Upload
tadeo
View
30
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Charter Schools. and small group discussion. Brette Kaplan, Esq. [email protected] Julia Martin, Esq. [email protected] Steven Spillan, Esq. [email protected]. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Fall Forum 2013. Agenda. Introduction Charter Schools: Background and Policy Trends - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
CHARTER SCHOOLSand small group discussion
Brette Kaplan, [email protected]
Julia Martin, [email protected]
Steven Spillan, [email protected]
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLCFall Forum 2013
Agenda• Introduction• Charter Schools: Background and Policy Trends• Special issues for charters
• Funding allocations• CSGP Assurances• Demographics• Facilities• Operator Fraud
• Group discussion
2Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
CHARTER SCHOOLSBackground and Policy Trends
3Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
What is a Charter School?
• Generally: • A non-sectarian, publicly funded, independent public
school of choice• Operates under a contract or charter from the State’s
chartering agency• Exempt from certain State and local regulations
• But not civil rights, audit, health and safety, or charter requirements
• Admits students based on parent choice and/or lottery• May operate as its own LEA, or as part of another LEA• Governed by ESEA Sec. 5210(1)
4Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Who are Key Parties for Charters?• Authorizer
• Created/assigned by State charter school laws• Tasks:
• Approve charter applications and renewals• Set requirements of charter• Oversee schools and monitor compliance• Close schools if needed
• Types:• IHEs• Independent boards• Non-for-profit organizations• Mayors or municipalities• LEAs• SEAs
5Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Who are Key Parties for Charters?• Operator
• May be group of parents/teachers/community members, may be a Charter Management Organization (CMO) or Educational Management Organization (EMO)
• May be for-profit or non-profit• Teachers
• May be unionized or non-unionized• Depending on status, charter may contract separately
with teachers• Students
• Enroll based on choice or lottery system• Charter may not be selective
6Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
How are Charter Schools Autonomous?• May develop and set own policies regarding:
• Length of school day, week, or year• Amount of instructional time for individual subjects• Use of specific curricula, materials, or instructional methods• Use of tutoring programs• Budget decisions• Staffing decisions and policies
• May offer pay-for-performance, other incentives
7Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
How are Charters Held Accountable?• Required to meet ALL federal and State education standards, including:• Academic achievement standards• Health and safety requirements• Civil Rights requirements (ADA, Title VI, Title IX,
Section 504, IDEA, etc.)• Federal and State audit and fiscal requirements• Other requirements as outlined in chartering document
8Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
National Trend: Growth• First charters in Minnesota in 1992• As of 2012 elections, operate in 42 States and DC
• Latest additions: Georgia and Washington• Only eight States don’t have charters (AL, KY, MT, NE,
ND, SD, VT, WY)
• More than 5,000 charter schools nationwide• In 2012-13 school year alone, over 500 new charter
schools• 80% increase in number of students since 2007-08
• Charters serve about 2.3 million students (3% of total)
• In 100 cities, charters serve 10% of students or more
9Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Policy Trend: Push to Remove Caps• Currently 25 States (including DC) limit number of charters
• Some States considering increasing/lifting caps• Federal legislative proposals offer grant preference to States with no
caps
• Different types of caps:• Number of schools/charters• Number or share of students• Limit to annual growth in number of schools/students
• Why remove caps?• Allows growth to meet demand• Allows competition in charter “market”
• Why keep caps? • Incentivize closure of unsuccessful models/schools
10Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Policy Trend: Push for More Authorizers• More than 1,000 chartering authorities nationally
• 850 are LEAs, authorizing 52% of charters
• Why add authorizers?• Process moves more quickly, creates more charters• Removes bias (?)
• Why limit authorizers?• Simplifies process• Allows for more quality control
11Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Policy Trend: Parent Trigger Laws• Generally:
• Allow parents to petition to transform a failing public school• Transformation usually involves transition to charters• Rarely used
• Seven States have parent trigger laws (LA, MS, CT, TX, IN, OH, CA)
• Has only been successfully used in CA• LAUSD, April 2013• Follows two blocked attempts
• Why use parent triggers?• Gives parents a voice
• Why restrict?• “Triggered” schools often taken over by for-profit CMOs• Have high failure rates• Can allow schools to circumvent teachers unions• Disruption for students
12Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Policy Trend: Unionization• Staff at most charter schools not currently unionized
• About 12% of charters have union presence• In four States (AK, HI, IA, MD), 100% of charter schools are
unionized• Nine States have no unionized charters: NC, NH, NV, OK, SC, TN,
UT, VA• Nineteen States require some or all charter school teachers to be
bound by the district collective bargaining agreements or personnel policies
• BUT push from unions to get charter teachers to join• Staff at organization running 13 charters in Chicago voted earlier
this year to unionize
13Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Federal Policy Trends
14Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Federal Policy Trends• Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act
(H.R. 2218, 112th Congress)• Consolidates existing funding streams for “flexibility”• States must detail how they will ensure equity for students with
disabilities• Gives priority in funding to States that:
• Repeal charter caps• Increase number of authorizers• Support online and hybrid charters• Provide funding for charters comparable to other public schools• Use charter transformation as option in interventions
• New money for charter school facilities• Passed House of Representatives in Sept. 2011 with bipartisan
support• Likely model for future legislation
15Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
SPECIAL ISSUESFor Charter Schools
16Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
FUNDING ALLOCATIONSFor Charter Schools
17Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
ESEA Allocations• Charter as an LEA vs. Charter as part of a larger LEA
• Either way, subject to Title I funding formula
• Title I funding based on poverty and enrollment data from previous years
• What about new or expanding charters?• NCLB included provisions (§5206), clarified in recent guidance
(September 23, 2013)
18Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
ESEA Allocations• §5206:
• Charters in their first year of operation; or• Charters undergoing significant expansion
• Must receive full amount to which it is entitled within 5 months of • Opening; or • When the expansions began
19Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
ESEA Allocations• Determining “prior-year” base amount and hold harmless
for newly opened charters:• Calculate initial allocation under each formula BEFORE application
of hold harmless• This becomes “prior year”
• Based on derived formula count compared to population data, determine hold harmless percentage
• Multiply initial allocation for each formula by hold harmless percentage to determine hold harmless amount
20Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
ESEA Allocations• Determining “prior year” and hold harmless for
significantly expanding charters
• Compare current year formula count with prior year formula count and calculate the percentage increase
• Increase prior year allocation under each formula by that percentage to determine “prior year” base amount
21Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
ESEA Allocations
• To qualify for §5206 allocations:• 120-day notice• Establish eligibility• Provide data needed to reasonably estimate allocation amount
• Provide actual enrollment data
22Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
IDEA Allocations
• Charters as LEAs vs. Charters within larger LEA• Entitled to same IDEA funds as other LEAs and public
schools
• LEA Charters must:• Establish eligibility• Submit local plan to SEA• Develop appropriate policies and procedures• Have sufficient capacity and resources to provide FAPE
23Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
IDEA Allocations
• Charters within an LEA must: • Fit within ESEA definition of a charter school• Be a non-profit entity• Comply with any federal enrollment data requirements
• Submit to LEA:• Eligibility information• Enrollment data• Other necessary documentation
24Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
ASSURANCESIn the Charter School Grant Program
25Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
CSP Assurance• New assurances added to CSP application
• Language in FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
• Issues for FY 2010 Grant Recipients
• Possible problems for future applicants
26Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
CSP Assurance 3A• Each authorized charter school in the State operates under a legally binding charter or performance contract between itself and the school’s authorized public chartering agency which must:• Describe the obligations and responsibilities of the school and the
public chartering agency;• Conduct annual, timely, and independent audits of the school’s
financial statements that are filed with the school’s authorized public chartering agency; and
• Demonstrate improved student academic achievement.
27Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
CSP Assurance 3B• Authorized public chartering agencies use increases in
student academic achievement for all groups of students as the most important factor when determining to renew or revoke a school’s charter
28Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
CSP Assurance 3B
• Increased student achievement across all subgroups:
• Economically disadvantaged students; • Students from major racial and ethnic groups;
• Students with disabilities; and • Students with limited English proficiency
29Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
CSP Assurances: Common Problems• State policymaking/approval procedures
• Process vs. speed
• Internal political obstacles• Charter school authorizers vs. CMOs
30Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUESFor Charter Schools
31Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
GAO Report: Students with Disabilities
• Attend charter schools at much lower rates• GAO Report: Additional Federal Attention Needed to Protect
Access for Students with Disabilities (June 2012)• http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591435.pdf
• GAO Report to Congress found that in 2009-10, students with disabilities made up:• 11.1% of total school-age population• 11.2% of traditional public school population• 8.2% of charter school population
• Up from 7.7% in 2008-09• Varies by State
• In NH, students with disabilities made up 6% of charter school population; 13% overall
• In IA, MN, NV, NM, OH, PA, VA, WY – about the same as % of total population
32Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
GAO Report: Students with Disabilities
• Why?• GAO doesn’t know
• Possible explanations:• Placement by charter/LEA• Location of schools• Parent preference/student need• School capacity/resources• Funding
33Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Special Education – CRPE Report• Why the Gap? Special Education and New York City
Charter Schools • September 2013 CRPE Report
• Examined why the disparity in special education enrollment rates in traditional public and charter schools exist• 3-4% enrollment gap
34Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Special Education – CRPE Report• Findings
• Students with disabilities (especially those with autism and speech or language impairment) are likely to apply to charter schools in kindergarten
• Gap grows considerably from K-3rd grade• Charters less likely to classify students• Students transferring between charter and district schools
• Charters not refusing to admit or pushing out students with special needs
• Gap occurs mostly with subjective categories of student disabilities• Emotional disability and special learning disability
• Mobility among special education students regardless of attending a charter or traditional public school
35Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
English Language Learners• GAO: Education Needs to Further Examine Data
Collection on English Language Learners in Charter Schools (July 17, 2013)• http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-655R
• Goal: Compare ELL enrollment in charter schools and traditional public schools• Looked at ED’s data from 2010-11 school year
• GAO Report to Congress addressed:①Quality of ED’s data on ELLs in charter schools; and
②Efforts taken by ED to improve collection of ELL data from charter school
36Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
English Language Learners
• GAO unable to compare ELL enrollment in charter schools and traditional public schools • Unreliable & incomplete data• For over 1/3 of charter schools, field reporting ELLs enrolled in ELL
programs left blank
37Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
English Language LearnersProblems:①No “data steward”
• Office responsible for overseeing data quality②Definitional issue
• Dataset is count of ELLs enrolled in “English language instruction educational programs”
• Not a simple count of all ELLs③Charter Schools may have not submitted data to states
• States have difficulty obtaining data from charter schools
• Some charters missing other data suggesting boarder problem with charter school reporting
38Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
39
Source: Education Needs to Further Examine Data Collection on English Language Learners in Charter Schools, GAO (July 2013)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
English Language Learners
40
Planned Fixes•Beginning in school year 2013-14, ED plans to collect new school-level data on all ELLs regardless of enrollment in a “program”•New school-level data will have a “data steward” and will receive regular data quality reviews •Guidance for Reporting Charter School Entities (July 2013)
• http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/eden/ess/13-14-charter-workbook.doc
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
English Language Learners
GAO’s Recommendations
①ED conduct a systematic evaluation of other important datasets to determine the extent of charter school non-reporting
②ED explore whether collecting LEA-level and SEA-level counts for ELLs enrolled in “English language instruction educational programs” can be phased out if the data quality problems are not addressed.
41Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
FACILITIESAnd Issues for Charter Schools
42Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Facilities Generally• Charters sometimes struggle to find appropriate facilities
• Traditional public schools built with local tax and bond revenues• Charters often lack access to some or all of those sources of funds
or significant “start-up” money• Varies by State – some have dedicated grant or bond programs for
charter school facilities
• Increased facilities costs• Have to retrofit existing buildings• Money on rent/renovations takes funds away from instruction
• On average, charters spend 10% of operating budget on facilities
• Banks reluctant to lend money to schools with 3- or 5-year charters• If they can get loans, interest rates are high
43Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Facilities Generally• Charters face several practical and compliance problems
with their facilities:• No gym or library• Lack of properly outfitted computer/science labs• No kitchens to serve free or reduced-price school lunch program
meals• Not accessible for students with disabilities• Money for rent/renovations takes away funds intended for
instruction• Charters often occupy less desirable/purpose-built facilities
equity issues
44Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Sharing District Facilities• Some States have “right of first refusal” policy (like DC)
• Charters can request any vacant or underused public buildings, allowed to occupy unless district has a valid reason to say no
• Small charters sometimes share space with traditional public schools (“co-location”)• E.g. one floor or a set of classrooms• Allows use of otherwise empty space• BUT creates conflict/confusion between schools’ staff over:
• Use of common areas• Shared utility/maintenance costs• Responsibilities for supervising students in common areas• Other areas where schools’ policies/practices differ
45Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Charters and Church Space• More common in some States than others
• TX: 23 new charters in past 3 years, 16 to charters with religious ties
• Compliance issues:• Is church directly benefiting from taxpayer dollars?
• Outside of rent agreements• Through in-kind benefits or use of charter facilities/equipment
• Is the charter engaging in faith-based instruction?• Are faculty/staff shared with church?• Is the school part of the church?
• May need a separate, non-profit entity to operate school
• Requires explicit guidelines for use of funds, frequent monitoring
46Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Facilities Fraud• Usually involve “circular lease agreements”• San Antonio, TX
• Charter superintendent used school facilities grant to buy a building (former church)
• Then leased building back to school
• Chester, PA• Charter school founder bought school buildings• Sold them to non-profit charter “support” organization
for $50.7 million• Leased from organization to school, school received
rent reimbursement from State
47Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Facilities Fraud• Oakland, CA
• Charter director owned building, charged rent to charter school
• Director was both “lessor” and “lessee” on lease
• Earned $280,000 annually in State-reimbursable rent for facility
• Moral of the story: include facility/rent arrangement in monitoring protocols!
48Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
OPERATOR FRAUDIn Charter Schools
49Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Recent Charter “Bad Actors”
• Pennsylvania Auditor General:• August 2013: State’s largest charter school pocketed
$1.2 million “in improper lease-reimbursement payments.”
• Found similar problems at six other charter schools in March 2013
• 11 area schools were not complying with state laws and regulations
50Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Recent Charter “Bad Actors”
• Four charter schools in a Pennsylvania network:• Loaned $3.3 million to CMO • Made $1.5 million in lease payments to CMO and CMO-
controlled property-management entities• $6.3 million in administrative fees paid to CMO in 2012• The network’s combined real-estate holdings increased
from $13.34 million in 2011 to $23.15 million in 2012
51Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Recent Charter “Bad Actors”• Texas charter school recently accused of:
• Funneling of $5.3 million in federal funds to questionable destinations, including “hotels, cruises and travel packages”
• Six-figure salaries• Real estate scheme involving a management company and the
charter school
• NYC Charter Network• Zero tolerance policy for children with “special needs or behavior
problems”• Suspended 22% of its students at least once during the 2010-11
school year – “far above the 3% average” of other elementary schools in the district
52Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Disclaimer• This presentation is intended solely to provide general
information and does not constitute legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.
53Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
GROUP DISCUSSION
54Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC