1 / 77

Charter School Initiatives

Charter School Initiatives. Julia Martin, Esq. jmartin@bruman.com Brette Kaplan, Esq. bkaplan@bruman.com Steve Spillan, Esq. sspillan@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC www.bruman.com Fall Forum 2012. Agenda. National Trends Guidance Accountability Monitoring

frederique
Download Presentation

Charter School Initiatives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Charter School Initiatives Julia Martin, Esq. jmartin@bruman.com Brette Kaplan, Esq. bkaplan@bruman.com Steve Spillan, Esq. sspillan@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC www.bruman.com Fall Forum 2012

  2. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Agenda • National Trends • Guidance • Accountability • Monitoring • Charter Schools Program • Issues of Equity • Political Perspectives

  3. National Trends in Charter Schools

  4. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Increasing Numbers • Overall, huge growth in number of charters and number of charter students • In 2011: • More than 5000 Charter schools nationwide • Serving 2 million students (about 3% of total) • There are 100 cities where charters serve 10% of students or more

  5. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Push to Remove Caps • Currently, 25 States have caps on the number of charter schools • Different types of caps: • Number of schools chartered/number of active charters • Number of students in charter schools • Limits to annual growth in number of schools or % of students in charters • Why remove caps? • Allows growth of good models, competition in charter “market” • BUT caps incentivize closure of unsuccessful models/problem schools

  6. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Push for More Authorizers • According to 2011 survey by National Association of Charter School Authorizers: • 1000 chartering authorities nationwide • 850 are LEAs • LEAs authorize 52% of charters • Why more authorizers? • More charters • Process moves more quickly • Less bias?

  7. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Increase in State/Local Voucher Programs • Basic idea: “funding portability” • In 2011, 15 States had some kind of voucher/tax credit program • 42 more were considering legislation • Some cities have similar programs • E.g., Los Angeles, Rochester, Newark, Boston • Specifics of programs – and degree of “portability” varies

  8. Guidance

  9. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Guidance • Draft Guidance “The Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools” (2003) • Revised Guidance released (July 2004) http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/charterguidance03.doc • Charter School Program Guidance (April 2011)http://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/nonregulatory-guidance.doc

  10. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Guidance: Key Points • As applied to charter schools, most oversight requirements can be found in the guidance • Lacks authority of formal rules • Knowing a charter school’s legal designation • Identifying the oversight agent under State charter school law

  11. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Guidance: Legal Designation • State law defines whether a charter school is either a: • Charter school that is a part of an LEA (similar to a traditional public school); or • LEA-charter school (charter school that serves as its own district) • ED guidance uses the above designations • Some State laws are not clear on designation, making implementation an adventure!!!

  12. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Guidance: Chartering Agency • Authorized Public Chartering Agency: • An SEA, LEA or other public entity that has authority pursuant to State law and approved by the Secretary to authorize or approve charter schools. Section 5210(4). • The charter school authorizer will differ depending on State law • University • School District • State Department of Education • Other chartering entity • The responsible entity for accountability will vary depending on State law.

  13. Accountability

  14. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC ESEA Applicability • Assessments • Adequate Yearly Progress • School Improvement • Choice • Supplemental Services • Corrective Action & Restructuring

  15. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Accountability (Section 1111) • Charters MUST comply with every aspect of ESEA’s accountability system: • Held to State-developed content and academic achievement standards • Participate in the State assessment system • Compared to the State-developed AYP measure • Identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring when failing to making AYP, if charter receives Title I funds

  16. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Accountability (Section 1111) • All students must be “proficient” by 2013-2014 • Disaggregation by student subgroup: • Racial & ethnic minorities • Students with disabilities • English Language Learners • Students from low income families

  17. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Accountability (Section 1111) • To make AYP, the school or LEA must meet or exceed the State’s annual measurable objectives • All students, and each student subgroup must make AYP • 95% student participation • Safe harbor provisions • Statistical “N” size and confidence interval • LEA student exclusions • Students with disabilities exclusions • Approved State pilot growth model may apply

  18. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Implementing Accountability • State’s charter school law determines responsible entity • Usually, the authorizer is responsible: • The charter authorizer is primarily responsible for holding charter schools accountable under Title I, Part A provisions • Unless State law designates the SEA for charter school Accountability • See Guidance at A-2 • If charter is within LEA, LEA has grants management responsibilities

  19. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Implementing Accountability: Capacity Concerns • Guidance: SEA may make available to authorizers various Title I resources to perform ESEA required duties, but not legally required • 1% of Title I allocation • 4 % School improvement • Resource/capacity issue makes ESEA enforcement by authorizers more challenging

  20. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Accountability: SEA Liability • Guidance: Title I State accountability plan must be consistent with State charter law & may not “replace or duplicate” role of authorizer • But what if authorizer fails to take action? • Grants management principles apply – State ultimately responsible for State-administered programs • Guidance: SEA ultimately responsible for implementation of, and compliance with, the Title I requirements by all public schools in the State receiving Title I funds, including traditional public schools and charter schools. • Guidance does not address responsibility if there is a conflict under the State’s charter school law

  21. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Charter and ESEA Conflict • Guidance states that authorizers may incorporate State’s AYP definition into charter, but are not required to • But what if conflict exists? • Ex: What if charter provides for 5% improvement, but State’s AMO is to improve 10%? • Federal law is supreme! 10% would govern for AYP • Should charter be amended in this case? • Not required by ESEA • Can SEA/LEA/authorizer force charter to be amended? • Not explicitly required

  22. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Charter and ESEA Conflict • Charter may contain more rigorous accountability requirements than State plan • If charter school fails to make AYP, even if it meets contractual requirements with authorizers, ESEA consequences must be carried out

  23. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC School ImprovementSection 1116

  24. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Public School Choice • How choice is implemented depends on status of charter school: • If charter school is part of LEA, then LEA’s responsibility • If LEA-charter school, then school or authorizers responsibility

  25. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Public School Choice • Duty of LEA/authorizer/entity under State law to: • Promptly inform parents of: identification, what ID means, what school is doing to improve, what help school is getting, how parents can become involved, options for choice/SES • Notify parents of right to return to “home” public school • Ensure that the charter school receives technical assistance • Review school’s improvement plan through peer-review process

  26. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Public School Choice • If the charter school is part of an LEA… • The charter school may be subject to receiving choice students, as any traditional public school • This may be inconsistent with contents of charter

  27. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Public School Choice • Charter school-LEAs must “to the extent practicable” work with local LEAs to create a student transfer agreement • Similar to a district where there is no viable transfer option • States may allow SES in 1st year of school improvement if there is a failure to reach an agreement • LEAs & charter school LEAs with no transfer options may offer SES in 1st school year of improvement

  28. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Public School Choice • Implications for LEA-charter schools: • If charter school is not authorized by LEA, charter school must agreeto be a transfer option (i.e., LEA cannot mandate without school agreement) • See ED’s School Choice Guidance at E-1 (Jan. 2009) • LEA-charter school defined as single school LEA • To “extent practicable” charter school must have cooperative agreement with neighboring LEA(s) to facilitate choice • If no agreement, parents must be informed student is eligible for choice, including return to “home” public school, but that no choice option is available • May offer SES instead of public school choice

  29. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Supplemental Educational Services (SES)

  30. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC SES: LEA Duties • LEAs send annual notice to parents • LEAs must arrange for services and enter into agreements with SES providers • LEAs must abide by FERPA • Possible conflict with charter, if charter school has exclusive contract with tutoring provider

  31. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC SES: LEA Duties • LEA charter schools must pay for SES on same basis as any other LEA • Unless a lesser amount is needed, an LEA-charter school must spend an amount equal to 20% of Title I funds on: • Choice related transportation; • SES; or • Combination of 1 and 2

  32. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC SES: LEA Duties • In practice, because an LEA-charter school is not required to provide choice if not “practicable,” most LEA-charters will spend the 20% on SES (unless a lesser amount is needed)

  33. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC SES: Eligible Entity • Charter schools that are not identified for improvement are eligible to provide SES • If charter schools are among the eligible entities to provide SES to students who qualify, charter schools must meet State requirements • It is not automatically granted

  34. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Corrective Action

  35. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Charter Corrective Action • If charter school that receives Title I funds is unable to make AYP for 4 years, charter school is placed on corrective action • Only in guidance • Responsible entity (presumably authorizer) can reorganize management and take other actions consistent with State charter school law and State’s accountability plan

  36. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Charter Corrective Action • According to guidance, the appropriate entity has the responsibility to reorganize charter school management “consistent with State charter law and State’s accountability plan for charters.” • Guidance states that State charter law will determine if corrective action requires modification of the charter document.

  37. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Charters and Restructuring

  38. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Charters and Restructuring • ESEA allows for LEAs to “reopen the school as a public charter school” • This is one of 5 alternative governance options • Guidance is unclear regarding what is required if State law is silent on restructuring or if it conflicts with charter • Lots of open questions

  39. Monitoring

  40. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Monitoring • Grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of grant and subgrant supported activities to ensure compliance with Federal requirements and that performance goals are being met. • 34 CFR Section § 80.40(a) • Monitoring is the regular and systematic examination of a State’s administration and implementation of a Federal education grant.

  41. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC SASA Monitoring – ESEA Title I, Title III

  42. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC SASA Monitoring - SIG

  43. Charter Schools Program

  44. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC CSP Generally • Designed to support the planning, development, and initial implementation of charter schools during their first three years of existence • Provides dissemination grants to facilitate the sharing of practices between charter schools and other public schools

  45. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC CSP Generally • ED awards grants to SEA or to “eligible applicants” • If SEA does not apply, “eligible applicants” can apply directly to ED • Program requires a State charter school law, and charters must meet a 12 part definition in Section 5210(1) (no waivers permitted for the definition of a charter school)

  46. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC CSP Start-Up Grants • May not exceed period of 3 years • Post-award planning and design of the educational program (18 month limit) • Refinement of educational results, methods for measuring progress, professional development of teachers who will work in school • Initial implementation of the charter school (24 month limit) • Informing community about school, acquiring necessary equipment and other educational materials, other initial operational costs that cannot be met from State or local sources • So, if 18 months on planning, only 18 more permitted for implementation

  47. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC CSP Dissemination • 2 year period • Purpose: Helping charters overcome: • Political conflict • Variations in quality • Challenges to meaningful collaboration/ experience sharing • Difficulties to “scaling-up” effective approaches • Isolation of the charter school community, to share experience with traditional public schools

  48. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC CSP Dissemination Only qualifying charter schools are eligible for the dissemination grant: • In operation for 3 consecutive years, and • Shown substantial improvement in student achievement • Have high levels of parental involvement • Include management and leadership that have overcome start-up issues and are thriving • SEA may reserve up to 10% of CSP grant to support dissemination activities

  49. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC CSP Dissemination • Dissemination grants have not thrived • Challenges remain: • Between 2000 - 2005, few States had considerable charters meeting the minimum eligibility requirements • Charters had difficulty identifying non-charter schools that were interested in participating in dissemination activities • Few States conducted evaluations of their statewide dissemination grant programs

  50. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC CSP and Private Schools • Private schools do not meet the definition of a charter school under the ESEA • Cannot receive CSP funds • Can’t make the switch to get CSP funds: • ESEA does not recognize conversions of private schools into public charter schools

More Related