Interview with Morgan Brown on Guest Speaker: Morgan Brown, Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education

Absolutely. One of the benefits of having "cut my teeth" in a state that has been as progressive on school choice as Minnesota is that I've been able to see the full spectrum of education options in operation and how they benefit a wide range of students.

Between open enrollment, post-secondary enrollment options, alternative schools, charter schools, online learning, and a variety of non-public school choices, one out of every four K-12 students in Minnesota is accessing an education option outside of attending an assigned district school. (This statistic doesn't even include magnet schools and other intra-district options.)

I should also mention that the Division of School Choice & Innovation that I managed at the MN Dept of Education before coming to the U.S. Dept of Education was partially modeled on the Office of Innovation & Improvement (OII) when it was created in early 2003. In fact, Nina Rees and I discussed what OII might look like at a state level so I'm a huge supporter of having entities like OII within an education agency that can help advocate for the benefits of high quality education options internally and externally.

I have provided a more detailed response below, but the short answer is that this really depends on the grant program and the authorizing legislation passed by Congress to create it.

The Office of Innovation & Improvement (OII) has made efforts to ensure charter schools are receiving formula grants they are entitled to and are aware of discretionary grants they are eligible for through some of the application requirements for the Charter School Program (CSP) and events like the Charter School Showcase conference held in May 2006.

Please visit the Department or OII's website for information about specific programs and charter school eligibility. (www.ed.gov)

MORE INFO:

A formula grant is an award that is based on a predetermined formula and is given non-competitively. These grants are funded under what are sometimes referred to as "state-administered programs" or "statutory entitlement programs," and are administered by various program offices within the Department (example: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education - Title I). Generally, formula grants are awarded to state agencies that administer various kinds of assistance, mostly to local education agencies (LEA). In addition, federal regulation requires States to provide all public schools in the state, including charter schools, with information about Federal programs in which they may participate and ensure that all public schools in the state, including charter schools, receive their commensurate share of Federal education funds that are allocated by formula each year.

A discretionary grant is an award made by the Department for which the Department makes a decision about which applicants receive funding. Virtually all of the Department’s discretionary grants are made based on a competitive review process. The Department reviews applications in light of the legislative and regulatory requirements established for a discretionary grant program.

The application package for particular grant competition specifies the eligibility requirements, generally drawn from the legislation establishing the program. Eligibility might be limited to a particular type of organization (e.g., only state education agencies), organizations that serve only a particular group (e.g., disadvantaged students), or organizations that meet some other criteria. In some cases, an organization wishing to apply under a particular program must first apply to the Department to be certified as eligible for that program.

The Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) was created in late 2002.

The Charter Schools Program (CSP), which OII administers, is the most prevalent source of start-up funding available to charter schools. Nearly two-thirds have received federal CSP funds during their start-up phase. Charter schools primarily use CSP funds to purchase technology and curricular and instructional materials, as well as to fund professional development activities.

CSP has received over $1.7 billion from Congress since 1995, and it is primarily directed to States to plan and implement charter schools and to fund facilities. State education agencies (SEA) use their CSP funds to award sub-grants to eligible applicants for planning, program design, and initial implementation of a charter school; and to support the dissemination of information about, including successful practices in, charter schools.

In addition, OII manages the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program, which provides grants to eligible entities to leverage funds through credit enhancement initiatives in order to assist charter schools in using private sector capital to acquire, construct, renovate, or lease academic facilities.

Please see the answer to the previous question for further discussion of grant programs that charter schools may be eligible for or visit OII's website at www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/index.html

You are correct about the fast-growing, positive impact of charter schools in our nation's capital. More than 17,000 students -- 25% of all public school students -- now attend D.C. charter schools. In a community where a recent Washington Post poll found that just 15% of DC voters have confidence in the local school district, charters are obviously providing crucial options that are in high demand.

The reasons why some states don't have charter school laws (or have weak laws that have resulted in the creation of few schools) is a complicated mix of state histories, political environments, etc. In a 2005 report, the National Charter School Research Project stated that "chartering . . . is less of a national movement than a reform implemented by states in vastly different ways."

To me, the remarkable thing is that "chartering", as an education innovation, has spread so quickly in just 15 years. From the birth of a couple schools in my home state of Minnesota, we now have 3,600 charter school laws in 40 states and D.C. serving over a million students. Unlike so many other education reforms, chartering clearly appears to be an innovation that is here to stay.

As school choice advocates consider how to make progress in the 10 "unreached" states that do not have charter school laws (or how to strengthen existing laws in other states), we should not be afraid of incremental progress. Minnesota started out with a law with a cap of 8 schools, but is now recognized as one of the strongest laws in the country in terms of autonomy for schools, alternative authorizers, facilities aid, etc.

While it's difficult to comment on the ranking of Arizona's overall K-12 education system without knowing the specifics of a particular study, I believe the promise of charter schools to improve public education lies in two areas.

1) Creating an "open sector" of public education in which innovation can flourish while strengthening new schools accountability to parents. I think charter schools have already demonstrated that they can provide choices in school models, curricula, etc. that better meet a broader range of students' educational needs.

Since we have embarked on the unprecedented effort in the U.S. to educate all students in K-12, I often think about the statement of one school choice leader in Minnesota that we need to recognize that "we will not be able to get the kind of schools we need just be changing the schools we have."

2) Providing a means to improve conventional public schools either by the sharing of effective practices or the incentives of a more open educational marketplace. While there is some limited positive evidence in this area, I think we are still faced by questions about whether some innovations implemented by charter schools can be successfully "imported" by district schools without fundamental changes in the laws and regulations governing conventional public schools.

Without question, the most important overall initiative is making improvements in the Charter School Program (CSP) when it comes up for reauthorization by Congress, potentially next year. CSP is a good law, but it was written in the mid-90s and I think we all realize much has happened to the charter school movement since then.

I know the National Alliance is developing its own recommendations for CSP reauthorization and I look forward to reviewing them. Personally, I have a strong interest in making sure that the dissemination portion of CSP is really assisting in the replication of high quality school models.

Beyond CSP, I hope the Department can continue to use its "bully pulpit" to be a voice for improvements in state charter school laws, as Secretary Spellings did when she criticized "caps" on the number of charter schools that can be opened in certain states. I would also like to see the Department play a role in encouraging more states to allow for alternative authorizers of charter schools.

Good afternoon! Thank you for joining me during my portion of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ Virtual Back to School Day. I am honored to participate in today’s event and want to thank Nelson Smith, President of the Alliance, and everyone who helped coordinate this day-long discussion of charter schools.

Prior to arriving at the U.S. Department of Education last month, I worked at several non-profit organizations and a state education agency for nine years promoting education reform and providing outreach to families regarding their educational options. My most recent post was serving as the director of the Division of School Choice & Innovation at the Minnesota Department of Education. While there, I managed the administration of 25 programs in such areas as school choice, nonpublic school options, and supplemental educational services.

In my new position heading up the Office of Innovation and Improvement, my staff and I spend a lot of time thinking about school choice, how we can best support it, how we can effectively evaluate it, and how we can expand it. Public charter schools play a prominent role in these discussions not only because of OII’s administration of the Charter School Program (CSP) under the No Child Left Behind Act, but also because I believe that charter schools are creating an “open sector” of public education that will better meet a broad range of students' academic and social needs.

My two elementary-school-age sons got a kick out of the fact that Dad was going to be joining them in going “back to school” today so I asked them if they had any advice they thought I should pass on to others who are participating in this event. They jointly offered the following words of wisdom: “Remember to be on time, follow the rules, do your homework, and get good grades.” It’s hard to improve on that, but I’ll do my best and look forward to answering your questions.

NCLB will be up for reauthorization as soon as next year.

While the Office of Innovation & Improvement does not oversee the Highly Qualified Teacher requirements in NCLB, I'm aware of the concerns that have been raised about HQT, especially by those who run or want to start non-course based school models with teachers who embrace an interdisciplinary (and often project-based) approach to learning.

At this point in the Department's planning for reauthorization of NCLB, very few definite policy decisions have been made and I look forward to discussing the implementation of HQT with my colleagues and what kind of feedback we are getting from a variety of schools in the field.

A report released last August by the Fordham Foundation brought additional needed attention to this issue.

Coming from a state (Minnesota) in which almost all forms of state funding follow students to their public school of choice, including charter schools, I have seen the benefits of funding equity, especially when it is combined with school autonomy (charter schools in MN are their own LEAs).

I should also note that the 2005 report of a Task Force on Charter School Quality & Accountability (that I participated in), which was coordinated by the National Alliance, had some strong recommendations in this area.

Generally, I think the Department's greatest leverage (through the Charter School Program) is on insisting that SEAs make available commensurate federal forumla grant funding to charters and notify charters of their eligibility for federal discretionary grant programs (see answer to earlier question).

However, the issue of K-12 funding equity and fairness for charters should probably be added to the list of possible priorities for the use of the Department's "bully pulpit" as well (see answer to earlier question).

Single-sex education models -- either whole school or by class -- are appropriate choices for families to have and it appears demand is growing in some communities for these models. My general understanding is that the revised Title IX guidelines provide some flexibility for both school districts and charter schools to experiment with single-sex education within the parameters of the guidelines and state law.

As the number of single-sex schools grows, we need to have more research on their impact on student academic improvement, but there are some positive indicators already. I would encourage you to look at the report on the companion Brighter Choice Charter Schools for Boys and for Girls in Albany, NY that were featured in my office's August 14 edition of The Education Innovator (our e-newsletter). It is available on the Dept's webside: www.ed.gov