CHARTER SCHOOLS and small group discussion Brette Kaplan, Esq. [email protected] Julia Martin, Esq. [email protected] Steven Spillan, Esq. [email protected]

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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Federal Policy Trends


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


SPECIAL ISSUESFor Charter Schools


FUNDING ALLOCATIONSFor Charter Schools


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)


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


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


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


ESEA Allocations

• To qualify for §5206 allocations:• 120-day notice• Establish eligibility• Provide data needed to reasonably estimate allocation amount

• Provide actual enrollment data


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


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


ASSURANCESIn the Charter School Grant Program


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


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.


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


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


CSP Assurances: Common Problems• State policymaking/approval procedures

• Process vs. speed

• Internal political obstacles• Charter school authorizers vs. CMOs


DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUESFor Charter Schools


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


39

Source: Education Needs to Further Examine Data Collection on English Language Learners in Charter Schools, GAO (July 2013)

Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC


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


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.


FACILITIESAnd Issues for Charter Schools


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


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


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


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


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


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!


OPERATOR FRAUDIn Charter Schools


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


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


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


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.


GROUP DISCUSSION


Documents

CHARTER SCHOOLS and small group discussion Brette Kaplan, Esq. [email protected] Julia Martin, Esq. [email protected] Steven Spillan, Esq. [email protected]