CSDC Charter Schools Development Center Charter School Policy Update San Diego Charter Schools Consortium May, 2002 Presented by: Eric Premack

CSDC Charter Schools Development Center

Charter School Policy Update

San Diego Charter Schools Consortium

May, 2002Presented by: Eric Premack

www.cacharterschools.org© 2002 CSDC


Legislation

• Charter-specific legislation:– AB 168 (Nation)

• Passed both houses, now on Governor’s desk

• Extends charter funds transfer authorization another 3 years

• Perfunctory, yet essential bill


Legislation (2)• “Satellite” and “Long-Distance” Charters

– Intense legislative backlash regarding charter schools with out-of-district and/or “satellite” charter sites

– Allegations of abuse, illegal activity regarding several charter schools:

• Gateway (Fresno), One Step Up (Fresno), Sierra Summit (revoked), California Charter Academy, etc.

• Several bills pending that would restrict location of charter school to either district or county boundaries

• Other bills would expand county office oversight roles/powers


Legislation (3)– “Satellite” charters continued . . .

• AB 1994 (Reyes) seems likely lead bill– Limits school to locating in county where charter was granted or

county immediately adjacent to district if district is on county border

– Other miscellaneous restrictions, at request of CDE:

» Notify parents of credit transfer, A-G course eligibility

» New schools must start by Sept. 30th

» New charter element must describe school closure audit and recordkeeping

• Others bills pending that would expand county office oversight, impose more severe geographic restrictions, etc.


Legislation (4)

– AB 1930 (Wyland) would authorize 15-year charter terms

– SB 1708 (Poochigian) would authorize extended year funding for special ed students in charter schools

– SB 1709 (Poochigian) would expand new CDE audit transmittal to SCO and COE


Legislation (4)– AB 16 (Hertzberg) state facilities bond

• Places two major state school facilities bonds on ballot• “Set aside” for charters ($100 and $400 million)?!• Additional legislation anticipated, allocation of funds and regulatory strings

are key unresolved issues

– AB 2160 (Goldberg) would extend scope of collective bargaining to instructional and accountability matters

• Extremely controversial• Yet another reason to be a charter, especially an independent one

– AB 2130 (Simitian) would remove cap on grades 2-6 remedial hourly (summer school)


Other News

• Judge strikes CDE’s order that charters submit end-of-year financial data– Unusually strong, summary judgment decision– Presumably no requirement to report J-200 or

related data

• Department of Finance and State Controller pushing for charter inclusion in Audit Guide– Potentially nightmarish web of audit requirements


State Budget• Grim state budget picture offers conflicting signals

– State is broke:• Shortfall estimated at $20 billion

– But Proposition 98 guarantee growing• $830 million higher than Governor’s January estimates

– Charter financial “crystal ball” is foggy– Anticipate creative math for both Proposition 98 guarantee and overall

state budget– Will K-12 receive growth and COLA funding?

• COLA stands officially at 1.66 percent, but whether it will be funded is unknown


Block Grant on the Table

– Charter Categorical Block Grant• Declining due to expiration of “one-time” and limited-term

funding programs, and . . .• Governor is proposing to end current instructional materials

and library funding programs, most of which are in block grant – Consolidate existing IMF and library programs into:

» $250 million ongoing block grant» $200 million one-time reading/language arts» $100 million one-time K-4 classroom & library» $75 million one-time science lab equipment

– Total $625 million, worth over $100/ADA in charter block grant

• Pending legislation (AB 1781) would implement Governor’s proposals


Eric’s “Crystal Ball”Estimated 2002-03 Block Grant Rates

(per ADA)

• Plus lottery funding (est. $130/ADA)

• Plus $110 for each English learner and free lunch student

• All estimates highly variable & likely to change

Source/Grades K-3 4-6 7-8 9-12 General purpose $4,494 $4,557 $4,692 $5,432 Categorical 292 300 219 278 Totals $4,786 $4,857 $4,911 $5,710


Eric’s “Crystal Ball” (2)

• 2002-03 categorical funding estimates:– K-3 Class Size Reduction: $902

• Strong pressure to ease cap

– Staff Development “Buy Out:” $298

– Supplemental Hourly: $3.43/hour

– SB 740 Facilities???

– Estimates highly variable and subject to change


Accountability• STAR:

– Last year for SAT-9– California Achievement Test (CAT-6) to replace in ’03

• Mix of full and abbreviated batteries

– CA Standards Tests• Sub-scores forthcoming, may provide helpful diagnostic

information• New general math test for 8/9 graders not enrolled in usual

math courses, tied to 6/7 grade standards• Future changes:

– 5th grade science test coming– Math to be separated from norm-referenced test– Web-based practice materials


Accountability (2)• Academic Performance Index (API)

– Rapidly evolving, emphasis on norm-referenced test declining, California Standards Test increasing

– Major technical problems with many changes and phase-ins over next several years

– Poor alignment with new federal requirements for adequate yearly progress (“AYP”)

– Does your school belong in the alternative API?


Accountability (3)

• High School Exit Exam– Ongoing study, debate over whether it’s ready

for high-stakes• Many believe it’s a ripe litigation target

– Options under consideration:• Shorter version

• Whether STAR tests could be used to allow students to “test out”


Accountability (4)

• Growing concern regarding lack of district oversight of charter student performance– Advisory Committee on Charter Schools chair

announced proposal to prohibit charter renewals if school scores 5 or lower on API, absent mitigating circumstances

• Bottom line: – Data is king


Federal Legislation• Massive re-write of ESEA

– Huge expansion of federal role in K-12 education• If you think special education if fun . . .

• New federal mandates:• State standards, testing• “Adequate yearly progress (AYP)”• Teacher credentialing (charter exception)• Teacher quality

– In addition to credentialing requirements– No explicit charter exemption

– Though CA does much of this, many details conflict• State Con App undergoing revision, review


Proposition 39• Generally requires districts to provide facilities for

charter schools• Takes effect statewide in November 2003

– Can take effect earlier on a district-by-district basis if districts pass local bond measures

• July 1 following passage of local bond measure

• Many key terms, definitions, and procedures likely to be clarified in regulations– Currently under consideration by State Board– Uneasy consensus on most terms, except dispute

resolution


Proposition 39 (2)• Must house “in district” students

– “In-district” definition likely to be tied to residency– Without regard to whether resident district granted

charter

• Facilities must be:– “Reasonably equivalent” to those provide for non-

charter schools– “Contiguous,” “furnished,” and “equipped”– “Reasonably near to where the charter school wishes to

locate”


Proposition 39 (3)

• District not required to use unrestricted general fund revenues to house charter schools

• May charge a pro-rata share of district facilities expenses paid from unrestricted general fund revenues, otherwise “rent free”– Regulations call for entering into written use

agreement/lease


Proposition 39 (4)• Timeline proposed in draft regulations

– October 1: charter notifies district of need for upcoming year

– April 1: district makes “final” facilities offer– May 1 (or 30 days after district offer) charter must

accept or decline (starting dispute resolution process)– 7 days prior to start of charter’s school year facilities

must be ready for occupancy– New charters eligible, must meet submission/approval

deadlines– Districts may advance timeline by 2 months


Proposition 39 (5)

• District response to date varies widely– Some already proactive, including charters in bond

measures, exploring innovative facilities partnerships

– Others seemingly in denial

• State bond “set aside” and SB 740 facilities funding may help cushion the impact– Where to count charter enrollment for state bond

funding needs clarification

Documents

CSDC Charter Schools Development Center Charter School Policy Update San Diego Charter Schools Consortium May, 2002 Presented by: Eric Premack