Bringing To Life the School Choice and Restructuring Requirements of NCLB

Stimulating the Supply of New Choices

for Families in Light of NCLB

The ChallengeUnder the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), school districts are required to offer students who attendschools that do not make “adequate yearly progress”for two consecutive years the option to transfer tohigher-performing schools in the district. But twoyears after NCLB was enacted, it appears only a smallpercentage of the students eligible to transfer aredoing so.

A survey released in January 2004 by the Council ofGreat City Schools found that the total number of chil-dren moving to a different school remains relativelysmall at 2%, although it did document a threefoldincrease over the previous year.i This finding wasechoed by a study released in May 2004 by theCitizen’s Commission on Civil Rights. It found thatamong those districts that submitted complete data,1.7% of eligible students transferred to higher-per-forming schools in the 2003-04 school year.ii

As the number of schools that must allow their stu-dents to transfer to another school under NCLB rises,and as more parents become aware of their options,there will likely be a considerable increase in thenumber of parents requesting transfers. These likelyincreases, however, will often occur in districts where,up to this point, only a fraction of those eligible for atransfer actually get a seat in a higher-performingschool if they apply. Chicago, for example, had270,757 students eligible to transfer in 2003-04, and19,246 requested a switch. But the district onlyapproved 1,097 transfers. Though several districtshonored most or all transfer requests, many cited thelack of seats at higher-performing schools as a constraint.iii

Under NCLB, though, districts cannot use capacityproblems as an excuse for not providing seats for stu-dents who wish to transfer. For these districts, and thestates that oversee their progress, it is vitally impor-tant to look at stimulating the supply of new choicesso interested families can exercise their rights to

transfer. This policy brief sketches out the roles thatstates can play in the process.

Is There a Rolefor the State?Providing transfer options is a district responsibilityunder NCLB. But since states are ultimately account-able for meeting the terms of NCLB (and, most impor-tantly, for the quality of public education), it is worthconsidering whether states also have a role to play instimulating the supply of new choices.

In the past, state departments of education haveacted primarily as regulatory bodies. Once districtshave complied with regulations involving accredita-tion, the number of days that school is in session,reporting procedures and the like, state departmentshave allocated both federal and state funds to them.In several cases, they also have provided technicalassistance to low-performing schools and districts.They have not, however, been responsible for stimu-lating the supply of new schooling options. Whilemost states have enacted charter school legislationthat allows new schools to form, in most cases thisallowance falls short of the state’s playing a proactiverole in stimulating supply.

Even though states have not historically taken on thisrole, they are uniquely qualified to do so. Because oftheir statewide reach and perspective, state depart-ments and other state entities, such as governors’offices, are in a position to leverage their influence inseveral key areas:

• Assessing needs. Because most state educationdepartments have invested heavily in the last fewyears in testing programs and in data manage-ment systems, they are in a strong position to

i Michael Casserly, “Driving Change.” Education Next 4, 3(Summer 2004), p. 34.

ii Cynthia G. Brown, Choosing Better Schools: A Report onStudent Transfers Under the No Child Left Behind Act,Report of the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights(Washington, DC: Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights,2004), p. 6.

iii Ibid, p. 41.

1 Stimulating the Supply of New Choices forFamilies in Light of NCLB: The Role of the State

This paper was written by Bryan C. Hassel andLucy Steiner. Hassel is the president of PublicImpact, a North Carolina-based consultingfirm. Steiner is a consultant with PublicImpact. The U.S. Department of Education’sPublic Charter Schools Program provided fund-ing for this paper.

assess the statewide need for new options and toset priorities.

• Creating a favorable environment. State-level poli-cies determine the environment in which newoptions are able to flourish – or not.

• Attracting and developing new “supply.” Statesalso can aggregate resources for recruitment anddevelopment of new options. This prevents indi-vidual districts from unnecessarily duplicatingeach other’s efforts and makes possible multidis-trict partnerships with providers of new schooloptions.

Each of these areas is explored in more detail below.

Assess the Need for NewChoicesThere are several activities states can undertake inthis area, including the following:

Documenting the level of demand and supply

An important first step that state-level policymakersare in a strong position to implement is analyzingstatewide data to determine not only how many low-performing schools there are, but also how many stu-dents attend these schools. A second step is for thestate to determine the current level of available seatsin high-performing schools on a district-by-districtbasis. The state also can examine information aboutthe capacity of higher-performing alternative andoptional programs, such as charter schools, to accepttransfer students.

Determining where excess demand is concentrated

From the above data, states will see patterns emergethat document where new options need to be createdand what types of students they should target. Are

there certain districts, certain areas of the state, cer-tain categories of children (grade levels, specialneeds, etc.) that have large numbers of students whowill have the option to transfer?

Projecting need for new “seats” and schools

Over time, data on supply and demand can be ana-lyzed for trends that policymakers can use to predictfuture needs. In many states, for example, growingnumbers of Hispanic immigrants have caused dis-tricts to invest much more heavily in English-as-a-sec-ond-language programs. Any planning around newoptions would need to take this growing populationinto account. Another variable to take into account ishow much districts are doing themselves. Some dis-tricts are working proactively not only to improve stu-dent achievement, but also to expand the availabilityof options so all students are successful. In districtswhere this is not the case, there will be more of aneed for the state to act.

Publishing this information widely

Having collected data on supply and demand, thestate is in a position to get the word out. State law-makers, community groups and potential providers ofnew schooling options should know where there is aneed for more capacity. Widely available informationalso helps hold school districts accountable for doingtheir part to offer sufficient options.

Create a FavorableEnvironment for New Choices Once a state has a handle on demand for and supplyof options, the question naturally turns to how thestate can help close existing gaps. It is unlikely thestate will actually go out and operate new schools tomeet the excess demand. Instead, the state’s best

Authorizing New AuthorizersColorado established a charter schools insti-tute as a statewide authorizer of charterschools. Previously, local school boards werethe sole sponsors of charter schools (thoughtheir decisions can be appealed to the stateboard of education). The institute’s governingboard has nine members -- seven appointedby the governor (with the consent of the sen-ate) and two by the commissioner of educa-tion. One interesting feature of the legislation:school boards can retain exclusive charteringauthority if they can convince the state boardthey are willing authorizers who treat charterschools fairly and equitably. In other words, aschool board can prevent the institute fromissuing charters within its jurisdiction by meet-ing the legislation’s standards for high-qualityauthorizing.

Idaho created a public charter school commis-sion overseen by a seven-member, governor-appointed board. The commission canapprove “virtual public charter schools” toserve students, perhaps from more than onedistrict, using online technologies. It also canapprove other charter schools that appealtheir non-approval by local school boards.

Utah instituted a new state board with thepower to issue charters statewide. The boardhas seven members appointed by the gover-nor. Two must have “expertise in finance orsmall business management”; three areselected from a slate of at least six candidatesnominated by Utah’s charter schools; and twoare appointed from a slate of at least fourcandidates nominated by the state board ofeducation.

2Stimulating the Supply of New Choices forFamilies in Light of NCLB: The Role of the State

strategy is to create an environment in which newoptions are most likely to emerge and flourish.

Many states have already taken a step toward creat-ing such an environment by establishing charterschool legislation. In some of these states, the exist-ing chartering mechanism may be sufficient to meetthe excess demand for new options. In others, thestate will need to consider ways to improve the char-tering mechanism – as described below.

While charter schools are one natural way for statesto create new options, states also can contract withproviders to start and run new schools, or make iteasier for districts to do so. This kind of contracting is“charter-like,” in the sense that providers are selectedaccording to some kind of rigorous process, given thelegal authority to run their schools and held account-able for performance. The formal label “charterschool” is less important than these underlying concepts.

How can states make sure they have well-functioningchartering and contracting mechanisms? Here twolevers are considered: improving the statutory andregulatory framework, and improving the quality ofauthorizing and contracting.iv

Improving the statutory and regulatory framework

New options cannot flourish in an environment thatdiscourages them. Different states have different reg-ulatory and statutory barriers to increasing the supplyof new options. All states should carefully considerwhat impedes the creation of such schools and takesteps to remove these hurdles. In so doing, theyshould consider several possibilities.

• Empower new charter authorizers. For a newcharter school to open, it needs a willing “autho-rizer” – an agency that grants it a charter andoversees it over time. So an initial question forstate policymakers is whether there are enough

willing authorizers in the state. States withoutcharter laws and states with laws that allow onlydistricts to issue charters may want to consideradding more entities to the list of potential autho-rizers. Potential nondistrict authorizers includestate boards of education, mayors, city councils,universities, nonprofit organizations and special-purpose entities created specifically to be charterauthorizers.

• Lift caps on authorizing. Many states have limitson how many charters an individual authorizer, atype of authorizer or authorizers as a group cangrant. States should consider lifting these capsfor authorizers who have successfully managedthe application process and the oversight func-tions that are their primary responsibility, particu-larly in areas where there are likely to be a lot ofstudents eligible for transfer. Colorado andCalifornia, for example, originally had caps on thenumber of schools that could open, but their leg-islatures removed these caps or allowed them tolapse as the charter population neared the limit.

• Create/clarify authority to contract. Issuing acharter is only one way to open up the opportuni-ty for a new school to form. Another mechanismis for the state or district to contract with someoutside entity to start one or more new schools.In some states, the ability of the state and dis-tricts to do this kind of contracting is well estab-lished. In others, states may need to amendexisting law to make clear that contracting for theoperation of new schools is allowable, as well asto set appropriate parameters on such contracting.

• Ensure charter/contract schools have autonomy.To entice providers to open up new options, theresulting schools must have the managementauthority to carry out their school designs effec-tively. If the new schools face all the same con-straints that existing schools face, it is unlikelythat many of them will form, thrive and offer truealternatives. Some basic public school laws andregulations, of course, should apply, such as

iv While this paper focuses on chartering and contractingas mechanisms for creating new options, they are notthe only possible mechanisms. Another mechanismworthy of mention is interdistrict transfers. Many low-performing school districts are surrounded by higher-performing ones. While many of these are truly full, notall of them are. NCLB does not compel these neighbor-ing districts to accept transferring students, but statescan take a proactive role in encouraging such accept-ances; for example, by guaranteeing sufficient fundingfollows transferring students and ensuring receiving dis-tricts’ AYP status under NCLB is not adversely affectedin the short term.

3 Stimulating the Supply of New Choices forFamilies in Light of NCLB: The Role of the State

health, safety and nondiscrimination, along withparticipation in the state’s testing and accounta-bility regime. But within those basic constraints,providers need wide latitude to establish theirlearning programs, organize their operations, allo-cate resources and staff their schools.

• Ensure charter/contract schools have resources.New schooling options will need adequate fund-ing. While charter schools are typically operatedwith less funding than traditional schools, theyneed an initial boost of start-up funds for facili-ties and materials. Researchers looking at failingcharter schools frequently cite financial difficul-ties as a major reason for their problems,v and afederal study found that lack of start-up fundswas the top implementation challenge cited bycharter schools.vi So an essential element of anysupply-creation strategy is designing a fundingsystem that provides sufficient start-up dollarsand through which adequate resources followchildren to their new schools.

Improving the quality of authorizing and contracting

In addition to playing a role in ensuring regulationsand statutory requirements allow new schoolingoptions to flourish, state policymakers also have aresponsibility to improve the quality of authorizingand contracting bodies. They can do this in manyways.

• Define authorizers’ accountability. Authorizerswear many hats, not all of them comfortable.Clearly, authorizers need to implement a rigorousapplication process that allows promising schoolsto open while weeding out those unlikely to suc-ceed. And once the schools are up and running,authorizers need to oversee them. When theircharters come up for renewal, authorizers needto make merit-based decisions about whether torenew them.

Is there a state role in holding authorizersaccountable for doing these jobs well? There are

many possibilities for such a role. States can sim-ply make information about authorizers’ actionswidely available: What schools are they approvingand rejecting? How well are their approvedschools doing? Such “transparency” has theadvantage of putting minimal constraints onauthorizer practice. States can also act moredirectly. Ohio, for example, has instituted an as-yet-untested procedure for the state to approvewould-be authorizers and revoke the “licenses” ofthose that fail to live up to their obligations.Minnesota too has empowered the state to reviewthe actions of its authorizers. One resource forstates seeking to define authorizers’ responsibili-ties is Principles and Standards of Quality CharterSchool Authorizing by the National Association ofCharter School Authorizers.vii

• Provide additional resources to authorizers. Justas schools need adequate funds to succeed, sodo authorizing bodies. For example, asking dis-tricts to authorize new schools without providingadditional funding ensures this role will notreceive priority status, hindering the effort fromthe outset. Once the authorizer’s responsibilitiesare clearly defined, all parties should ensure suf-ficient personnel and financial resources are inplace. Typically, states ask authorizers to devotetheir own resources to the job – an approach thatmakes some sense in states where pre-existingschool organizations, like districts, are the pri-mary authorizers. Because some financial com-mitment is required to become an authorizer, itmostly will be the more eager agencies that getinto the authorizing “business.” On the otherhand, asking organizations to rely on their ownresources alone is likely to limit, perhaps severe-ly, the number of entities that become willingauthorizers.

• Provide assistance to authorizers. Since authoriz-ing is a relatively new function, many emergingauthorizers can use help in creating their sys-tems. In most districts, for example, taking a“portfolio approach,” in which the district does

Providing Start-UUp FundsIn California, a new revolving loan fund allowscharter schools to receive loans of up to$250,000 and have up to five years to repaythem.

An Illinois statute authorizes the state to pro-vide new charter schools with $125 per pupilfor their first three years operation. A 300-stu-dent school could garner $112,500 throughthis mechanism.

v Center for Education Reform, Charter School Closures:The Opportunity for Accountability (Washington, DC:Center for Education Reform, 2002).

vi RPP International, The State of Charter Schools 2000,Fourth Year Report of the National Study of CharterSchools (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation, 2000), p. 44.

vii Available at: http://www.charterauthorizers.org/.

4Stimulating the Supply of New Choices forFamilies in Light of NCLB: The Role of the State

not directly own and operate all schools, is new.All the underlying processes, from constructingrequests for proposals to entering into perform-ance contracts to overseeing independently operated schools, need to be created. Statesthemselves may not be in the best position toprovide the needed help, but they can broker it tomake it available to all districts seeking to usethis approach.

As the ranks of charter authorizers have grown,more and more resources have become avail-able to help them. Most significantly, there is now a National Association of Charter SchoolAuthorizers (NACSA), which exists to promotequality charter school authorizing. A state inter-ested in helping its authorizers be more effectivecan enlist NACSA or other helpers to providematerials, training, consulting or other assistanceto authorizers within the state. States such asCalifornia and Georgia, for example, have calledin NACSA to work with district-level authorizers toimprove certain practices, such as application-review processes. On a state level, Ohio hashelped fund the Ohio Sponsorship Institute to pro-vide training for organizations seeking to becomeauthorizers in that state.

• Share information widely about authorizing, con-tracting and new-ooptions creation. Authorizers inthe midst of managing application and oversightprocesses rarely have time to step back andresearch best practices from across the country.The state, on the other hand, can take on thisrole. Reviewing research findings, attending con-ferences and establishing ties with other stateagencies involved in similar efforts are bestaccomplished at the state level if the state thenleverages its findings into easy-to-use tools forauthorizing bodies. Part of NACSA’s work inCalifornia, for example, has involved conveningdistrict authorizers to share best practices relatedto reviewing charter applications.

Attract and Develop NewSupplyHigh-quality leadership teams with strong schooldesigns that meet the specific needs of particularcommunities are challenging to find. Therefore, thestate should work with authorizing bodies to identifyand recruit potential school operators. There are sev-eral places to look:

Proven models seeking to replicate

Several school models designed to meet the needs ofat-risk and low-income students are seeking to openmultiple schools. Some of these models have anemerging or long-standing body of research to sup-port their designs. Most have some test score data togive an idea of how successful they have been inimproving student achievement. These models takedifferent forms. Some are national in scope, someregional and local. Some are nonprofit organizations,some are for-profit “education management organiza-tions” or EMOs. The common thread is a desire toopen numerous high-quality schools that share somebasic features. Such organizations can potentiallyopen many schools within a state.

Strong individual schools seeking to replicate

As an alternative to bringing in an entirely newdesign, the needs-assessment process may turn upindividual schools within the state that are successfulat meeting the needs of the same types of studentswho are seeking a transfer. While it is not always easyto pinpoint what makes a school successful, there aremany examples nationally of thriving individualschools that have been able to scale up successfully.

5 Stimulating the Supply of New Choices forFamilies in Light of NCLB: The Role of the State

Paying for the Authorizing FunctionSome states have sought to provide additionalresources for authorizers, through two mainmechanisms:

Direct state funding. Free-standing, special-purpose authorizers such as the District ofColumbia Public Charter School Board and theArizona State Board of Charter Schools, arefunded (at least in part) in this way. So are theState University of New York’s Charter SchoolsInstitute and other authorizers. This approachhas the advantage of creating a direct – albeitsomewhat unpredictable – funding source.But it also authorizes the state in a way thatsome might find uncomfortable if state fund-ing comes with explicit or implicit “strings”they regard as unacceptable.

Percentage of school funding. Some states,such as Michigan, allow charter authorizers toretain a percentage (e.g., 3%) of schools’ per-pupil operating funds for their own use. Thisapproach has the advantage of creating a“natural” funding stream not subject to annualbudget wrangling. Schools may grumble,though, about the diversion of “their” scarceresources. And a straight per-pupil percentagemay create incentives for undesirable actions,such as approving questionable schools toboost revenues, approving larger schools toincrease per-school income and keeping alivefailing schools to retain revenue.

Strong in-sstate community and cultural organizationsinterested in opening schools

Several successful charter schools have been startedby organizations with strong ties and recognition inthe communities they serve. Examples include com-munity-based organizations dedicated to meeting theneeds of immigrants, providing social services in low-income communities, and advocating for underservedpopulations. Because they are often new to the role ofschool operator, these grassroots efforts may needmore support with some aspects of running a school,but they have the advantage of strong communitysupport.

Top-nnotch educators capable of starting new schools

Another potential source of strong leadership is highlyeffective educators. These individuals may need addi-tional support in the form of extensive leadershiptraining before they are ready to take on the responsi-bilities of running a school, but if they have been suc-cessful with high-needs students, they have thepotential to translate their knowledge of what worksinto an effective school design.

Other entrepreneurial individuals

Potential school founders are not limited to peoplewith an education background. At the secondary level,there are several employer-linked charter schoolsstarted by business leaders interested in investing ina highly educated workforce. Charter school boardsare routinely made up of people from various back-grounds, including law, finance, nonprofit manage-ment and education. There are an increasing numberof high-quality leadership recruitment and develop-ment programs designed to help this kind of promis-ing individual launch a school.

Virtual schools

More and more organizations have formed to offerdifferent kinds of online education. Though much of

this instruction is now delivered in the form of dis-crete courses, rather than entire schools, the numberof full-blown virtual schools is also on the rise. Suchschools can be part of the continuum of options pro-vided to a state’s students.viii

Recruiting and developing school leadership teams

There are several ways that the state can recruit anddevelop school leadership teams with the potential toopen new schools in light of increasing demands fortransfers due to NCLB.

• Issue RFP or RFQ inviting organizations to pro-pose new schools for high-ddemand areas.Working closely with districts from across thestate that are facing similar challenges, the statecan help attract leadership teams with expertiseaddressing these challenges by issuing a seriesof request for proposals (RFPs) or request forqualifications (RFQs). The more specific and tar-geted the request, the more likely suppliers are todesign school programs that meet identifiedneeds and preferences.

• Mount campaign to recruit from categories men-tioned above. At this point, the demand for high-quality proven school designs far outweighs thesupply. Any effort to increase the supply willrequire a look at all the sources listed above in asystematic and ongoing way. This type of “cam-paign” to recruit and develop new models on mul-tiple fronts is best orchestrated by a large districtor by the state. Smaller rural districts and severe-ly challenged large districts may not be capableof keeping so many different efforts on track.

• Provide seed funding for creation of newschools/replication of successful models. As partof its multifront campaign to increase supply, thestate might have to offer funding support.Promising local efforts may need seed money topay for staff and development costs, and success-ful models may need money to replicate theirdesign elsewhere. One option for a state is to

viii Bryan C. Hassel and Michelle Godard Terrell, “How CanVirtual Schools Be a Vibrant Part of Meeting the ChoiceProvisions of the No Child Left Behind Act?” Paper pre-pared for U.S. Department of Education Secretary’s NoChild Left Behind Leadership Summit, July 2004.

6Stimulating the Supply of New Choices forFamilies in Light of NCLB: The Role of the State

Recruiting Proven Models and LeadersAn example from Indianapolis, where themayor is the only charter school authorizer,can provide some good ideas for states. Toensure a steady stream of good applicants,the mayor's office created the Seed and Leadprogram, with funding from the local RichardM. Fairbanks Foundation. In the "seed" com-ponent, the mayor's office is actively recruitingorganizations with proven school models tosubmit charter applications in Indianapolis.Independent researchers vet potential models;community leaders visit model schools; andthe city hosts visits by the model organizationswhere they have the chance to make localconnections and learn about the environmentfor charter schooling in Indianapolis. In the"lead" component, the mayor's office is part-nering with Building Excellent Schools (BES) torecruit and train eight or more top-notchschool leaders as Indianapolis BuildingExcellent Schools Fellows. The Fellows will par-ticipate in BES's yearlong program, in whichthey receive training, spend time in excellentcharter schools and earn a “salary” as theydesign a new charter school.

consider how federal funding streams are cur-rently distributed within a state to see if moneycan be consolidated or reallocated toward thecreation of new options. For example, can thePublic Charter School Program’s “disseminationgrants” for mature schools be used to encouragesuccessful existing schools to open new campus-es? Can other federal programs designed to fos-ter innovation be used to help new schools start,rather than just to help existing schools innovate?

• Create/support systems to assist new schoolfounders. Opening a new school successfullytakes planning and preparation. Ideally, selectedproviders have time – perhaps up to a year – toget ready. During this time, and while the schoolis getting established, there are various roles thestate can play to make sure new schools get offto a good start. The state can play these directly.Or the state can serve as a catalyst, providingencouragement and funding for outside entitiesto launch initiatives such as the following:

Incubators. One option for state policymakerswho know they will need several new schoolsper year might be to “incubate” leadershipteams within the state. This will require addi-tional manpower on the state level to run suchan office, but there might be people with expe-rience providing technical assistance or existingschool-support organizations that are suited totake on such a responsibility.

For an overview of the incubator idea, see theCenter for Reinventing Public Education’s publi-cation, Stimulating the Supply and Building the Capacity of New Schools and SchoolDevelopers: Recommendations for the Designand Implementation of a New SchoolsIncubator (June 2000), available athttp://www.crpe.org.

Leadership development programs. Anotheroption for states with a large demand for newschools is to encourage the development ofstatewide leadership development programs.

These can be housed in universities or statedepartments of education and funded by pri-vate philanthropies. They also can be specifical-ly targeted to train teams to work in high-needsrural or urban areas.

There are some national programs that haveproven successful. For example, the FisherLeadership Program provides principal trainingfor people interested in leading schools thatresemble the highly successful Knowledge isPower Program (KIPP) schools in Houston andthe Bronx. Other examples include BuildingExcellent Schools and New Leaders for NewSchools. All these programs offer extensivetraining, internships with a mentor and ongoingnetworks that new principals can tap into asthey begin leading schools. A state can seek apartnership with one of these existing leader-ship programs in the same way that districtssuch as New York City and the District ofColumbia have enlisted the help of NewLeaders for New Schools in recruiting and train-ing individuals to head charter and other publicschools.

Another approach the state can pursue to buildstrong school leadership is to establish alterna-tive training options for strong local leadershipcandidates in rural and urban areas. These caninclude: creating distance-learning programs;funding the establishment of strong statewidenetworks that meet regularly; and allowingproviders other than schools of education –such as teachers unions, nonprofits and dis-tricts – to train local people for leadership positions.

Back-office service providers. One lesson fromthe first decade of charter schools is newschools often struggle with some of the ancil-lary aspects of schooling – financing a facility,managing finances, operating a transportationsystem and the like. These challenges are exac-erbated when schools are independently oper-ated, outside of district systems. States are not

Incubating Leadership In 2003, the New Mexico Legislature appropri-ated $100,000 to the state department ofeducation for “charter school incubation” –intensive help to organizations planning newcharter schools. In May 2003, the departmentformally invited organizations to bid on a con-tract to create the incubator, which will pro-vide on-site assistance to those planningcharter schools on designing the school, com-pleting the application, developing curriculumand understanding school law, governance,special education and charter finance.

The state let the initial contract to YouthDevelopment Inc., a well-established nonprofitorganization that offers a wide array of com-munity services to children, youth and familiesin central and northern New Mexico. Twelvecharter applicants made use of the yearlongtraining and assistance program, with theintent of submitting charter applications in fall2004. As of August 2004, the state was in theprocess of awarding a new contract for$150,000 to continue these services.

7 Stimulating the Supply of New Choices forFamilies in Light of NCLB: The Role of the State

in a good position to address these problemsdirectly, but states can serve as catalysts forthe creation of organizations that can addressthem. For example, the District of Columbiaprovided funding to help charter schools createa cooperative organization to handle specialeducation. Others, such as Ohio, have providedloan guarantees and other aid related to financ-ing a facility. This kind of assistance helps newschool leaders focus more attention on whatmatters most: what goes on in classrooms.

Other forms of assistance. In several states anddistricts with a strong history of creating newoptions, there are independent organizationsthat provide various types of assistance to newschools. These groups help new schools withthe process of applying to a charter authorizerfor a charter or contract. They also provide technical assistance, offer workshops, fieldinquiries, and even provide help with servicessuch as accounting and facilities financing. Byactively supporting such independent groups,the state can gain a valuable ally in its effortsto stimulate the supply of new schoolingoptions.

ConclusionAs more and more parents demand new optionsunder No Child Left Behind, will the supply be in placeto meet it? Without a concerted effort, it appears theanswer will be “no.” A targeted campaign to assessneeds, create an environment in which new optionscan form and thrive and develop new supply, however,can provide the choices families are requesting.

While districts are primarily responsible for providingoptions, there are many roles states can play in mak-ing sure every family has the opportunity to make asuccessful school choice. Many states are alreadyexperimenting with these approaches, and more aresure to follow in the coming years. As they do, theknowledge and experience base related to this rolewill grow, and states will have more and more modelsto use as they explore how to stimulate the supply ofnew options.

© 2004 by the Education Commission of theStates (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is a non-profit, nationwide organization that helps stateleaders shape education policy.

To request permission to excerpt part of thispublication, either in print or electronically,please fax a request to the attention of theECS Communications Department,303.296.8332 or e-mail ecs@ecs.org. Copiesof this issue brief are available for $5. Ask forpublication #GV-04-06.

HHeellppiinngg SSttaattee LLeeaaddeerrss SShhaappeeEEdduuccaattiioonn PPoolliiccyy

8Stimulating the Supply of New Choices forFamilies in Light of NCLB: The Role of the State

Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy

700 Broadway, Suite 1200

Denver, CO 80203-3460

www.ecs.org