Interview with Elizabeth Evans and Eric Osberg and Jim Griffin and Marc Kenen on Field Trip Around the States

Massachusetts is recognized as having one of the most successful charter school initiatives in the country. Its record of developing high-performing charter schools in high-need communities and its success at serving students at risk of educational failure, provide a model for charter school initiatives across the country.
The success of the charter school movement in Massachusetts and the reasons the State has received such recognition, are principally due to three factors; Massachusetts has:
• A rigorous and transparent state public education assessment system, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), which is clearly aligned with the state curriculum frameworks for all charter and district public schools
• One of the best charter authorizers in the country, the Massachusetts Board of Education
• High-performing charter schools serving students at risk of educational failure in high need communities
However, many of these high communities are close to reaching the 9% cap on charter school spending. This means that, unless the legislature raised the cap, the creation of new charter schools in high need communities will come to a grinding halt. One of the top priorities of the Massachusetts charter school community is to raise this 9% cap.

Colorado's charter law provides a combination of features to support facilities needs. It begins with a number of statutory features intended to make charters better "credits" such as long-term charter contracts, legal standing to sue and be sued as distinct public entities, and a clear route to follow for obtaining tax-exempt financing.

Our statute also provides credit enhancement features for a variety of charters that meet minimum credit standards - over 200 million in tax exempt bonds have been issued with the assistance of our state's credit enhancement.

This school year the state will provide $7.8 million in per pupil facilities aid (about $200 per pupil at eligible charters).

Finally, Colorado's statute strongly encourages school districts to include charters in their capital planning, and has a mechanism by which charters can be included in district bond elections. Over the past few years charters have benefitted from over $30 million in bond money as a result of being included in district bond elections.

While there are a few legislators here that would love to cap charter growth, we don't believe it's much more than a small percentage of the legislature.

Hi Jake, thanks for your question. I certainly hope so. There's a group in Colorado, Metro Organizations for People, that has been working to bring WSF to Denver. They've put together an interesting little report showing how this could work there (see http://www.mopdenver.org/; it's called "Unraveling the DPS Budget"). And they hosted an event on this topic that I hope has generated some buzz. As for whether politicians there are actively considering it yet, I'm not certain, but I hope they do so soon! It would have great benefits both for funding equity overall and, if done properly, for the funding of charter schools. It certainly would be a more productive reform than the 65 percent solution, a gimmick that happens to be a big topic in CO now.

PS -- Fordham's report on WSF is available on our site at http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=357

As I just said to Jake, I do think Weighted Student Funding would help, by ensuring that a student's education is funded the same whether he attends a charter school or district school. But even short of that comprehensive reform, there are a number of things states can do. They can improve facilities funding, first of all -- too few charter schools have access to facilities dollars. Charter schools also lack access to local funding (as opposed to state and federal funding). There are a variety of reasons for this, but to alleviate it states can work to require districts to share these funds with charters or, alternatively, work to increase the share of state funds available to charter schools.

States also need to ensure that the processes for funding charters work smoothly. For example, in some places charters must be designated as LEAs (Local Education Agencies) to apply for certain funds, an unnecessary burden. In other places, funds flow through the district first, which can withhold funds from charters. And in other places charters must apply for a daunting number of categorical programs. All of these problems can and should be addressed.

I don't forsee much impact in November here in Illinois. The polls in our gubernatorial elections show us keeping our incumbent governor, who has not been supportive of charters. The bigger question for us will be Mayoral elections in 2007. Chicago's Mayor has been the one loudest voice for charters in our state. It is more likely than not that he will run for reelection but we won't know for sure until later this Fall.

In Colorado we have no incumbent governor, and the signs are certainly not pointing to an anti-incumbent purge in our legislature. Interestingly, the strongest charter supporters tend to be among the safest incumbents anyway (both R and D), so the anti-incumbent push probably won't matter.

If you are asking about funding targetted to high-risk and special needs students, Illinois' charters are not receiving their fair share. We have been in protracted conversation with CPS about allocation of the federal "special categorical" funding (think of everything but Title I funding). While charter school students are included in the counts that determine the size of CPS' federal grants, the charter schools do not receive a proportionate share of the federal grants.

If you are asking about Title I money, or the state companion money, the picture is more mixed. CPS has an elaborate formula for allocating a proportionate share of that funding to the charters but in other charter schools they have a harder time even accessing this mandated funding.

There's no short answer to that question, but let me try. I see the major problems being of two types -- those from the "outside," and those from within the charter movement itself.

From the outside, I've already argued that charter funding is a problem (we found charters typically receive about 20% less funding per pupil than district schools). They're also constrained by caps limiting their growth, either in terms of number of schools or in terms of their financial impact. More than half of the charter states have some sort of cap. And charters are also facing enormous political and public pressures. In Ohio, for example, the unions have tried to rule them unconstitutional. All of these outside pressures surely make it difficult for charters schools to devote 100% of their energy to educating their students.

But charters also face problems from within, primarily that since their inception there has not been sufficient emphasis on quality. (Too many advocates have worried first about the quantity of scohols). That's starting to change, especially as people recognize the importance of good authorizing to ensure quality among charters. But until more charters demonstrate continued and significant academic success, I think these outside pressures will remain (and possibly intensify).

Access to quality facilities (at afforable rates), uneven authorizing landscape (particularly among local school boards), and there are never enough high quality people to work in and serve on the boards of charters across Colorado.

The lack of alternative authorizers had made it impossible to make a movement out of a local initiative. There are 881 school districts in Illinois and only 1 (Chicago) is actively chartering. But, problem 2-- there are only 3 charters left for Chicago to grant. And, there are only 60 charters total permitted in the state. Which brings us to problem 3-- a lack of political champions. We raise our voices but with 17000 students statewide in charters, Illinois' charters account for .8% of the 2 million public school students in the state. We look to states with strong executive leadership--New Mexico, South Carolina and California--for models. Our work here is focused on building charter champions for Illinois.

I would suggest two good resources. One is the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, our generous hosts today. From their home page, www.publiccharters.org, on the lower left you can click on your state to see a snapshot of the charter movement there. Another good resource is the Center for Education Reform (www.edreform.com). Their "fast facts" link on the right will lead you to state-by-state descriptions of charter laws.

And if you do have a cap, complain to your representatives. Tell them your state needs more quality options for its students, not fewer!

You can check with your state Board of Education. You could also check with the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which has a wealth of information about how the states stack up with each other and what their charter policies are.