional public schools. While some charter schools succeed in this objective, many succumb to the same pressures as their public school brethren. Charter schools are accountable for test scores, state mandates, and other traditional requirements that often have the effect of turning the charter school into a similar model and design as the public schools.

Page 13 of 49

Although the U.S. Department of Education's findings agree with those of the National Education Association (NEA), their study points out the limitations of such studies and the inability to hold constant other important factors, and notes that "study design does not allow us to determine whether or not traditional public schools are more effective than charter schools."

Chartering Authorities Chartering authorizers, entities that may legally issue charters, differ from state to state, as do the bodies that are legally entitled to apply for and operate under such charters. In some states, like Arkansas, the State Board of Education authorizes charters. In other states, like Maryland, only the local school district may issue charters. States including Arizona and the District of Columbia have created independent charter-authorizing bodies to which applicants may apply for a charter. The laws that permit the most charter development, as seen in Minnesota and Michigan, allow for a combination of such authorizers. As of 2012, 39% of charters were authorized by local districts, 28% by state boards of education, 12% by State Commissions, with the remainder by Universities, Cities and others. Charter operators may include local school districts, institutions of higher education, non-profit corporations, and, in some states, for-profit corporations. Wisconsin, California, Michigan, and Arizona allow for-profit corporations to manage charter schools.

Notable School Operators           

Achievement First Algiers Charter Schools Association (New Orleans) Arizona Charter Schools Association Aspire Public Schools BASIS Schools Concept Schools EdisonLearning The Leona Group Mosaica Education National Heritage Academies SABIS Educational Systems

Page 14 of 49

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 Charter schools are subject to the No Child Left Behind act (NCLB) act because they are funded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title 1 and considered public schools. NCLB’s, main objective is to have students “proficient” in the basics. The charter school law requires accountability, thus schools have to produce an adequate yearly progress report (AYP) similar to the public school. Therefore, charter schools must make satisfactory improvement each year toward the goals of NCLB. Charters have to keep in contact with the State Education Agency (SEA) to make sure they are meeting AYP standards to determine and if individual schools are in need of improvement. This comes as an advantage to parents who want to switch their children to schools that are meeting the State Education Agency and the Local Education Agency (LEA) satisfactory progression. The same goes with public schools that fall under Title 1 here are certain guidelines to follow that may hinder a system or boost moral. The biggest competition that comes from NCLB is the fact that charter schools are making the grade faster than public schools. There are some charter schools that don’t make AYP therefore, just like public schools they receive an in need of improvement pass and parents are contacted to give them the choice of relocating their children to another school in their district for the following school year. Public and charter schools are not much different. The biggest difference is the innovative style of education encouraged in charter schools. Each system has their downfalls whether in students, location, teachers, and administrators. However, there is the common goal of educating children with the basics needed to survive in society. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is making it even more challenging for both systems to compete for student and parent attention in their districts. Financial assistance has aided charter school to accomplish their goals of making a school system without many boundaries. Along with the cooperation of students, community, and the commitment from parents many charter schools have been able to jump the hurdles of traditionalist. Today, school systems are having a hard time keeping students in school than keeping them out. I believe if students were given the opportunity to be part of the process of education and tell what they would like out of the educational board then students wouldn’t be reluctant to attend. The educational system has quite a ways to go before it reaches a status were no one is truly left behind.

Page 15 of 49

Page 16 of 49

Funding Generally Public schools are funded by the government, while charter schools are funded through sponsors and grants. According to the National Center for Education Statistic and the Common Core of Data that collects public and secondary education expenditures and revenues data, approximately $487.6 billion dollars was collected in revenues in 2005 fiscal year. The expenditures totaled $424.6 billion also in 2005 . Seventy percent of the funding was spent on instructions and instructional-related activities, while only eighteen percent was spent on the operation of the schools. The public schools system received about $8,000 per pupil for both secondary and elementary education. On top of the $8,000 for each pupil, the schools received an additional $5,000 for education and educational-related activities. The dollar amount for each pupil varies from state to state. For example the expenditures in New York schools may receive about $9,000, while schools in Utah may be given $3,000 per pupil.

Federal support for charter schools began in 1995 with the authorization of the Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP), administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Charter schools are mainly funded by grants/sub-grants and sponsors; however, in 1965 there was a federal act called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that obligates charter schools to meet accountability requirements to obtain financial assistance. Unlike public education, charter schools are awarded grants on a three-year cycle instead of year to year like public schools. The grant amount was given out in 1995 was $6 million which then increased to $218.7 million in 2004 because of the growth of charter schools. Just like the public school systems, charter schools use a majority of their funds on instructional materials.

Page 17 of 49

State to State Charter school funding is dictated by each state. In many states, charter schools are funded by transferring per-pupil state aid from the school district where the charter school student resides. Charters on average receive less money per-pupil than the corresponding public schools in their areas, though the average figure is controversial because some charter schools do not enroll a proportionate number of students that require special education or student support services. Additionally, some charters are not required to provide transportation and nutrition services. The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Sections 502â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 511 authorizes funding grants for charter schools. In August 2005, a national report of charter school finance undertaken by the Thomas B. Fordam Institute, a pro-charter group, found that across 16 states and the District of Columbiaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;which collectively enrolled 84 percent of that year's one million charter school studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;charter schools receive about 22 percent less in per-pupil public funding than the district schools that surround them, a difference of about $1,800. For a typical charter school of 250 students, that amounts to about $450,000 per year. The study asserts that the funding gap is wider in most of twenty-seven urban school districts studied, where it amounts to $2,200 per student, and that in cities like San Diego and Atlanta, charters receive 40% less than traditional public schools. The funding gap was largest in South Carolina, California, Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin and Missouri. The report suggests that the primary driver of the district-charter funding gap is charter schools' lack of access to local and capital funding. A 2010 study found that charters received 64 percent of their district counterparts, averaging $7,131 per pupil compared to the average per pupil expenditure of $11,184 in the traditional public schools in 2009/10 compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools. Charters raise an average of some $500 per student in additional revenue from donors. However, funding differences across districts remain considerable in most states that use local property taxes for revenue. Charters that are funded based on a statewide average may have an advantage if they are located in a low-income district, or be at a disadvantage if located in a high-income district. Debate Over Funding Nearly all charter schools face implementation obstacles, but newly created schools are most vulnerable. Some charter advocates claim that new charters tend to be plagued by resource limitations, particularly inadequate startup funds. Yet a few charter schools also attract large amounts of interest and money from private sources such as the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the NewSchools Venture Fund. Sometimes private businesses and foundations, such as the Ameritech Corporation in Michigan and the Annenberg Fund in California, provide support.

Page 18 of 49

Although charter advocates recommend the schools control all per-pupil funds, charter advocates claim that their schools rarely receive as much funding as other public schools. In reality, this is not necessarily the case in the complex world of school funding. Charter schools in California were guaranteed a set amount of district funding that in some districts amounted to $800 per student per year more than traditional public schools received until a new law was passed that took effect in fall 2006. Charter advocates claim that their schools generally lack access to funding for facilities and special program funds distributed on a district basis. Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support charter-school activities in fiscal year 1998, up from $51 million in 1997. Despite the possibility of additional private and nondistrict funding, a government study showed that charter school may still lag behind traditional public school achievement. Although charter schools may receive less public funding than traditional public schools, a portion of charter schools' operating costs can come from sources outside public funding (such as private funding in the form of donations). A study funded by the American Federation of Teachers found that in DC charter schools, private funding accounted for $780 per pupil on average and, combined with a higher level of public funding in some charters (mostly due to non-district funding), resulted in considerably higher funding when compared to comparable public schools. Without federal funding, private funding, and "other income", D.C. charter schools received slightly more on average ($8,725 versus $8,676 per pupil), but that funding was more concentrated in the better funded charter schools (as seen by the median DC charter school funding of $7,940 per pupil). With federal, private, and "other income", charter school funding shot up to an average of $11,644 versus the district $10,384 per pupil. The median here showed an even more unequal distribution of the funds with a median of $10,333. Other research, using different funding data for DC schools and including funding for school facilities, finds conflicting results. Charters sometimes face opposition from local boards, state education agencies, and unions. Many educators are concerned that charter schools might siphon off badly needed funds for regular schools, as well as students. In addition, public-school advocates assert that charter schools are designed to compete with public schools in a destructive and harmful manner rather than work in harmony with them. To minimize these harmful effects, the American Federation of Teachers urges that charter schools adopt high standards, hire only certified teachers, and maintain teachers' collective-bargaining rights. According to a recent study published in December 2011 by The Center for Education Reform, the national percentage of charter closures were as follows: 42% of charter schools close as a direct result of financial issues, whereas only 19% of charter schools closed due to academic problems. Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support charter-school activities in fiscal year 1998, up from $51 million in 1997. Despite the possibility of additional private and non-district funding, a government study showed that charter school may still lag behind traditional public school achievement.

Page 19 of 49

Page 20 of 49

Public Opinion Historically, Americans have been hesitant to the idea of Charter schools, often with more opposition than support. There is also widespread sentiment that states should hold Charters accountable, with 80% thinking so in 2005. However, openness to Charter schools has been increasing especially among minority communities who have shifted opinions higher than the national average. A 2011 Phi Delta Kappa International-Gallup Poll reported that public support for charter schools stood at a "decade-high" of 70%. Charter schools provide an alternative for educators, families and communities who are dissatisfied with educational quality and school district bureaucracies at non-charter schools. In early 2008, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, a pro-charter organization, conducted two polls in primarily conservative states Idaho and Nevada where they asked parents about their preferences concerning education. In Idaho, only 12% of respondents said that their regular public school was their top choice for the children's school. Most preferred private schools over other options. In 2008, Polls conducted in the conservative states Georgia and Wyoming found similar results. The charter approach uses market principles from the private sector, including accountability and consumer choice, to offer new public sector options that remain nonsectarian and nonexclusive. Many people, such as former President Bill Clinton, see charter schools, with their emphasis on autonomy and accountability, as a workable political compromise and an alternative to vouchers. Others, such as former President George W. Bush, see charter schools as a way to improve schools without antagonizing the teachers' union. Bush made charter schools a major part of his No Child Left Behind Act. Despite these endorsements, a recent report by the AFT, has shown charter schools not faring as well as public schools on state administered standardized testing, though the report has been heavily criticized by conservatives like William G. Howell of the Brookings Institute. Other charter school opponents have examined the competing claims and suggest that most students in charter schools perform the same or worse than their traditional public school counterparts on standardized tests. Both charter school proponents and critics admit that individual schools of public choice have the potential to develop into successful or unsuccessful models. In a May 2009 policy report issued by Education Sector, "Food for Thought: Building a High-Quality School Choice Market", author Erin Dillon argues that market forces alone will not provide the necessary supply and demand for excellent public schools, especially in low-income, urban neighborhoods that often witness low student achievement. According to Dillon, "In order to pressure all public schools to improve and to raise student achievement overall, school choice reforms need to not just increase the supply of any schools. They need to increase the supply of good schools, and parents who know how to find them." Drawing lessons from successful food and banking enterprises located in poor, inner-city neighborhoods, the report recommends that policymakers enhance the charter school market by providing more information to consumers,

Page 21 of 49

forging community partnerships, allowing for more flexible school financing, and mapping the quality of the education market.

Page 22 of 49

Page 23 of 49

Nationwide Studies Multiple researchers and organizations have examined educational outcomes for students who attend charter schools.

Center for Research on Education Outcomes The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University studies charter schools and has completed two national reports for 2009 and 2013. The report is the first detailed national assessment of charter schools. The report now analyzes the impact of charter schools in 26 states and finds a steady improvement in charter school quality since 2009. The authors state, "On average, students attending charter schools have eight additional days of learning in reading and the same days of learning in math per year compared to their peers in traditional public schools." Charter schools also have varying impacts on different demographic groups. Black students in charters get an extra 7 days of learning in reading.:32 For low-income charter school students the advantage is 14 days of extra learning in reading and 22 days in math.: English Language Learner students in charter schools see a 43 day learning advantage over traditional public school students in reading and an extra 36 days advantage in math.: The authors of the report consider this a "sobering" finding about the quality of charter schools in the U.S. Charter schools showed a significantly greater variation in quality between states and within states. For example, Arizona charter school students had a 29 day disadvantage in math compared to public school students but charter school students in D.C. had a 105 day advantage over their peers in public schools. While the obvious solution to the widely varying quality of charter schools would be to close those that perform below the level of public schools, this is hard to accomplish in practice as even a poor school has its supporters.

Criticism and Debate Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby criticized the study, resulting in a written debate with the authors. She originally argued the study "contains a serious statistical mistake that causes a negative bias in its estimate of how charter schools affect achievement," but after CREDO countered the remarks, saying Hoxby's "memo is riddled with serious errors" Hoxby revised her original criticism. The debate ended with a written "Finale" by CREDO that rebuts both Hoxby's original and revised criticism.

Page 24 of 49

National Bureau of Economic Research study In 2004, the National Bureau of Economic Research found data that suggested Charter Schools increase competition in a given jurisdiction, thus improving the quality of traditional public schools (non-charters) in the area. Using end-of-year test scores for grades three through eight from North Carolina's state testing program, researchers found that charter school competition raised the composite test scores in district schools, even though the students leaving district schools for the charters tended to have above average test scores. The introduction of charter schools in the state caused an approximate one percent increase in the score, which constitutes about one quarter of the average yearly growth. The gain was roughly two to five times greater than the gain from decreasing the student-faculty ratio by 1. This research could partially explain how other studies have found a small significant difference in comparing educational outcomes between charter and traditional public schools. It may be that in some cases, charter schools actually improve other public schools by raising educational standards in the area.

American Federation of Teachers Study A report by the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers' union which nevertheless "strongly supports charter schools", stated that students attending charter schools tied to school boards do not fare any better or worse statistically in reading and math scores than students attending public schools. This report was based on a study conducted as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2003. The study included a sample of 6000 4th grade pupils and was the first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools. Rod Paige, the U.S. Secretary of Education from 2001 to 2005, issued a statement saying (among other things) that, "according to the authors of the data the Times cites, differences between charter and regular public schools in achievement test scores vanish when examined by race or ethnicity." Additionally, a number of prominent research experts called into question the usefulness of the findings and the interpretation of the data in an advertisement funded by a pro-charter group. Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby also criticized the report and the sample data, saying "An analysis of charter schools that is statistically meaningful requires larger numbers of students."

Caroline Hoxby Studies A 2000 page paper by Caroline Hoxby found that charter school students do better than public school students, although this advantage was found only "among white non-Hispanics, males, and students who have a parent with at least a high school diploma". Hoxby released a follow up paper in 2004 with Jonah Rockoff, Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at the Columbia Graduate School of Business, claiming to have again found that charter school students do better than public school students. This second study compared charter school students "to the schools that their students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition." It reported that the students in charter schools performed better in both math and reading. It also reported that the longer the charter school had been in operation, the more favorably its students compared.

Page 25 of 49

Criticism The paper was the subject of controversy in 2005 when Princeton assistant professor Jesse Rothstein was unable to replicate her results. Hoxby's methodology in this study has also been criticized, arguing that Hoxby's "assessment of school outcomes is based on the share of students who are proficient at reading or math but not the average test score of the students. That's like knowing the poverty rate but not the average income of a communityâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;useful but incomplete." How representative the study is has also been criticized, as the study is only of students in Chicago.

Learning Gains Studies A common approach in peer reviewed academic journals is to compare the learning gains of individual students in charter schools to their gains when they were in traditional public schools. Thus, in effect, each student acts as his/her own control to assess the impact of charter schools. A few selected examples of this work find that charter schools on average outperform the traditional public schools that supplied students, at least after the charter school had been in operation for a few years. At the same time, there appears to be a wide variation in the effectiveness of individual charter schools.

Meta-Analyses A report issued by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, released in July 2005 and updated in October 2006, looks at twenty-six studies that make some attempt to look at change over time in charter school student or school performance. Twelve of these find that overall gains in charter schools were larger than other public schools; four find charter schools' gains higher in certain significant categories of schools, such as elementary schools, high schools, or schools serving at risk students; six find comparable gains in charter and traditional public schools; and, four find that charter schools' overall gains lagged behind. The study also looks at whether individual charter schools improve their performance with age (e.g. after overcoming start-up challenges). Of these, five of seven studies find that as charter schools mature, they improve. The other two find no significant differences between older and younger charter schools. A more recent synthesis of findings conducted by Vanderbilt University indicates that solid conclusions cannot be drawn from the existing studies, due to their methodological shortcomings and conflicting results, and proposes standards for future meta-analyses.

National Center for Education Statistics Study A study released on August 22, 2006 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that students in charter schools performed several points worse than students in traditional public schools in both reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test. Some proponents consider this the best study as they believe by incorporating Page 26 of 49

basic demographic, regional, or school characteristics simultaneously it "... has shown conclusively, through rigorous, replicated, and representative research, whether charter schools boost student achievement ...", while they say that in the AFT study "... estimates of differences between charter schools and traditional public schools are overstated." Critics of this study argue that its demographic controls are highly unreliable, as percentage of students receiving free lunches does not correlate well to poverty levels, and some charter schools do not offer free lunches at all, skewing their apparent demographics towards higher income levels than actually occur.

United States Department of Education Study In its Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report released in 2003, the U.S. Department of Education found that, in the five case study states, charter schools were outperformed by traditional public schools in meeting state performance standards, but noted: "It is impossible to know from this study whether that is because of the performance of the schools, the prior achievement of the students, or some other factor."

Page 27 of 49

Page 28 of 49

Criticism Difficulties with Accountability The basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for greater accountability. They are meant to be held accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices to several groups, including the sponsor that grants them, the parents who choose them, and the public that funds them. Charter schools can theoretically be closed for failing to meet the terms set forth in their charter, but in practice, this can be difficult, divisive, and controversial. One example was the 2003 revocation of the charter for a school called Urban Pioneer in the San Francisco Unified School District, which first came under scrutiny when two students died on a school wilderness outing. An auditor's report found that the school was in financial disarray and posted the lowest test scores of any school in the district except those serving entirely non-English-speakers. It was also accused of academic fraud, graduating students with far fewer than the required credits. There is also the case of California Charter Academy, where a publicly funded but privately run chain of 60 charter schools became insolvent in August 2004, despite a budget of $100 million, which left thousands of children without a school to attend. In March 2009, the Center for Education Reform released its latest data on charter school closures. At that time they found that 657 of the more than 5250 charter schools that have ever opened had closed, for reasons ranging from district consolidation to failure to attract students. The study found that "41 percent of the nation's charter closures resulted from financial deficiencies caused by either low student enrollment or inequitable funding," while 14% had closed due to poor academic performance. The report also found that the absence of achievement data "correlates directly with the weakness of a state's charter school law. For example, states like Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming have laws ranked either "D" or "F". Progress among these schools has not been tracked objectively or clearly." A 2005 paper found that in Connecticut, which it characterized as having been highly selective in approving charter applications, a relatively large proportion of poorly performing charter schools have closed. Under Connecticut's relatively weak charter law, only 21 charter schools have opened in all, and of those, five have closed. Of those, 3 closed for financial reasons. Charter school students in Connecticut are funded on average $4,278 less than regular public school students. In a September 2007 public policy report, education experts Andrew Rotherham and Sara Mead of Education Sector offered a series of recommendations to improve charter school quality through increased accountability. Some of their recommendations urged policymakers to: (i) provide more public oversight of charter school authorizers, including the removal of poorquality authorizers, (ii) improve the quality of student performance data with more longitudinal student-linked data and multiple measures of school performance, and (iii) clarify state laws related to charter school closure, especially the treatment of displaced students. All but 17% of charter school students show no improvement when compared to a heuristically modeled virtual twin traditional public school. Educational gains from switching to charter schools from

Page 29 of 49

public schools have on average been shown to be “small or insignificant” (Zimmer, et al.) and tend to decline over a span of time (Byrnes). Charter schools provided no substantial improvement in students’ educational outcomes that could not be accounted for in a public school setting (Gleason, Clark and Clark Tuttle). Attrition rates for teachers in charter schools have shown annual rates as high as 40%. Students also tend to move from charter schools prior to graduation more often than do students in public schools (Finch, Lapsley and BakerBoudissa). Charter schools are often regarded as an outgrowth of the Powell Manifesto advocating corporate domination of the American democratic process and are considered to represent vested interests’ attempts to mold public opinion via public school education and to claim a share of this $500–600 billion-dollar industry.

Scalability Whether the charter school model can be scaled up to the size of a public noncharter school system has been questioned, when teaching demands more from teachers and many noncharter teachers are apparently unable to teach in the way charters seek, as Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, Diane Ravitch, education historian and former assistant U.S. education secretary, Mark Roosevelt, former schools chief for Pittsburgh, Penn., U.S., and Dave Levin, of the KIPP charters, have suggested. However, some, such as Eva Moskowitz of Success Academy Charter Schools, believe that the work is hard but performable and compensable and that the model can be scaled up.

Page 30 of 49

Exploitation by For-Profits Critics have accused for-profit entities (Educational Management Organizations or EMOs) and private foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation of funding Charter school initiatives to undermine public education and turn education into a "Business Model" which can make a profit. According to activist Jonathan Kozol, education is seen as one of the biggest market opportunities in America or "the big enchilada".

Shift from Progressive to Conservative Movement Charters were originally a progressive movement (called the "small schools" movement) started by University of Massachusetts professor Ray Budde and American Federation of Teachers leader, Al Shanker to explore best practices for education without bureaucracy. However, some critics argue that the Charter movement has shifted into an effort to privatize education and attack teachers' unions. For example, education historian Diane Ravitch has estimated, as a "safe guess," that 95% of charters in the United States are non-union and has said that charters follow an unsustainable practice of requiring teachers to work unusually long hours.

Lower Student Test Scores and Teacher Issues According to a study done by Vanderbilt University, teachers in charter schools are 1.32 times more likely to leave teaching than a public school teacher. Another 2004 study done by the Department of Education found that charter schools "are less likely than traditional public schools to employ teachers meeting state certification standards." A national evaluation by Stanford University found that 83% of charter schools perform the same or worse than public schools (see earlier in this article). If the goal is increased competition, parents can examine the data and avoid the failing charters, while favoring the successful charters, and chartering institutions can decline to continue to support charters with mediocre performance. It is as yet unclear whether charters' lackluster test results will affect the enacting of future legislation. A Pennsylvania legislator who voted to create charter schools, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "Charter schools offer increased flexibility to parents and administrators, but at a cost of reduced job security to school personnel. The evidence to date shows that the higher turnover of staff undermines school performance more than it enhances it, and that the problems of urban education are far too great for enhanced managerial authority to solve in the absence of far greater resources of staff, technology, and state of the art buildings."

Admissions Lotteries When admission depends on a random lottery, some hopeful applicants may be disappointed. A film about the admission lottery at the Success Academy Charter Schools (then known as

Harlem Success Academy) has been shown as The Lottery. It was inspired by a 2008 lottery. The 2010 documentary Waiting for "Superman" also examines this issue.

Collective Bargaining Concern has also been raised about the exemption of charter school teachers from states' collective bargaining laws, especially because "charter school teachers are even more likely than traditional public school teachers to be beset by the burn-out caused by working long hours, in poor facilities." As of July 2009, "an increasing number of teachers at charter schools" were attempting to restore collective bargaining rights. Steven Brill, in his book, Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools (2011), changed his position on charter schools and unions. He said that after two years of researching school reform, he understood the complexities. He reversed his view of union leader Randi Weingarten and suggested she run the school system for a city.

Racial Segregation One study states that charter schools increase racial segregation. A UCLA report points out that most charter schools are located in African-American neighborhoods.

Union Leaderâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Led Schools The performance of a charter school chaired by a union leader, Randi Weingarten then of the United Federation of Teachers, generally representing teachers, was, according to Brill, criticized, as the school "ended up not performing well."

Page 32 of 49

Page 33 of 49

Waiting for Superman Waiting for "Superman" is a 2010 documentary film from director Davis Guggenheim and producer Lesley Chilcott. The film analyzes the failures of the American public education system by following several students as they strive to be accepted into a charter school. The film received the Audience Award for best documentary at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. The film also received the Best Documentary Feature at the Critics' Choice Movie Awards. Geoffrey Canada describes his journey as an educator and his surprise when he realizes upon entering adulthood that Superman is a fictional character and that no one is powerful enough to save us all. Throughout the documentary, different aspects of the American public education system are examined. Things such as the ease in which a public school teacher achieves tenure, the inability to fire a teacher who is tenured, and how the system attempts to reprimand poorly performing teachers are shown to have an impact on the educational environment. Teaching standards are called into question as there is often conflicting bureaucracy between teaching expectations at the school, state, or federal level. The film also examines teacher's unions. Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of the Washington, D.C. public schools (the district with some of the worst-performing students at the time), is shown attempting to take on the union agreements that teachers are bound to, but suffers a backlash from the unions and the teachers themselves. Statistical comparisons are made between the different types of primary or secondary educational institutions available: state school, private school, and charter school. There are also comparisons made between schools in affluent neighborhoods versus schools in poorer ones. Since charter schools do not operate with the same restrictions as public institutions, they are depicted as having a more experimental approach to educating students. Since many charter schools are not large enough to accept all of their applicants, the selection of students is done by lottery. The film follows several families as they attempt to gain access to prominent charter schools for their children. The film has earned both praise and negative criticism from commentators, reformers, and educators. As of May 1, 2011, the film has an 89% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Roger Ebert gave the movie 3.5 stars out of 4 and wrote, "What struck me most of all was Geoffrey Canada's confidence that a charter school run on his model can make virtually any first-grader a high school graduate who's accepted to college. A good education, therefore, is not ruled out by poverty, uneducated parents or crime â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and drug-infested neighborhoods. In

Page 34 of 49

fact, those are the very areas where he has success." Scott Bowles of USA Today lauded the film for its focus on the students: "it's hard to deny the power of Guggenheim's lingering shots on these children." Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly gave the film an A−, calling it "powerful, passionate, and potentially revolution-inducing." The Hollywood Reporter focused on Geoffrey Canada's performance as "both the most inspiring and a consistently entertaining speaker," while also noting it "isn't exhaustive in its critique." Variety characterized the film's production quality as "deserving every superlative" and felt that "the film is never less than buoyant, thanks largely to the dedicated and effective teachers on whom Guggenheim focuses." Geraldo Rivera praised the film for promoting discussion of educational issues. Deborah Kenny, CEO and founder of the Harlem Village Academy, made positive reference to the film in a The Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about education reform. The film has also garnered praise from a number of conservative critics. Joe Morgenstern, writing for The Wall Street Journal, gave the movie a positive review saying, "when the future of public education is being debated with unprecedented intensity," the film "makes an invaluable addition to the debate." The Wall Street Journal 's William McGurn also praised the film in an op-ed piece, calling it a "stunning liberal exposé of a system that consigns American children who most need a decent education to our most destructive public schools." Kyle Smith, for the New York Post, gave the movie 4.5 stars, calling it an "invaluable learning experience." Forbes ' Melik Kaylan similarly liked the film, writing, "I urge you all to drop everything and go see the documentary Waiting For "Superman" at the earliest opportunity." The film also received negative criticism. Andrew O'Hehir of Salon wrote a negative review of the movie, saying that while there's "a great deal that's appealing," there's also "as much in this movie that is downright baffling." Melissa Anderson of The Village Voice was critical of the film for not including enough details of outlying socioeconomic issues, saying, "macroeconomic responses to Guggenheim's query... go unaddressed in Waiting for "Superman," which points out the vast disparity in resources for inner-city versus suburban schools only to ignore them." Anderson also opined that the animation clips were overused. In New York City, a group of local teachers protested one of the documentary's showings, calling the film "complete nonsense", saying that "there is no teacher voice in the film." Critics Author and academic Rick Ayers lambasted the accuracy of the film, describing it as "a slick marketing piece full of half-truths and distortions." In Ayers' view, the "corporate powerhouses and the ideological opponents of all things public" have employed the film to "break the teacher's unions and to privatize education," while driving teachers' wages even lower and running "schools like little corporations." Ayers also critiqued the film's promotion of a greater focus on "top-down instruction driven by test scores," positing that extensive research has demonstrated that standardized testing "dumbs down the curriculum" and "reproduces inequities," while marginalizing "English language learners and those who do not grow up speaking a middle class vernacular." Lastly, Ayers contends that "schools are more segregated today than before Brown v. Board of Education in 1954," and thus criticized the film for not

Page 35 of 49

mentioning that in his view, "black and brown students are being suspended, expelled, searched, and criminalized." There is also a companion book titled Waiting For "Superman": How We Can Save America's Failing Public Schools.

The Harlem Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Zone The Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ) is a non-profit organization for poverty-stricken children and families living in Harlem, providing free support in the form of parenting workshops, a preschool program, three public charter schools, and child-oriented health programs for thousands of children and families. The HCZ is "aimed at doing nothing less than breaking the cycle of generational poverty for the thousands of children and families it serves." In part because not enough time has passed, there is not evidence available that the HCZ achieves its central goal. The Harlem Children's Zone Project has expanded the HCZ's comprehensive system of programs to nearly 100 blocks of Central Harlem and aims to keep children on track through college and into the job market. The HCZ and its promotion as a model of education to aspire to, especially in the recent documentary Waiting for "Superman", have been criticized as an example of the privatization of education in the U.S. University of San Francisco Adjunct Professor in Education, Rick Ayers writes that Waiting for "Superman" "never mentions the tens of millions of dollars of private money that has poured into the Harlem Children's Zone, the model and superman we are relentlessly instructed to aspire to." One year after this film was made, the Grassroots Education Movement made a film titled The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman, which accused the original film of exaggerating the success of the HCZ. The Obama administration announced a Promise Neighborhoods program, which hopes to replicate the success of the HCZ in poverty-stricken areas of other U.S. cities. In the summer of 2010, the U.S. Department of Education's Promise Neighborhoods program accepted applications from over 300 communities for $10 million in federal grants for developing HCZ implementation plans. The War on Poverty The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.

Page 36 of 49

As a part of the Great Society, Johnson believed in expanding the government's role in education and health care as poverty reduction strategies. These policies can also be seen as a continuation of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which ran from 1933 to 1935, and the Four Freedoms of 1941. The legacy of the War on Poverty policy initiative remains in the continued existence of such federal programs as Head Start, Volunteers in Service to America, TRIO, and Job Corps. The popularity of a war on poverty waned after the 1960s. Deregulation, growing criticism of the welfare state, and an ideological shift to reducing federal aid to impoverished people in the 1980s and 1990s culminated in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which, as claimed President Bill Clinton, "end[ed] welfare as we know it."

Page 37 of 49

Page 38 of 49

References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_the_United_States 2. http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchi evement.htm 3. http://www.uncommonschools.org/faq-what-is-charter-school 4. http://www.greatschools.org/school-choice/6987-public-private-charter-schools.gs 5. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_American_School/Charter_vs._Public_Schools 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_%22Superman%22 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Children%27s_Zone 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty 9. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/drafts/2008/DRU1492.pdf 10. http://www.allianceforpublicwaldorfeducation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/2012_Alliance_HowToStartACharterSchool.pdf 11. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/charterguidance03.pdf 12. http://www.calcharters.org/understanding/faqs/ 13. http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/THP_Fryer_Charters_Brief. pdf

Page 39 of 49

Page 40 of 49

Attachment A

How to Start A Charter School

Page 41 of 49

HOW TO START A CHARTER SCHOOL Cultivating the Seeds of Educational Success

To be a founder of a charter school is to accept the role the bit of sand must play to the oyster of public education.

You have the right mindset to start a charter school if you think reinventing the bathtub could have some interesting possibilities.

We aren’t saying you will have to break any rules. We are saying you will probably have to create some.

You have the mindset of a “charter starter” if you look at a mountain and wonder if it might work better just a bit to the left.

HOW TO START A CHARTER SCHOOL Cultivating the Seeds of Educational Success

EFORE LAUNCHING INTO BUILDING SUPPORT FOR STARTING A CHARTER SCHOOL OR PASSING A CHARTER SCHOOL LAW IN YOUR STATE IT IS important to ask yourself “Why do I want to start a charter school or pass a charter school law in my community/state?” If this is not an easy answer, then you may not be up to the task, because starting a school or changing perceptions about education law can sometimes be difficult. However, if you have a clear answer and are dedicated to improving the educational environment for kids in your community, then this toolkit is meant for you.

In this toolkit you will find: Information about bringing a charter school law to your state Tips on “Starting Up,” that help you develop a concept into a master plan Guidance on the importance of building support for your school early on A roadmap for the application and approval process Advice about putting your plan into action: gearing up for the first day of school 1

There Ought to Be a Law Before you can have charter schools, you must have a state law. Forty states and the District of Columbia have enacted charter school laws. Like most education initiatives, charter school laws are born at the state level. Typically a group of concerned lawmakers drafts a bill that allows the creation of any number of charter schools throughout a state. The content of the charter law plays a large role in the relative success or failure of the charter schools that open within that state. CER has identified a number of factors that work together to create an environment that promotes the growth and expansion of charter schools. Some of them are identified below. NUMBER OF SCHOOLS & APPLICATIONS: The best charter laws do not limit the total number of charter schools that can operate throughout the state. They also do not restrict the number of the brand new schools that may be started. More poorly written laws allow public schools to convert into charters, but restrict the creation of entirely new schools. This hinders parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ability to choose from among numerous public schools. These laws also should allow many different types of groups to apply to open schools. MULTIPLE CHARTER AUTHORIZERS: States that permit a number of entities to authorize charter schools, or that provide applicants with a binding appeals process, encourage more activity than those that vest authorizing power in a single entity, particularly if that entity is the local school board. The goal is to give parents the most options. Having multiple sponsors helps reach this goal.

WAIVERS & LEGAL AUTONOMY: A good charter law is one that automatically exempts charter schools from most of the school district’s laws and regulations. Of course no charter school is exempt from the most fundamental laws concerning civil rights. Waivers also should exempt a charter school from adhering to the district’s collective bargaining agreement. This gives a principal more flexibility to hire the best staff for a given school. A state law should allow a charter school to be its own legal entity. This lets a charter school buy property, enter into contracts, and control staffing. FULL FUNDING & FISCAL AUTONOMY: A charter school needs to have control of its own finances to run efficiently. The charter school’s operators know the best way to spend funds and the charter law should reflect this. Charter schools are entitled to receive the same amount of per pupil funding as conventional public schools. Many states and districts withhold money from individual charter schools to cover fees and “administrative costs,” but the best laws provide full funding for all public schools. To ensure that your state has a strong charter law, become involved in the legislative process. Identify one person that is your ambassador, or lead man in this process. This person needs to be committed to the adoption of a charter school law, and have a good relationship with those responsible for passing such a law. The legislative process also offers the ideal time to begin spreading the charter concept, informing parents, educators and communities about the benefits, and working to allay fears and nip misinformation campaigns in the bud. Often, this is when the state charter association is born. Such associations are dedicated to promoting quality charter schools that foster student achievement. Need more information on your state’s law? CER has compiled a detailed state-by-state analysis of each charter school law – http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/laws/ 3

Starting Up What is the concept of your charter school? It is important to have an idea of the type of school you think will best benefit your community. One of the great gifts a charter law gives us is the opportunity to ask the question, â&#x20AC;&#x153;if we could have the best public school we can imagine for our children, what would it look like? How would it operate? What would be the defining characteristic of our school?â&#x20AC;? Once you have that basic idea in place, talk with your friends and others in your community about their own educational concerns. Some of these people may in fact become part of your planning and governance team, and their input will prove to be a valuable resource going forward.

Governance The launching of a charter school starts with an idea for building a better school, shared by a group of dedicated individuals. They may already be education providers who seek more freedom to innovate, entrepreneurs who see a way to create an education delivery system that runs more efficiently and provides more options, community organizers who seek to serve children who are falling through the cracks, or any combination of these (parents, teachers, businesses, non-profits, social service agencies, etc.) who share a vision for educational quality.

The process begins with passion and commitment, but must be tempered and guided by a strong and focused organization. It is important to develop a sound governance structure and process, to ensure that the initial vision is correctly executed and to avoid problems down the road. Governance is one of the most critical issues charter developers must address. The charter development team should be composed of people who share a common vision for a better school, but can offer expertise in a variety of areas. Team members must understand that consensus is not the ultimate goal. Rather, they must focus on turning their shared vision into a schoolhouse full of learning students. 4

Planning Tip: Divide members of your team into subcommittees that will be responsible for different aspects of research. For example, one group can look into facilities, one can focus on building initial community support, while another is in charge of developing a business plan.

The process can be long and arduous, and every advantage should be sought. Recognize the skills and expertise already assembled, and try to involve community members and organizations that can bring the expertise still needed. Legal issues, compliance with state and federal safety and civil rights codes, fiscal management, staffing, curriculum development, support services such as food and transportation, and other administrative details large and small must all be addressed. Still not sure how to gather a team together? CERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Building Community Support For Education Reform Toolkit can help! Visit http://www.edreform.com/toolkit/grassroots.pdf for more details. Try contacting your state and local resources, as they may have connections with other individuals already on board. Visit CERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s National and State Groups and Contacts at http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/groups.htm

The Master Plan Now that you have your team and some preliminary research has been performed, it is time to get down to business and develop your charter school plan. Don’t go running for the nearest exit yet; there are many tools and organizations out there that can help guide you through this process. But first things first. . . . .

The Mission It is important to develop a strong mission statement for your school. In this statement you will define your “reason for being” as an organization. A well-thought-out mission statement will provide the base upon which to build a solid and successful application. It will inform your school community of your foundational beliefs, out of which your curriculum, assessment, and governance design will flow. Be sure that your governance team agrees with its message.

A Public Trust Draw on the expertise of your assembled team to address the particulars and consult outside experts where necessary. As an early RAND Institute for Education and Training report points out, charter schools are a public trust granted to “private citizens and groups to carry out the state’s constitutional obligation to provide public education. Charter school applicants should honor this public trust and recognize its special burdens. One of your great challenges is to always be thinking beyond the current moment and into the future. As the founder of a charter school, you need to follow the best practices of any great organization, with student achievement as your ’profit’ or goal. Following the Open Meeting Law, decisions should be made in the open, records should be open to the public, and members of the applicant group should recognize and avoid potential conflicts of interest. Policy decisions should always be made in the best interests of the students and the future of the school, not the adults 6

participating in the applicant group.” This will prove difficult at times, as you strive to face the obstacles that start up groups must face. But always look toward building an organization that will thrive long after you and your children are no longer involved.

Curriculum Focus and Accountability Plan There are many wonderful options when it comes to choosing a curriculum. Start with the ideals you have stated for your school, and research the curriculum that resonates with those ideals. The curriculum you chose must be aligned with the mission you have embraced. For example, if your mission states that you will differentiate instruction and embrace the multiple intelligences of each unique student, then a curriculum that asks everyone to be instructed in the same way, on the same page, on the same day, does not resonate with that mission statement. Be sure you have educators in your founding group who will take on the challenge of asking the question, “If we could design the very best curriculum we could imagine, what would it be?”

If your charter school will be required to take the State mandated tests, then it is essential that you align your curriculum with the State standards. Using the State standards as a foundation for your curriculum does not necessarily dictate how and what you teach, but it does give your faculty an outline, or foundation, on which to build a strong program. You will need to decide on some programs as you create your school. Create a strong Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies, Art, Music, and P.E. program, and anything else that goes along with your vision. Don’t feel you have to choose a pre-packaged curriculum for each subject area. This is your chance to be responsive to the needs of the students you will serve. Look at other schools, public and private, that you admire. What reading program are they using and why?

Tip: Leave some room for your faculty to create some of the curriculum, once they have assembled, and you will have allowed a chance for the faculty to put their creative imaginations to work on behalf of your school. The effects of this opportunity will give you a faculty that feels passionate ownership of your school and its success.

Accountability Plan Your accountability plan is simply a document that communicates to the students, authorizer, and parents the goals you have chosen to measure your success as a school. A good accountability plan is usually created after the first year of operations, when there is baseline data from which to work. In general the plan is a formalized method for establishing your schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance objectives for measuring the progress and success of your school in these areas:

Raising student achievement Establishing a viable organization (this includes financial stability) Fulfilling the terms of the charter Be sure the goals are measurable and realistic as this plan is often used in the charter renewal process. Consider whether it will benefit your school to have unique goals aligned with your design. This is an opportunity to write a plan that will communicate your schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s top priorities and guide the allocation of resources as well.

Tip: Create an Accountability Committee, and make sure the members represent the entire school community. The Principal, a teacher, a board member, a parent, and a student will all contribute greatly to the committee, guiding the use of policy and data in your decisions.

Figure Out The Finances As a charter school you have received the great gift of autonomy over curriculum, program, and governance. You also have the gift of autonomy over the finances for your school. Now it is your responsibility to establish fiscal policies and procedures that are consistent with State law, and sound organizational practices. The number one reason charter schools close is because of fiscal mismanagement. Don’t let your school fall prey to this weakness! The Board of Trustees is responsible for management of the school. This includes developing and adopting fiscal policies and procedures.

Budget To get off to a strong start you will need to create a budget. Based on the per- pupil allotment, design your budget around the core values of your mission and vision. Most authorizers will require a boardapproved budget proposal for the first year of operation. In addition, create a long-range budget plan for the first three years of operation. Most importantly for a start up school, create a detailed cash-flow projection for the first year of operation and continue this practice in subsequent years. These budgets and projections are reviewed and approved by the Board of Trustees at the annual meeting and modified as necessary.

Tip: Include your principal and a teacher on the finance committee. Ask the principal, “What do you need in order for our vision and mission to be realized?” Then design your budget so it ensures that your faculty can achieve the goals you have set. If that means committing a large sum of money to professional development, now is the time to do it.

Facilities Facilities may be one of the areas where charter applicants and operators can best test their ability to be creative, flexible and visionary. Ideally, one would look for a facility in a convenient and central location, with a healthy physical plant suitable for or readily and cheaply adaptable to the most conducive classroom setting, and available and affordable. Such is rarely the case. Rather, charter school operators have had to improvise and compromise in securing a location for their school. Some “borrow” or share available facilities with another organization. Others convert unused retail space in strip malls. Some are fortunate to have access to available district facilities already designed on a classroom model. One charter rented space in a local restaurant, clearing out the “classrooms” every Friday so it could conduct its weekend business. Another provides its students’ physical education classes at the local Y. Yet another contracts with a local restaurant to provide its students with their daily lunch. Another rents out a church basement for the annual fee of $1.

Facilities offer one more area in which to involve the community and call on local organizations to contribute to the education of the next generation. Enlist the expertise of realtors, architects, businesses, etc. in efforts to find and prepare a facility for opening day. Approach organizations to donate or lease their available facilities. Consider making use of spaces that are in use but vacant during the school day. “Borrow” community resources already available nearby, rather than providing them directly. Facilities present many charter applicants with a difficult dilemma: some sponsors make approval contingent on the applicant’s having already secured an appropriate site, yet applicants can’t enter into a lease agreement unless they have the approved charter in hand. Again, flexibility and creativity are required — applicants may try to secure a provisional agreement with the landlord or a waiver from the sponsor. Charter school funding has always been a hotbed of discussion. Check out CER’s report Solving the Charter School Funding Gap: The Seven Major Causes and What to Do About Them at www.edreform.com. 10

Have you Thought About Fundraising When you realize that you want to raise revenue beyond the perpupil, you must create a fundraising plan. There are many ways to raise money. Private individuals, federal grants, and local and national foundations all are possible sources of funds. Your objective is to give others the opportunity to help you succeed.

Your group will need a leader devoted to fundraising. Your fundraising chair will create a plan, do the research needed, write the grants, and most importantly, build the relationships necessary to raise additional funds for your school. The best targets for charter schools are local family or community foundations that stress education and direct their giving to particular communities. You can find out about such organizations from numerous publications at libraries, or local philanthropy offices. A good fundraising plan will also include the business community. Many companies, large and small, have charitable giving arms that contribute heavily to schools and school programs. What you must do, however, to separate your request from the hoards of similar requests they receive is to differentiate your program from the others. What makes your school special? Build your credibility and inspire confidence by building relationships with local businesses and foundations.

The Application & Approval Process All states that permit charter schools require an application and have an approval process. The charter school law in your state will identify the authorized charter-granting agencies that will be responsible for charter school approval, development and oversight. Your team will need to be familiar with the application and approval process. Often, charter schools will meet great resistance, especially when your stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s charter law is first adopted. Be prepared for a battle if necessary. Consider it your responsibility to know the charter school law intimately, as the authorizer may or may not be interpreting its contents with your success in mind.

CASE STUDY OF A CHARTER SCHOOL IN BALTIMORE, MD

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Beginning in October 2003, City Neighbors Charter School began holding monthly General Information Meetings, visiting monthly meetings at the area neighborhood associations, and distributing market surveys (forms for interested families to fill out, stating their interest in enrollment at City Neighbors Charter School (CNCS). In March of 2004, market surveys were placed in local churches in an attempt to announce CNCS to students in the private school market. In April of 2004, 900 market surveys were distributed in our three local BCPSS schools: Glenmount, Woodhome and Hazelwood. Of these surveys, 600 were pre-addressed and stamped for easy return to CNCS. These efforts have netted CNCS over 120 forms from interested families in the area. Current marketing efforts include mailing announcements inviting parents to attend our Open House and informing parents of how to obtain an enrollment package. These announcements will go to 1,312 homes with children aged 0-12 in our zone. We are also mailing applications to the 120 families who filled out a market survey, as well as sending email notification to families for whom we do not have addresses. An enrollment area is set up on our website with a downloadable application form. An Open House will be held on January 29th. Enrollment will occur from January 31st to February 6th over scattered times in order to be accessible to all parents.â&#x20AC;? Careful, thoughtful planning is the key to the success of any enterprise. Charter schools are no exception. The payoff, however, will be well worth the effort in creating the vision and educational mission conceived by the organizers. Maintaining optimism and a commitment to involving other people in meaningful ways will be important ingredients for success.

Moving Forward: Once you receive your charter, it is time to gear up for the first day of school. There are dozens of organizations in cities and states ready to help you move forward at this point.

Notes

The Center For Education Reform TOOLKIT

www.edreform.com 800-521-2118

The Center for Education Reform drives the creation of better educational opportunities for all children by leading parents, policymakers and the media in boldly advocating for school choice, advancing the charter school movement, and challenging the education establishment. The Center for Education Reform changes laws, minds and cultures to allow good schools to flourish.

Attachment B

No Child Left Behind Charter Schools Program

Page 42 of 49

The Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools Non-Regulatory Guidance

July, 2004

The Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools Summary of Major Changes …………………………………………………………..5 A. Charter Schools and Accountability Requirements in NCLB……………………6 A-1.

Are charter schools subject to the “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) and other accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind?

A-2.

Which entity in a State is responsible for determining whether charter schools make AYP and and ensuring that they comply with other accountability provisions in Title I, Part A?

A-3.

Is a charter school that is its own LEA covered by the NCLB requirements applicable to schools in need of improvement or by the requirements applicable to LEAs in need of improvement?

A-4.

Which entity is responsible for carrying out the LEA’s duties, under Section 1116 of Title I, when a charter school that is also an LEA is identified for improvement?

A-5.

What are an LEA’s responsibilities with respect to schools within its jurisdiction that are identified for improvement? (In other words, what are the responsibilities that authorized public chartering authorities, or other entities designated under State law, must assume when a charter school is identified for improvement?)

A-6.

What resources are available to support the Title I accountability responsibilities of charter authorizers (or other entities designated under State law as responsible for charter school accountability)?

A-7.

Must charter school authorizers insert State plans for meeting AYP into individual charter contracts?

A-8.

Are charter authorizers now responsible for allocating Title I and other Federal formula funds to their charter schools?

A-9.

Should State Title I accountability plans specifically address charter schools and reflect input from charter authorizers and operators?

A-10.

What if a charter school fails to make AYP but meets its contractual requirements with its authorizer?

A-11.

Does NCLB prohibit more rigorous accountability requirements than the requirements of a State’s Title I accountability plan in an existing charter contract or a future charter contract?

B. Charter Schools and the Title I Public School Choice Provisions……………….11 B-1.

May an eligible charter school that is part of an LEA be listed as a choice option for parents who wish to transfer their child to a higher-performing school?

B-2.

If a charter school is its own LEA but falls within the boundaries of a larger LEA, should eligible students from the larger LEA be able to transfer to it?

B-3.

Do charter schools that admit students using a lottery have to give priority to eligible students transferring under the public school choice provisions of NCLB?

B-4.

Must parents be notified if a charter school is identified as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring?

B-5.

Are charter schools that are parts of LEAs under State law required to provide choice options and offer transportation for students to other higher-performing schools in the LEA if the charter school is identified by the State as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring?

B-6.

Are charter schools that are their own LEAs under State law required to provide choice options and offer transportation for students to other higher-performing schools in another LEA if the charter school is identified by the State as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring?

B-7.

Are there Department resources one can use to find more information on NCLB’s public school choice provisions?

C. Charter Schools and Supplemental Educational Services …………13 C-1.

May charter schools apply for State approval to provide supplemental educational services to students enrolled in low-performing Title I schools?

C-2.

Are students from low-income families who attend charter schools that are parts of LEAs under State law eligible for supplemental educational services?

C-3.

Are students from low-income families who attend charter schools that are their own LEAs under State law eligible for supplemental educational services?

C-4.

How much must an LEA pay for supplemental educational services?

C-5.

Are there Department resources one can use to find more information on the Title I supplemental educational services provisions?

D. Charter Schools and Corrective Action…………………………………………...14 D-1.

Does NCLB give either States or authorizers the authority to reorganize a charter school’s management and enforce other corrective actions?

D-2.

Under the “corrective action” provisions, NCLB allows LEAs to convert low-performing Title I schools into charter schools. How might a State explain the manner in which this provision would be implemented?

E. Qualifications of Teachers and Paraprofessionals……………………………….15 E-1.

In general, what are the “highly qualified teacher” requirements under NCLB?

E-2.

What qualifications do teachers in charter schools have to meet under NCLB?

E-4

What qualifications do charter school paraprofessionals have to meet?

E-4.

When must paraprofessionals meet these requirements?

E-5.

If a charter school does not accept Title I funds, must it comply with these requirements for paraprofessionals?

E-6.

E-7.

Which entity is responsible for ensuring that charter schools comply with NCLB’s charter school teacher quality requirements?

Summary of Major Changes This updated version of the nonregulatory guidance in the impact of Title I requirements (under the No Child Left Behind Act) on charter schools responds to inquiries that the Department has received since issuing the original guidance on this these issues in August, 2003. The new version addresses issues relating to charter school accountability and charter school lotteries. Significant changes are as follows. •

Item A-3 discusses whether a charter school that is its own LEA is treated as a school, or as a local educational agency, in need of improvement under the Title I Section 1116 requirements.

•

Item A-5 describes the accountability-related responsibilities that the authorized public chartering authority, or another entity designated under State law, must carry out when a charter school has been identified as in need of improvement under Title I.

•

Item A-6 describes the resources that may be available to support the authorized public chartering authority (or other entity) in carrying out those responsibilities.

•

Item B-3, as revised, clarifies that a charter school that receives assistance under the Department’s Charter Schools Program may use an admissions lottery that gives extra weight to students seeking to change schools under the Title I public school choice requirements.

The other changes made in this version of the guidance are primarily editorial, and seek to clarify statements made in the previous version.

The Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools A.

Charter Schools and Accountability Requirements in NCLB A-1.

Are charter schools subject to the “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) and other accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind? Yes, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, requires each State, as a condition of receiving funds under the Title I program, to implement a “single, statewide State accountability system” applicable to all its public schools, including charter schools [Section 1111(a)(2)(A)]. A component of that system is a definition of “adequate yearly progress” that measures the extent to which schools succeed in educating all students to proficiency in at least reading (or language arts) and mathematics. In addition, a charter school that receives Title I funds is covered by the school improvement provisions under section 1116 of Title I.

A-2.

Which entity in a State is responsible for determining whether charter schools make AYP and ensuring that they comply with other accountability provisions in Title I, Part A? Section 1111(b)(2)(K) of the amended ESEA requires accountability for charter schools to be overseen in accordance with State charter school law. Thus, a State’s charter school law determines the entity within the State that bears responsibility for applying the Title I, Part A accountability provisions, including AYP, to charter schools. This generally means that the charter authorizer is primarily responsible for holding charter schools accountable under the Title I, Part A provisions unless State law specifically gives the State educational agency (SEA) direct responsibility for charter school accountability. We do not expect the local educational agency (LEA) in which the charter school is located to be this entity, unless it is also the charter authorizer. In most States, the SEA has taken on the role of determining whether individual schools make AYP, based on student assessment results, the student participation rate on assessments, and the other academic indicators included in the State’s AYP definition. Charter authorizers (or the other entities designated under State law as responsible for charter school accountability) will, thus, want to maintain close contact with the SEA in order to receive current and accurate information on whether charter schools have made AYP and whether individual schools have been identified as in need of improvement.

A.3

Is a charter school that is its own LEA covered by the NCLB requirements applicable to schools in need of improvement or by the requirements applicable to LEAs in need of improvement? A charter school that is its own LEA and that is identified as in need of improvement is subject to the provisions of Title I that apply to schools in need of

improvement. This is the same policy that applies to all single-school LEAs receiving Title I funds. A-4.

Which entity is responsible for carrying out the LEA’s duties, under Section 1116 of Title I, when a charter school that is also an LEA is identified for improvement? As indicated in Item A-2, a State’s charter school law determines the entity within the State that is responsible for carrying out Title I accountability provisions with respect to charter schools. Typically, this is the authorized public chartering authority, unless State law gives the SEA responsibility for charter school accountability.

A-5.

What are the responsibilities of an LEA (or in the case of charter schools, of the entity designated under State law as responsible for charter school accountability) when a school within its jurisdiction is identified for improvement? The responsibilities that an LEA (or, in the case of charter schools, the entity designated under State law) must assume when a school has been identified as in need of improvement include the following: •

Promptly providing information to the parents of each child enrolled in the school explaining what the identification means, the reasons for the school being identified, what the school is doing to improve, what help the school is getting, and how parents can become involved in addressing the academic issues that led to the identification [Section 1116(b)(6)].

•

Ensuring that the identified school receives technical assistance, both during the development or revision of its improvement plan and throughout the plan’s implementation [Section 1116(b)(4)].

•

Reviewing, through a peer-review process, the school’s improvement plan, working with the school to make necessary revisions in the plan, and approving the plan once it meets the requirements of the statute [Section 1116(b)(3)(E).

In implementing these requirements, States, charter school authorizers, and charter schools should attempt to align them, as much as possible, with State law requirements related to charter school accountability. A-6.

What resources are available to support the Title I accountability responsibilities of charter authorizers (or the other entities designated under State law as responsible for charter school accountability)? Title I provides resources to SEAs and LEAs for carrying out the accountabilityrelated responsibilities set forth in the statute. For example:

•

The statute permits the SEA to retain up to one percent of the State’s Title I allocation (and a slightly larger percentage, in the case of the smallest States) for administration of Title I programs in the State. The SEA may make available some of these funds to charter authorizers (or the other designated entities) to carry out the functions described in item A-5.

•

The statute requires the SEA to reserve four percent of the State’s Title I allocation, beginning in fiscal year 20041, specifically for the purpose of carrying out the State and local accountability-related responsibilities, including activities to assist schools identified for improvement. The SEA must allocate at least 95 percent of this amount to LEAs that have schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, except that the SEA may serve those schools directly if it has the approval of the LEA. In allocating these funds, the State must give priority to LEAs that serve the lowest-achieving schools, demonstrate the greatest need, and demonstrate the strongest commitment to ensuring that their lowestperforming schools meet the goals outlined in their improvement plans [Sections 1003(a), (b), and (c)]. An SEA may use the five percent of this reservation that is not required to be allocated to LEAs to provide support for the efforts of charter school authorizers (or other designated entities) to carry out the accountability requirements of the statute. In addition, with the approval of appropriate LEAs in the State, such as the LEAs that have charter schools in improvement status within their jurisdiction, an SEA could use some of the remaining 95 percent of the set-aside to serve those charter schools, such as by providing funds to charter school authorizers for that purpose. Further, an SEA might provide funds from the 95 percent reservation directly to charter school LEAs, and condition that receipt of funds on a requirement that those LEAs provide a portion of the money to the authorizers or other entities that are responsible for the accountability of those schools. Finally, a State might require other (non-charter) LEAs that receive funds from the 95 percent reservation to ensure that charter schools under their jurisdiction are served; for instance, they might make it a requirement that an LEA provide some of its allocation to charter school authorizers responsible for the accountability of charter schools in the area.

A-7.

Must charter school authorizers insert State plans for meeting AYP into individual charter contracts? NCLB holds charter schools, like other public schools, accountable for making AYP. If authorizers wish, they may choose to incorporate the AYP definition into charter contracts, especially for new schools, but NCLB does not explicitly require this step.

The amount was two percent in the two previous years.

A-8.

Are charter authorizers now responsible for allocating Title I and other Federal formula funds to their charter schools? No. If a charter school is authorized by an entity other than a traditional (schooldistrict) LEA, the SEA will still be responsible for allocating Title I funds directly to the charter school, pursuant to Federal and State laws. In allocating these funds, SEAs will still comply with Section 5206 of ESEA and ensure that funds are allocated in a timely and efficient manner for new and expanding charter schools. If a charter school is, under State law, part of an LEA, the LEA will allocate Federal funds to the charter school on the same basis as it provides funds to its other schools.

A-9.

Should State Title I accountability plans specifically address charter schools and reflect input from charter authorizers and operators? Yes. Charter schools are public schools subject to the accountability requirements of NCLB. In accordance with congressional intent, Title I State accountability plans must be consistent with State charter school law and may not "replace or duplicate the role of authorized chartering agencies," or other designated entities, in overseeing accountability requirements for charter schools [Conference report on the No Child Left Behind Act; note #77 on Title I, Part A]. State Title I accountability plans should respect the unique nature of charter schools and should reflect input from charter operators and authorizers. In addition, State accountability plans should reflect the fact that the SEA is ultimately responsible for implementation of, and compliance with, the Title I requirements by all public schools in the State that receive Title I funds, including both traditional public schools and charter schools.

A-10. What if a charter school fails to make AYP but meets its contractual requirements with its authorizer? If a charter school fails to make AYP, then the charter school authorizer or other designated entity must take the actions required by the statute. See item A-5. A-11. Does NCLB prohibit more rigorous accountability requirements than the requirements of a State’s Title I accountability plan in an existing charter contract or a future charter contract? No. Nothing in NCLB prohibits the continuation of existing charter contractor prohibits the development of future contracts that meet or exceed Title I accountability requirements. If a charter school’s contract with its authorizer imposes more immediate consequences than a State’s Title I accountability plan, the authorizer should take appropriate steps to ensure that the school abides by the charter contract as specified in the State’s charter school law, notwithstanding the fact that the charter school may have made AYP.

Charter Schools and the Title I Public School Choice Provisions B-1.

May an eligible charter school that is part of an LEA be listed as a choice option for parents who wish to transfer their child to a higher-performing school? Yes. LEAs may list charter schools under their jurisdiction that have not been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as choice options.

B-2.

If a charter school is its own LEA but falls within the boundaries of a larger LEA, may eligible students from the larger LEA be able to transfer to it? Yes. An LEA should work with charter school LEAs within its geographic boundaries to reach agreements allowing students to transfer to these schools. However, allowing eligible students to transfer to a charter school LEA within its boundaries does not lift the requirement that the LEA give affected students the option to transfer to schools that it operates.

B-3.

May charter schools that admit students using a lottery give priority to eligible students seeking to transfer under the public school choice provisions of NCLB? A charter school that receives funding under the Department’s Charter School Program (CSP) must use a random selection (lottery) process if more students apply for admission than can be admitted. A school that receives CSP funds generally may use a weighted lottery (that is, a lottery that gives preference to one set of students over another) only when necessary to comply with applicable civil rights laws. (See item C-3 of the Department’s CSP guidance, available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/cspguidance03.doc.) However, a charter school may weight its lottery in favor of students seeking to change schools under the public school choice provision of Title I, for the limited purpose of providing greater choice to students covered by those provisions. For example, a charter school could provide each student seeking a transfer under Title I with two or more chances to win the lottery, while all other students would receive only one chance to win.

B-4.

Must parents be notified if a charter school is identified as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring? Yes. If a charter school is identified for improvement, parents of students enrolled at the school must be notified of its status before the beginning of the school year following identification, just as parents of students enrolled in other public schools are notified. If a charter school is part of an LEA, then the LEA should notify parents of their options. If the charter school is an LEA itself, then the authorizer or the charter school itself should notify parents of the school’s status and their options, including returning children to their “home” public school.

B-5.

Are charter schools that are parts of LEAs under State law required to provide choice options and offer transportation for students to other higherperforming schools in the LEA if the charter school is identified by the State as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring? Yes, consistent with the statute, LEAs that authorize charter schools must provide choice options and offer transportation to other public schools of choice within the LEA, even if a State’s charter law does not require that transportation funds be made available for charter schools.

B-6.

Are charter schools that are their own LEAs under State law required to provide choice options and offer transportation for students to other higherperforming schools in another LEA if the charter school is identified by the State as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring? As noted in Item B-4, if the charter school is an LEA itself, then the authorizer or the charter school itself should notify parents of the school’s status and their options, including returning children to their “home” public school. In addition, according to Section 200.44(h)(1) of the Title I regulations (67 Fed. Reg. 71710, 71725, to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200), if all public schools to which a student may transfer within an LEA (including charter school LEAs) are identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the LEA must, to the extent practicable, establish a cooperative agreement with one or more other LEAs in the area. Therefore, a charter school LEA must, if it is practicable, establish such agreements with other LEAs. Also, according to Section 200.44(h)(2) of the final Title I regulations, LEAs (including charter school LEAs) that have no eligible schools to which qualifying students may transfer are allowed to offer supplemental educational services to parents of eligible students in the first year of school improvement.

B-7.

Are there Department resources one can use to find more information on NCLB’s public school choice provisions? Yes. For more information please consult the Department’s Title I regulations at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.html. You may also wish to consult the non-regulatory guidance on public school choice at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.doc

Charter Schools and Supplemental Educational Services C-1.

May charter schools apply for State approval to provide supplemental educational services to students enrolled in low-performing Title I schools? Yes, charter schools that are not identified for improvement are eligible to become supplemental educational service providers pursuant to the Title I requirements.

C-2. Are students from low-income families who attend charter schools that are parts of LEAs under State law eligible for supplemental educational services? Yes. As with other public schools, if a charter school is identified as in need of improvement for two or more years, then students from low-income families who are enrolled in the school are eligible to receive supplemental educational services. The LEA must pay for such services on the same basis as it would pay for supplemental services for eligible students in any other school. C-3.

Are students from low-income families who attend charter schools that are their own LEAs under State law eligible for supplemental educational services? Yes. As with other public schools, if a charter school is identified as in need of improvement for two or more years, then students from low-income families who are enrolled in the school are eligible to receive supplemental educational services. A charter school that is its own LEA must pay for such services on the same basis as any other LEA. Also, charter school LEAs that are identified for improvement but are unable to enter into cooperative agreements with other LEAs to accept transferring students may make supplemental services available in the first year of school improvement to eligible students.

C-4.

How much must an LEA pay for supplemental educational services? The law establishes a combined funding requirement for choice-related transportation and supplemental educational services. Unless a lesser amount is needed to meet demand for choice-related transportation and to satisfy all requests for supplemental educational services, an LEA must spend an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation, before any reservations, on: (1) Choice-related transportation; (2) Supplemental educational services; or (3) A combination of (1) and (2). These funds may come from Title I, other federal programs such as Title V, Part A of ESEA, funds moved into these programs under the â&#x20AC;&#x153;transferabilityâ&#x20AC;? authorization, or State or local sources. This flexible funding approach means

that the amount of funding that an LEA must devote to supplemental educational services depends in part on how much it spends on choice-related transportation. If the cost of satisfying all requests for supplemental educational services exceeds an amount equal to 5 percent of an LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation, the LEA may not spend less than that amount on those services. An LEA may also spend an amount exceeding 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation if additional funds are needed to meet all demands for choice-related transportation and supplemental educational services. C-5.

Are there Department resources one can use to find more information on the Title I supplemental educational services provisions? Yes. For more information please consult the Department’s Title I regulations at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.html. You may also wish to consult the non-regulatory guidance on supplemental educational services at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.doc.

Charter Schools and Corrective Action D-1.

Does NCLB give either States or authorizers the authority to reorganize a charter school’s management and enforce other corrective actions? Yes. As with other public schools, charter schools that are unable to make AYP by the end of the second full school year after identification are placed under corrective action according to Section 1116(b)(7)(C) of ESEA. NCLB gives the appropriate entity under state law (see A-2) the responsibility to reorganize a charter school’s management or take other corrective actions, consistent with State charter law and the State’s accountability plan for its charter schools. State charter law would determine if this requires the charter school to modify its charter contract.

D-2.

Under the “corrective action” provisions, NCLB allows LEAs to convert lowperforming Title I schools into charter schools. How might a State explain the manner in which this provision would be implemented? If a State’s charter school law allows public schools to convert to charter status, a State’s Title I accountability plan may explain how the process of converting schools identified for corrective action to charter schools would work. The accountability plan might also identify the entities that will be expected to authorize such charters and explain whether these entities have discretion in extending the contracts for these charter schools.

E. Qualifications of Teachers and Paraprofessionals E-1.

In general, what are the “highly qualified teacher” requirements under NCLB? Sections 1119(a) and 9101(23) of ESEA, as reauthorized by NCLB, establish requirements for the qualifications of teachers who teach a “core academic subject2.” In general, in order to be considered “highly qualified,” a teacher must: •

Have obtained full State certification as a teacher or passed the State teacher licensing examination and hold a license to teach in the State, and may not have had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis:

•

Hold a bachelor’s degree; and

•

Have demonstrated subject matter competency in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches, in a manner determined by the State.

Under the law, all teachers hired after the first day of the 2002-2003 school year to teach core academic subjects in a program supported with Title I, Part A funds must be highly qualified. In addition, as a condition of receiving Title I, Part A funds, each State must ensure that all elementary and secondary school teachers of core academic subjects in the public schools of the State are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. For more information on these requirements, see Section C of the Department’s nonregulatory guidance on the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program (Title II, Part A), available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.doc, and information on additional flexibility available to schools and local educational agencies in meeting these provisions, which is available at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html E-2.

What qualifications do teachers in charter schools have to meet under NCLB? The law provides that a teacher who teaches core academic subjects in a charter school meets the certification requirement if he or she meets the requirements set forth in a State’s charter school law regarding certification or licensure [Section 9101(23)(A)(i)]. Thus, a teacher in a charter school does not have to be licensed or certified by the State if the State’s charter law does not require such licensure or certification. All other elements of the “highly qualified teacher” requirement

The core academic subjects are English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.

apply to charter school teachers in the same way, and on the same timeline, that they apply to teachers in traditional public schools. E-3.

What qualifications do charter school paraprofessionals have to meet? Paraprofessional aides hired to work in programs supported with Title I, Part A funds must have a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent. Except for paraprofessionals who act as translators or conduct parent involvement activities, they must also have completed at least two years of study at an institution of higher education, possess at least an associate’s degree, or demonstrate subjectmatter competence through a formal State or local assessment [Section 1119(c)-(e)]. Note that this requirement applies only to paid paraprofessionals and not to parents or other volunteers. In addition, the Department’s regulations clarify that the term “paraprofessional” applies only to individuals who provide instructional support and not to school staff who have only non-instructional duties (e.g., providing technical support for computers, providing personal care services to students, carrying out clerical functions) [34 C.F.R. Section 200.58(a)(2)]. These provisions of the law apply to charter schools in the same manner that they apply to traditional public schools.

E-4.

When must paraprofessionals meet these requirements? The paraprofessional qualifications requirements apply immediately to all paraprofessionals hired to work in Title I programs after the enactment of NCLB (January 8, 2002). Paraprofessionals hired prior to the enactment of NCLB must meet the requirements by January 8, 2006. For additional information on the paraprofessional requirements, see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/paraguidance.doc.

E-5.

If a charter school does not accept Title I funds, must it comply with these requirements for paraprofessionals? No, these requirements are applicable only to paraprofessionals working in Title I programs.

E-6.

Must charter school LEAs reserve a portion of their Title I funds for professional development if they currently meet the “highly qualified” requirements for charter school teachers and the new requirements for paraprofessionals? No. Section 1119(l) of ESEA requires all LEAs, including charter school LEAs, to spend between 5 and 10 percent of their Title I allocations on professional development to help all teachers meet the new requirements by the end of the 2005-06 school year. If all teachers and paraprofessionals in a charter school

LEA have met these requirements, the funds do not need to be reserved for professional development. E-7.

Which entity is responsible for ensuring that charter schools comply with NCLBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s charter school teacher quality requirements? As discussed in Item A-2 of this guidance, Section 1111(b)(2)(K) of ESEA requires that responsibility for charter school accountability be determined by individual State charter laws. This generally means that the charter authorizer bears primary responsibility for holding charter schools accountable for Title I, Part A provisions (including the teacher quality requirements) unless State law specifically gives the SEA direct responsibility for charter school accountability. We do not expect the LEA in which the charter school is located to be this entity, unless it is also the charter authorizer.

Attachment C

Lessons Learned

Page 43 of 49

POLICY BRIEF 2012-06

Public-Private Partnerships to Learning from the Successes and Failures Revamp U.S. Infrastructure of Charter Schools POLICY BRIEF 2011-02 | MAY 2011

SEPTEMBER 2012

w w w. H A M I LT O N P R O J E C T. O R G

Advisory Council

The Hamilton Project

seeks to advance America’s promise of opportunity, prosperity, and growth. We believe that today’s increasingly competitive global economy demands public policy ideas commensurate with the challenges of the 21st Century. The Project’s economic strategy reflects a judgment that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth, by enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a role for effective government in making needed public investments. Our strategy calls for combining public investment, a secure social safety net, and fiscal discipline. In that framework, the Project puts forward innovative proposals from leading economic thinkers — based on credible evidence and experience, not ideology or doctrine — to introduce new and effective policy options into the national debate. The Project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first Treasury Secretary, who laid the foundation for the modern American economy. Hamilton stood for sound fiscal policy, believed that broad-based opportunity for advancement would drive American economic growth, and recognized that “prudent aids and encouragements on the part of government” are necessary to enhance and guide market forces. The guiding principles of the Project remain consistent with these views.

The Hamilton Project Update A periodic newsletter from The Hamilton Project is available for e-mail delivery. Subscribe at www.hamiltonproject.org.

The views expressed in this policy brief are not necessarily those of The Hamilton Project Advisory Council or the trustees, officers or staff members of the Brookings Institution. Copyright © 2012 The Brookings Institution

George A. Akerlof Koshland Professor of Economics University of California at Berkeley

Lawrence F. Katz Elisabeth Allison Professor of Economics Harvard University

Roger C. Altman Founder & Chairman Evercore Partners

Mark McKinnon Global Vice Chair Hill + Knowlton Strategies

Alan S. Blinder Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics & Public Affairs Princeton University

Eric Mindich Chief Executive Officer Eton Park Capital Management

Timothy C. Collins Senior Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer Ripplewood Holding, LLC Jonathan Coslet Senior Partner & Chief Investment Officer TPG Capital, L.P. Robert Cumby Professor of Economics Georgetown University John Deutch Institute Professor Massachusetts Institute of Technology Karen Dynan Vice President & Co-Director of Economic Studies Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution Christopher Edley, Jr. Dean and Professor, Boalt School of Law University of California, Berkeley Blair W. Effron Founding Partner Centerview Partners LLC Judy Feder Professor & Former Dean Georgetown Public Policy Institute Georgetown University Roland Fryer Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics Harvard University and CEO, EdLabs Mark T. Gallogly Cofounder & Managing Principal Centerbridge Partners Ted Gayer Senior Fellow & Co-Director of Economic Studies The Brookings Institution

Suzanne Nora Johnson Former Vice Chairman Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Peter Orszag Vice Chairman of Global Banking Citigroup, Inc. Richard Perry Chief Executive Officer Perry Capital Penny Pritzker Founder, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer PSP Capital Meeghan Prunty Senior Advisor The Hamilton Project Robert D. Reischauer President Emeritus The Urban Institute Alice M. Rivlin Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution Professor of Public Policy Georgetown University David M. Rubenstein Co-Founder & Managing Director The Carlyle Group Robert E. Rubin Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Leslie B. Samuels Senior Partner Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Sheryl Sandberg Chief Operating Officer Facebook Ralph L. Schlosstein President & Chief Executive Officer Evercore Partners

Richard Gephardt President & Chief Executive Officer Gephardt Group Government Affairs

Eric Schmidt Executive Chairman Google Inc.

Robert Greenstein Executive Director Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Eric Schwartz 76 West Holdings

Chuck Hagel Distinguished Professor Georgetown University Former U.S. Senator Glenn H. Hutchins Co-Founder Silver Lake Jim Johnson Vice Chairman Perseus LLC

Thomas F. Steyer Senior Managing Member Farallon Capital Management Lawrence Summers Charles W. Eliot University Professor Harvard University Laura D’Andrea Tyson S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Global Management, Haas School of Business University of California, Berkeley Michael Greenstone Director

Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools As U.S. Secretary of Education

Arne Duncan said in 2009, “There are approximately 5,000 [chronically underperforming] schools…roughly 5 percent of the total. About half are in big cities, maybe a third are in rural areas, and the rest are in suburbs and medium-sized towns. This is a national problem—urban, rural, and suburban.” The magnitude of the problem is enormous, but new evidence points to a path forward to save the three million students in our nation’s worst-performing schools, for a price of about $6 billion—less than $2,000 per student. Over the past two decades, charter schools have emerged as a fixture in the nation’s education landscape. Publicly funded but privately run, they come in many shapes and sizes. In fact, they are nothing if not diverse, with some in the inner city and others in the countryside; some, members of a larger network and others stand-alone institutions. As such, there is no single type of charter school. Precisely because of the flexibility granted to them, their operating procedures differ from one another as well as from traditional public schools. Some have availed themselves of this freedom and shown marked success; others have had disappointing results. In a new Hamilton Project paper, Roland G. Fryer identifies five educational practices from high-performing charter schools and provides a case study of how those practices were implemented in traditional public schools: focusing on human capital, using student data to drive instruction, providing high-dosage tutoring, extending the time on task, and establishing a culture of high expectations. These five elements come from an extensive study of what makes select New York City charter schools successful, and experiments in Houston and Denver show that these practices can be implemented in public schools effectively and with significant impact on student achievement. Moving forward, Fryer outlines a plan to expand this approach to similar schools across the country while experimenting with combinations of reforms to better understand what works for different schools.

The Challenge The American education system is in dire straits, with the nation performing poorly relative to other countries and failing to serve many of its most underprivileged and vulnerable students. There are many ideas for reform, and charter schools, which currently enroll roughly 4 percent of students, now occupy a significant role because of their willingness to try new approaches. Some

charter schools have shown remarkable success in boosting test scores, offering their students the promise of closing the racial achievement gap in just a few years. For example, schools in the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) have become a beacon of hope, with the Promise Academy, in particular, demonstrating the enormous potential to improve students’ lives. Others, however, have failed to increase achievement and have actually performed worse than their traditional counterparts. In fact, a recent study by Mathematica Policy Research has shown that, on average, charters have no statistical impact on test scores relative to traditional public schools. Because charter schools have such a mixed record, they are clearly not a panacea. But the astounding success that some have demonstrated suggests that we should learn as much as possible from them in the hopes of better serving the huge number of students enrolled in traditional public schools. To translate the lessons of charters to public schools, Fryer first aimed to understand what concrete practices drove effectiveness in successful charter schools. In New York City, he examined a set of thirty-five charter schools, looking at how various inputs and school policies were related to school effectiveness. This research found that many resourcebased inputs—class size, per-pupil expenditure, and teacher certification—were not linked to success; rather, it uncovered a different set of educational practices that together explained almost half of the difference in effectiveness across schools. It is not enough, however, to simply expand successful charter schools. At their current rate of growth, it will take over onehundred years for high-performing charter schools to educate every student in the country. For these benefits to reach the students who need them most, the United States will need to take innovations from charter schools and apply them to the traditional public schools that serve the vast majority of students. Promising—but preliminary—new evidence from demonstra tion projects in Houston and Denver suggest that these practices can be transferred from charters to public schools (see Houston Case Study for details). In the 2010-2011 school year, nine of the worst-performing schools in the Houston Independent School District participated, with the cooperation of the district, in an experiment testing these very elements. While the data from the most recent school years are still coming in, the results thus far suggest student test scores improved dramatically. In fact, the magnitude of this increase was strikingly similar to that seen among the best charters.

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

The graph below places student results from Houston in the context of high-achieving charter schools. Each bar represents the increase in math and reading test scores after one year. Clearly, the results seen in Houston are comparable to those of successful charter schools. A similar experiment, currently taking place in Denver, also demonstrates comparable preliminary results. For the Houston public schools, these effects are enough to close the math achievement gap between the schools in the experiment—some of the worst-performing schools in Houston—and the average Houston public school in less than two years.

public schools, thus, yield promising prospects for positive education reform. The experiments in Houston and Denver have demonstrated that a combination of five reforms has the potential to make a substantial difference in student achievement and help turn around some of the nation’s worstperforming public schools.

A New Approach Based on the promise of the Houston and Denver results, Fryer argues that these best practices of successful charter schools could play a prominent role in improving low-performing, traditional public schools. While there is still work to be done to optimize and customize solutions for individual districts and schools, early evidence shows that this proposal could have a dramatic impact on the three million students in the nation’s worst-performing schools, at a cost of less than $2,000 per student.

What’s more, a study of HCZ students, who saw increases in test scores comparable to the gains from the Houston and Denver public school reforms, found improvements in outcomes beyond test scores. Students who won the HCZ lottery were half as likely to have been pregnant and one quarter as likely to have been incarcerated by the time they were surveyed at around age eighteen. Furthermore, lottery winners are 86 percent more likely to have taken the SAT and 32 percent more likely to have been accepted to college.

It is important to emphasize that the idea is not, in any way, to replace public schools with charter schools. Rather, the goal is to emulate practices that have been shown to be successful in both charter and traditional public schools. The potential payoff from these changes would be to strengthen the education system and improve the lives of millions of poor and minority students.

Disentangling which factors make charters successful and determining whether or not they are able to take root in

Figure 1.

Increase in Standardized Test Scores 4.0

Additional months of schooling

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 Average NYC charter

Harlem Children’s Zone (MS)

Average KIPP (MS) Math

Houston, year one

Denver, year one

Reading

Note: Solid bars indicate significance at the 5 percent level. One month of schooling is roughly equal to 0.08 standard deviations. MS refers to middle schools.

Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

The following list of the five broad tenets contains some of the most important elements of Fryer’s proposal:

Focus on human capital Teachers should be given the tools they need to succeed, including increased feedback from administrators, particularly based on class observations. New teachers especially benefit from professional development, and could be given a special series focusing on common problems. Schools should be encouraged to conduct weekly professional development series for all teachers, regardless of experience, with the goal of increasing the rigor of classroom instruction through methods such as lesson planning. Finally, it is essential to install an administration that is receptive to change and that will implement the measures required to improve student achievement.

Using student data to drive instruction Data can drive more personalized and more efficient learning, allowing both teachers and students to track progress and to make sure that each student is on a path that is appropriate for her. Assessments can be used to adjust everything from tutoring to student goals. To achieve this, Fryer suggests that schools should conduct regular assessments of students every four to six weeks. More in-depth assessments could be given several times a year, and teachers could meet with students individually to discuss and set goals after each of these. Fryer notes that administrators will need to equip schools with the necessary technology, such as scanners and software, to quickly and easily input student test data into a central database. This database should be available to teachers and administrators and provide information on student achievement along a variety of vectors.

High-dosage tutoring Also in the vein of personalized learning, Fryer suggests that schools can further boost student learning by creating an intensive tutoring program that can target curriculum to the level of each student. All students should take an assessment at the beginning of the year so that they can be matched with the tutor and peers most conducive to learning. The tutoring curriculum should be broken up into units. For example, fifteen-day units could devote the first twelve days to instruction, the thirteenth day to assessment, and the last two days to review and remediation based on the assessment. Tutors should have a bachelor’s degree, at the minimum, and be willing to make a full-time commitment. Applicants should take assessments in their subjects of expertise and participate in mock tutorial sessions to be evaluated and then selected.

While only some grades may receive the intensive tutoring, all students in the grade should receive tutoring, regardless of ability. Such a policy not only lets all students benefit, but also helps remove the potentially negative stigma attached to tutoring.

Extended time on task To make time for increased tutoring, among other changes, the amount of time devoted to instruction should be increased. Fryer suggests that this should be implemented both by increasing the length of the school day and by increasing the number of days in the school year. The increase in instructional time should be tailored to students’ needs. For example, students struggling more in math should have additional class periods devoted to math, while those struggling more in reading should spend more time on this subject.

Culture of high expectations From the time that students enter a school, they should understand that they are expected to succeed and that the teachers, administrators, and other staff are there to help them succeed. The first week of school should be a “culture camp,” a time to focus on what behaviors and actions are conducive to achieving success. Classrooms should post goals on the walls as a constant reminder of the high expectations, and schools should visibly promote a culture of going to college, by hanging posters about college and by discussing college readiness with students. Students must be cognizant of their individual goals and the steps needed to achieve them.

Scaling Up and Experimenting

Each school district faces unique challenges and will require a customized package of reforms to best suit its needs. The lessons learned from New York City charter schools and from the experiments in Houston and Denver can provide the foundation for reforms and evaluations in other similar schools. In particular, Fryer suggests striving to save students from the bottom 5 percent of schools over the next eight years, ultimately reaching three million students. The results from Houston and Denver are promising but also preliminary. As a result, it is essential to continue to evaluate and experiment with combinations of reforms. Each school can benefit from reforms and shed light on the questions that remain. And while costs may vary by school, one thing is clear according to Fryer: high expectations are free. Although it is not possible to offer a one-size-fits-all package of reforms, Fryer argues that we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. By expanding what we know works and conducting more research as we expand those practices, this new approach could benefit millions of students from the nation’s struggling schools and neighborhoods.

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

Costs

Learn More About This Proposal This policy brief is based on The Hamilton Project discussion paper, “Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools,” which was authored by ROLAND FRYER Professor of Economics, Harvard University Faculty Director, EdLabs

Additional Hamilton Project Proposals Harnessing Technology to Improve K-12 Education By Aaron Chatterji and Benjamin Jones Despite the promises of educational technology to provide personalized learning, K–12 education has seen little innovation. Since it is difficult for buyers to know what works in education technology, they are often reluctant to enter the market. To address this challenge, this paper proposes the establishment of EDU STAR, a new organization to bridge the information gap between sellers and buyers. EDU STAR would provide reports on the effectiveness of various software-based learning tools, establishing a transparent and therefore more dynamic market for the technologies and encouraging the development of new tools to help students learn.

Staying in School: A Proposal to Raise High School Graduation Rates By Derek Messacar and Philip Oreopoulos The gap between educated and uneducated Americans is larger than ever. And yet, the high school dropout rate is almost as high today as it was 50 years ago. Economic evidence strongly supports the idea that students who are compelled to attend school longer earn higher wages and are otherwise better off as a result of their extra schooling. This paper presents a strategy for reducing the dropout rate through a carrot-andstick approach that combines stricter and betterenforced school-attendance laws with programs that have been statistically proven to prevent disengagement among at-risk students.

Learning from the Successes and Failures of Charter Schools

In Houston, the marginal cost of the program was approximately $1,800 per pupil. The components varied widely in cost; for example, high expectations was the lowestcost reform, involving essentially zero-dollar investments in posters and a concerted effort by staff in lieu of additional monetary costs. On the other hand, tutoring required hiring many new full-time staff, and was only provided in sixth- and ninth-grade math due to funding constraints. Table 1 gives an approximate breakdown of the marginal per-pupil costs. Table 1:

Per-Pupil Marginal Costs of Houston Reforms Tutoring

$700

Human Capital

$250

Technology & Data

$200

Extended Day

$550

Administrative Costs

$100

Note: The cost of tutoring was $2,200 per student tutored. Costs in table are divided across all students, including those who did not receive tutoring, to correspond to impacts, which are also averaged across grades.

Further research is necessary to determine where money should be directed to provide the largest returns and to explore to what extent the five reforms can be separated and how they reinforce each other. To reach three million children, it will cost roughly $6 billion per year.

Conclusion Notwithstanding the difficulties and uncertainties surrounding charter schools, two things are certain. First, some charter schools drastically improve student achievement. Second, the practices that distinguish these high-performing charters from their low-performing counterparts can be implemented in traditional public schools. While some of the factors require more restructuring than others, all of them hold the potential to help turn around America’s flagging education system.

Houston Case Study The experiment in Houston provides one example of how these principles can be implemented in practice.

1. Focus on human capital. Effective teachers and quality principals are the bedrock of public schools. As a part of the “turnaround” designation of the schoolimprovement grants offered by the U.S. Department of Education, at least 50 percent of teachers needed to be replaced as well as all principals who had been on the job more than two years. Following these guidelines, 53 percent of teachers were replaced in the Houston pilot and all of the principals in the nine schools were removed. A significant fraction of the teachers left voluntarily due to the requirement of working an extra hour (despite that they were compensated for that time), some left because of the uncertainty around a new principal and new expectations, and others were asked to leave (subject to union regulations) due to previously documented poor performance. Principals taught week-long training sessions prior to the start of the school year. During the fall, all teachers attended Saturday training sessions focused on increasing the rigor of classroom instruction. In winter, training continued for new teachers, focusing on common problems and on creating a “toolbox” for teachers to both use certain classroom-management techniques and increase student engagement.

2. Using student data to drive instruction. Schools individually set goals for data-driven instruction, but each school gave assessments at least every six weeks, and teachers and administrators had access to results. Halfway through the school year, each school gave benchmark assessments based on the Texas state standardized test, and teachers met one-on-one with students to set goals for the official end-of-year assessment.

3. High-dosage tutoring. Students in select grades received intensive, hour-long, two-on-one tutoring in math. Tutors were given two weeks of training prior to the start of school. The position was full-time with an annual salary of $20,000; bonus payments up to $8,000 were offered based on student achievement. Each school hired a site coordinator to oversee tutoring.

4. Extended time on task. The school district received a waiver from the Texas state legislature to extend the school year by five days, and the school day increased by an hour per day on average. Total instruction time increased by 21 percent relative to the previous year.

5. Culture of high expectations. Each school set its own requirements, and professional development incorporated these goals. The basic requirements were as follows: every classroom must have goals posted, every student must know what her individual goals are for the year and how she is going to achieve these goals, and every school must have visual evidence of a collegegoing culture.

Highlights Roland G. Fryer of Harvard University and EdLabs provides guidance on how the practices of successful charter schools can be used in public schools.

The Proposal Focus on human capital. Teachers should be given the tools they need to succeed, including increased feedback from administrators and professional development at all stages in their career Use student data to drive instruction. Data can drive more personalized and more efficient learning, allowing both teachers and students to track progress and to make sure that each student is on a path that is appropriate for her. Provide high-dosage tutoring. Students should be offered intensive, small-group tutoring that is customized to each studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s baseline achievement and pace of learning. Extend time on task. To make time for increased tutoring, among other changes, the amount of time devoted to instruction should be increased. Schools should increase both the length of the school day and the number of days in the school year. Foster a culture of high expectations. From the time that students enter a school, they should understand that they are expected to succeed and that the teachers, administrators, and other staff are there to help them succeed. This environment can be created with time dedicated to setting goals, with posters encouraging college attendance, and many other steps.

Benefits Certain charter schools have had great success in boosting student achievement, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods. However, because charter schools have a mixed record of success and serve only a limited population of students, they are clearly not a panacea. But the astounding results that some charter schools have demonstrated promise that implementing these changes in public schools could have a dramatic and transformative effect for students across the country.

1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 797-6279

Printed on recycled paper.

w w w. H A M I LT O N P R O J E C T. O R G w w w. H A M I LT O N P R O J E C T. O R G

Attachment D

Charter School FAQâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

Page 44 of 49

Charter School FAQâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s What is a charter school? A charter school is an independently run public school granted greater flexibility in its operations, in return for greater accountability for performance. The "charter" establishing each school is a performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, students served, performance goals, and methods of assessment.

What is the difference between charter schools and other public schools? Charter schools are public schools of choice, meaning that families choose them for their children. They operate with freedom from some of the regulations that are imposed upon district schools. Charter schools are accountable for academic results and for upholding the promises made in their charters. They must demonstrate performance in the areas of academic achievement, financial management, and organizational stability. If a charter school does not meet performance goals, it may be closed.

Are charter schools all the same? No. Charter schools can vary a great deal in their design and in their results. Uncommon Schools creates schools based on the principles and practices that have proven successful in producing significant academic gains at high-performing urban charter public schools across the country.

Who authorizes charter schools? This varies from state to state, depending on the state's charter law. In New York, there are three authorizers: the New York State Board of Regents, the State University of New York Board of Trustees, and local boards of education. In New Jersey, there is one authorizer, the state Commissioner of Education. In Massachusetts, the authorizer is the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Who can start a charter school? Parents, community leaders, social entrepreneurs, businesses, teachers, school districts, and municipalities can submit a charter school proposal to their state's charter authorizing entity.

Who attends charter schools? Whom do they serve? Nationwide, students in charter schools have similar demographic characteristics to students in the local public schools. In some states, charter schools serve significantly higher percentages of

minority or low-income students than the traditional public schools. Charter schools accept students by random, public lottery.

How are charter schools funded? As public schools, charter schools are tuition-free. They are funded according to enrollment levels and receive public funds on a per pupil basis. In some states, such as Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, and New Jersey, they receive less than 100% of the funds allocated to their traditional counterparts for school operations. In other states, such as California, additional funds or loans are made available to them. In most states, charters do not receive capital funds to support facility expenses. Charter schools are entitled to federal categorical funding for which their students are eligible, such as Title I and Special Education monies. Federal legislation provides grants to help charters to manage start-up costs.

What is a charter management organization? Charter management organizations (CMOs), generally speaking, are organizations that contract with an individual school or schools to deliver management services. These services typically include curriculum development, assessment design, professional development, systems implementation, back-office services, teacher recruitment, and facility services. Uncommon Schools is a nonprofit CMO that contracts with individual charter school boards of trustees. Uncommon's "bottom line" is that each school achieves at the highest level. All decisions are made in the context of what is best for the individual school to ensure student achievement and outstanding academic results.

What makes the schools in Uncommon different from other schools? Uncommon schools share the following key attributes: a college preparatory mission; high standards for academics and character; a highly structured learning environment; a longer school day and a longer school year; a focus on accountability and data-driven instruction; and a faculty of committed and talented leaders and teachers. Schools within the Uncommon network are modeled on some of the highest-performing urban public charter schools in the country.

How can I enroll my child at an Uncommon School? Each school admits students through a random lottery. Based on legislation passed in 2007, all New York City charter schools, beginning in the 2008-9 school year, must give preference to students resident in the Community School District (CSD) in which the charter school is located. However, students who reside outside the CSD are eligible to apply and may be admitted if space permits. Please visit the individual school pages to learn more about the enrollment processes for Boston, New York City, Newark, Rochester, and Troy.

Do teachers need to be certified to work at an Uncommon school? Certification requirements vary on a state-by-state basis. In New Jersey, all teachers must be certified, and Uncommon Schools helps teachers navigate the alternate route process to secure their teaching credentials. In New York, while the state does not require that 100% of teachers be certified at each charter school, the rules under the "No Child Left Behind" Law mean that teachers need to get their licenses with reasonable speed; Uncommon New York City is able to ensure that its teachers are enrolled in a Master's program that provides provisional certification and, more importantly, high quality training. In Massachusetts, charter school teachers must attain Highly Qualified teacher status as dictated by the "No Child Left Behind" Law by possessing a bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree and demonstrating subject matter competence in the subjects they teach; Uncommon Boston encourages teachers to get certified and assists them in this process.

Attachment E

Budget

Page 45 of 49

Subtotal:

Instructional Services 29 Salaries - Teachers 30 Salaries - Other (Professional) 31 Salaries - Paraprofessionals 32 Salaries - Support/Clerical 33 Contracted Services, Instructional 34 Instructional Technology in Classrooms 35 Instructional Supplies & Materials 36 Testing & Assessment 37 Professional Development, Instructional 38 Dues, Licenses, and Subscriptions 39 Staff Stipends in addition to base salary 40 Purchased Management Services 41 Other: Expeditionary Learning School Support

27 Other: 28

OPERATING EXPENDITURES Administration 12 Salaries - Administrative (Professional) 13 Salaries - Administrative (Support/Clerical) 14 Accounting-Audit 15 Legal 16 Payroll 17 Other Professional Services 18 Information Management and Technology 19 Office Supplies and Materials 20 Professional Development, Administrative/Board 21 Dues, Licenses, and Subscriptions 22 Fundraising 23 Recruitment/Advertising 24 Travel expenses for staff/Board 25 Bank Charges - Current (Short Term) 26 Purchased Management Services

5 Nutrition Funding - State & Federal 6 Program Fees 7 Contributions, in-kind 8 Contributions, in-cash 9 Investment Income 10 Transportation Reimbursements 11 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES

OPERATING REVENUES 1 Tuition 2 Grants - State 3 Grants - Federal 4 Grants - Private

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS A Per Pupil Tuition B Student Enrollment C Facility Size (square footage) D Cost per square foot E Staff FTE: (1.0 FTE = 40 hours) E1. Administrative (Professional) E2. Administrative (Support/Clerical) E3. Instructional: Teachers E4. Instructional: Other (Professional) E5. Instructional: Paraprofessionals E6. Instructional: Salaries - Support/Clerical E7. Other Student Services E8. Operation and Maintenance of Plant F Staff FTE: Subtotal:

20,000

30,000

49,250

65,000

15,000 4,000

15,000 1,000

47,000 44,000

528,000 65,000

4,000 22,800 2,850 8,000 1,000

Special Education

General Education

210,200

25,000 10,200 4,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 2,000

3,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000

68,000 45,000 25,000 10,000 5,000

Genera l Education

65,000

12,000 15,200 5,000 10,000 1,000

1,003,220 66,950

10,000 5,000

30,000 1,000

96,820 56,650

Special Education

215,990

15,000 15,600 5,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 10,000 3,000

70,040 46,350 25,000 10,000 5,000

2,298,332

86,640 22,562 5,000 20,000 7,000

52,000 13,537 5,000 10,000 5,000 1,480,815

160,000 35,000

1,177,278 100,000 93,000 25,000

17,000 11,250 10,000

115,000

5,000 10,000

100,000

1,962,130

0.5 1 28.5

0.5 1 17.8

0.5

10,327 190 20,000 4 1 1 23 2

10,327 114 11,000 4

Year 2 FY2012

1 1 12.5 1.8

0 0 0

Year 1 FY2011

The Advocacy Foundation Charter Schools Initiative

0.25 0.25

Pre-Operational Period FY2010

Operating Budget: Projected Revenues and Expenditures

Charter School:

65,000

16,000 7,600 7,000 10,000 1,000

1,182,904 68,958

General Education

1.5 1 34

1 1 27 2.5

10,327 228 23,000 4

5,000 5,000

42,000 1,000

149,587 84,872

Special Education

233,182

15,000 22,800 4,000 2,000 8,000 5,000 12,000 4,500

72,141 47,741 25,000 10,000 5,000

2,766,599

103,968 27,075 5,000 35,000 9,000

192,000 40,000

2,354,556

Year 3 FY2013

Instructional Services 29 Classroom Teachers, SPED Teachers, ELL Teachers (.5 Year 1), Arts/Media Specialists, Associate Teachers 30 Principal, DSFS (.8 Year 1), Speech Pathologist (.5 Year 3) 31 32 33 Contracted SPED/Counseling Services 1K/Student (20% SPED pop) 34 $100/student grades 2-8, Adaptive Software, Assistive Technology 35 Instructional Supplies, $250/student in new grades 36 $25/student standardized tests, $5K/new grade sped testing 37 Non Exped. Learning professional development 38 Subscriptions to Educational Publications, Licenses to professional development resources 39 Clubs taught by volunteers 40 N/A 41 EL Contract including PD, School Designer on site 3X/month

12 E.D. 13 Office Manager 14 Accounting Mgmt. Solutions (AMS) fiscal policies and procedures development, indep. Audit 15 Pro bono during pre-op period 16 HR Knowledge payroll service provider, HR systems support 17 18 Data management systems, administrative IT supplies and repair 19 Estimated @ $600/staff member 20 Board/E.D. Professional/Governance Development 21 MA Charter School Association, other subscriptions 22 Fundraising Events, Grant-Writing 23 Recruiting/advertising for students, staff, and board members 24 Travel expenses for staff/Board to Expeditionary Learning Institutes and other PD 25 Short-term line of credit to be paid off in 3 mos. 26 contract. 27 28

OPERATING EXPENDITURES Administration (Non-instructional costs)

5 Meals reimbursed @ $2.7725/Free, $2.3725/Reduced, .3125/Paid. Assumed Population: 60%FR, 15%R, 25%P 6 Meal fees from paid and reduced 7 Office Space Startup Period, Donated furniture and equipment. 8 Parent Fundraising, Annual Gala (year 2), Individual Donors 9 Income from savings and money market accounts 10 Buses provided by sending district 11

OPERATING REVENUES 1 2 Startup Grant: Targeted area, Extended Day, single $200K grant spent by 12/31/11 3 Title Grants, Conservative based on MA charters with similar pop's 4 Grants awarded by private foundations or corporations.

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS A Based on projected rate for New Bedford 2011 B Assumes 95% capacity due to attrition C Based on market and site described in Facilities Section D Based on market and site described in Facilities Section E E1. E.D. E2. Office Manager E3. Classroom Teachers, SPED Teachers, ELL Teachers (.5 Year 1), Arts/Media Specialists, Associate Teachers E4. Principal, DSFS (.8 Year 1), Speech Pathologist (.5 Year 3) E5. N/A E6. N/A E7. Nurse (.5), Counselor (.5 Year 3) E8. Custodian F

Notes

Program Evaluation Subtotal:

76 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)

75 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 9,875

105,125

2,875

74 Contingency Fund

1,000

Subtotal:

1,000

2,000

50,000

Community Services (Including Dissemination) 71 Dissemination Activities 72 Civic Activities 73 Subtotal:

Fixed Charges 64 Payroll taxes 65 Fringe Benefits 66 Insurance (non-employee) 67 Purchased Management Services 68 Other: 69 Other: 70

50 Other: Alma Days After School Clubs 51 Other: 52 Other: Uniform Cost Reduction 53 Subtotal: Operation and Maintenance of Plant 54 Salaries - Operation and Maintenance of Plant 55 Utilities 56 Maintenance of Buildings & Grounds 57 Maintenance of Equipment 58 Rental/Lease of Buildings & Grounds 59 Rental/Lease of Equipment 60 Capital Debt Service 61 Renovation/Construction 62 Acquisition of Capital Equipment 63 Subtotal:

Other Student Services 44 Salaries - Other Student Services 45 Health Services 46 Student Transportation (to and from school) 47 Food Services 48 Athletic Services 49 Purchased Management Services

42 Other: 43

18,540 50,000 10,000 2,000 120,000 6,000

10,000

18,000 27,500 5,000 1,000 66,000 6,000 20,000 30,000

7,122

1,473,693

22,212

6,000 8,000 14,000

98,661

20,261 68,400 10,000

27,221

2,271,111

57,458

10,000 12,000 22,000

152,958

31,808 111,150 10,000

216,540

4,000 4,750 1,900 223,325

2,400 2,850 1,140 127,470

173,500

23,175 5,000 66,500 118,000

5,000 1,183,370 199,470

22,500 5,000 22,800 70,780

5,000 701,650 126,000

24,911

2,741,688

69,165

12,000 14,000 26,000

193,271

42,196 141,075 10,000

244,596

6,000

19,096 57,500 12,000 3,000 138,000 9,000

4,560 6,650 2,280 324,553

74,263 5,000 79,800 152,000

5,000 1,363,462 287,459

74 Contigency at %1.5 of revenue Year 1, 2.5% Years 2-3

71 Expedition Nights, digitizing and archiving student work, conference/workshop presentations 72 Parent Advisory Board meetings, Alma Days seaside picnic, non-academic community service days 73

Fixed Charges 64 MTRS: 1.45% + 1% unemployment; Non-MTRS 1.45% for medicare + 1% unemployment+6.2% FICA 65 75% of health @ $450 (Single)/$1,000 (Family); 50% of Dental @ $50S/$75F; $250 life and disability; 60% part 66 Insurance for board, property, fire and liability 67 N/A 68 69 70

50 Supplies for Alma Days Orientation, $20/student 51 After School Club Supplies $25/Student. Clubs run by volunteers. 52 Subsidized uniforms for students based on need 53 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 54 Custodian 55 $2.50/sq. ft, based on market and facility described 56 Building maintenance (based on decribed facility), cleaning supplies 57 Maintenance of instructional equipment (copiers, printers, projectors) 58 $6/Sq Ft, includes $108K renovations amortized over 3 years 59 Lease of copiers @3,000 each 60 Annual payments for long-term capital debt. 61 Renovations to facility to accommodate growing population 62 Cost of capital equipment (including computers, furniture, kitchen etc.), based on quote from R.V. Leonard Co.

Other Student Services 44 Nurse (.5), Counselor (.5 Year 3) 45 Nurse supplies 46 Transportation for Fieldwork, $200/Student Year 1, $350/student Years 2-3 47 Approx. $3/student/day 48 49

42 Staff/Student/Community Surveys 43

Page 46 of 49

Notes ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

Page 47 of 49

Page 48 of 49

Page 49 of 49