Legislative Committee

1. Legislative Committee October 8, 2012 Charter School Facilities Options

2. Colorado Charter School Facilities • In 2007, the Colorado League of Charter Schools launched a Facilities Task Force. • Goal: to advocate for removal of barriers to adequate and equitable access to public school facilities and financing for Colorado charter schools. • A key missing piece was reliable data on the condition and cost of charter school facilities.

3. Colorado Charter School Facilities • The League developed a comprehensive survey to gather objective, reliable facilities data from Colorado’s charter community. • The League published the results of the surveyin a 2008 report entitled, “ShortchangedCharters: How Funding Disparities Hurt Colorado’s Charter Schools.” • The Report, and the data the survey revealed, provided the League’s Task Force with the necessary information to build its policy framework.

4. Charter School Facilities Initiative (CSFI) • Seeing the success of the Colorado facilities initiative, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the League replicated the survey model in three additional states (Georgia, Indiana, and Texas). In Fall 2011, the League also conducted survey work in New York and Tennessee. • Starting in 2011, the U.S. Department of Education contracted with the League to conduct further state facilities surveys with an ultimate goal of building a national dataset of charter school facility information. • The League is currently completing survey analysis in Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey.

5. CSFI Findings From data collected thus far, key findings include: • On average, charter schools spend 14% of operating revenue on facilities. • Charters utilizing district space only spend around 2% of operating revenue on facilities.

6. CSFI Findings • Local and state capital funding programs are not a significant source of funding for charter school facilities. • Four of the seven states studied do not permit public charter schools access to local tax revenue. • On average, in the states where it is permissible for charter schools to access local tax revenue, fewer than five percent have benefitted.

7. CSFI Findings • At least 2/3 of charter school facilities and 2/3 of charter classrooms do not meet industry standards in their respective states. • A majority (62%) of charter schools do not have kitchen facilities that are compliant with NSLP guidelines.

8. CSFI Findings • The majority of charter schools are missing at least one amenity such as a library, music room, art room, athletic field, gymnasium, etc. • Fewer than five percent of charter schools are able to access unused or underutilized public school facilities even when nearby.

9. Policy Tools • Access to public space/ local property tax revenue • Local bond elections • Locally raised property taxes (unallocated) • Access to local facilities (continuum from suggested to mandatory) • Per pupil funding (e.g. MN, DC, FL, CO) • Can be somewhat tied to expenditures/ need • Unfortunately tied to state appropriations • State grant programs • In CO tied to facilities most in need of repair/ replacement

10. Policy Tools (cont) • Financing conduit (http://www.cecfa.org/) • Can involve any variety of public bodies • Enabling legislation can specify eligibility • Credit tools • Contract security (e.g. longevity, enforcement) • Predictability around renewal • Credit enhancement: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Treasury_v2/CBON/1251590262898 • Moral obligation thru state guarantee • Intercept program