Charter Schools in California - EdSource · increase each year, and a new associa-tion of charter...

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

R E P O R TJ U N E 2 0 0 4

EdSource is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization established in California in 1977.

Independent and impartial, EdSource strives to advance the common good by developing and widely distributing trustworthy, usefulinformation that clarifies complex K–12 education issues and promotes thoughtful decisions about California’s public school system.

n just a dozen years, charterschools have gone from anexperiment involving a

handful of schools and studentsto a sizable and growingsegment of the school system.In California today, one outof every 20 public schoolsis a charter school. Andone out of every 50students is beingeducated in one ofthese schools, whichare allowed to oper-ate outside of manyof the state’s estab-lished rules andregulations for publiceducation.

Those numbers are still relativelysmall, and some educators and localschool leaders barely notice charterschools. Others remain skeptical aboutthe value of this experiment. Nonethe-less, the charter movement appears tobe building. Charter supporters areincreasingly convinced that this newapproach to public schooling holds thepromise of significantly improvingstudent achievement, especially forlow-income and minority students.

There is little doubt that charterschools in California are starting toget more attention from both theirsupporters and their detractors. The

number of charters continues toincrease each year, and a new associa-tion of charter school supporters inCalifornia is dedicated to increasingthe percentage of all public schoolstudents in charter schools from alittle more than 2% to at least 10%within another decade. If the rate ofgrowth in the past decade simplycontinues, the association will notmeet its goal. However, new networksof charter operators—backed in somecases by substantial private donationsfrom individuals and foundations—are starting to scale up their models;and in some of the state’s large urban

school districts, charter schools are emerging as a significantreform strategy. These ef-forts may speed up the charter movement consider-ably. However, the Cali-fornia Teachers Association(CTA) will be workinghard to ensure that exist-ing public schools arenot disadvantaged bythe growing chartermovement and thatteachers in charterschools belong tounions and exerciseconsiderable influ-

ence over how theseschools operate.

This report provides an overviewof where charter schools stand today inCalifornia and the context in whichthey will either thrive or struggle in theyears to come. It includes a quick lookat the origin and intent behind thecharter school movement in the stateand nationally, combined with infor-mation about how charter law andpolicy have evolved. Of particularimportance is the question of howcharter schools are funded, includingthe provisions for facilities. The reportalso presents vital statistics that give asense of what the charter schoolcommunity in the state looks like,

I

Charter Schools in California: An Experiment Coming of Age

char • ter school (chär´ter skool) n. A public schooloperated independently under a performance agreement

with a school district or other public agency; funded on aper-pupil basis; freed from most regulations that apply to

school districts and county offices of education; usually ableto hire its own teachers and other staff; subject to closure if itfails to meet its promises in regard to student outcomes.

including teachers and students. AnEdSource report on student academicperformance in the state’s charterschools will be issued in the fall.

California ventures into charterschools in 1992California was the second state in thecountry (after Minnesota) to enactcharter school legislation. Statelawmakers passed the Charter SchoolsAct of 1992 during a contentiousbattle over a proposed voucher initiativethat would have enabled public moniesto be used for private schools. Theinitiative, which eventually becameProposition 174, put school choice atthe top of the state’s policy agendawhen supporters started gatheringsignatures early in 1992. Althoughvoters soundly defeated Proposition174 in the fall of 1993, it gave momen-tum to California educators andpolicymakers who wanted to see moreoptions and increased parental choicewithin the public school system.

The idea of parents being able tochoose from a variety of school

formats emerged originally as part ofthe alternative education movement ofthe 1960s and ’70s. The premise wasthat tailoring individual schools to theneeds of students, interests of parents,and abilities of educators would resultin more effective schools and higherstudent achievement. The charterschool concept built on these ideas.

Ray Budde is often credited withbeing the conceptual father of charterschools. His 1988 book—Education byCharter: Restructuring School Districts—called for allowing groups of teachersto develop a formal agreement withtheir school boards to operate alterna-tive education programs. Buddethought that such arrangementswould redefine the role of teachersand administrators, with teachersresponsible and accountable forinstruction and pupil outcomes whileadministrators worked on long-termplanning and creating a positiveteaching and learning environment.School boards would focus more onresults and less on administrative andlogistical matters. All parties wouldbe forced to come to consensus on thescope of knowledge that studentsshould develop. Schools would evalu-ate and improve their curricula on anongoing basis.

Charters provide a chance for innovation,greater choice, and improved performanceCalifornia’s law authorizing thecreation of charter schools echoedthese ideas. Its stated intent was to“provide opportunities for teachers,parents, pupils, and communitymembers to establish and maintainschools that operate independentlyfrom the existing school district struc-ture.” According to the legislation, thisindependence was meant to servespecific ends, including: ● Improved pupil learning. ● Increased learning opportunities

for all pupils, with special emphasison those identified as academicallylow achieving.

● Encouragement of different andinnovative teaching methods.

● New professional opportunities forteachers, including the chance to be responsible for the learningprogram at the school site.

● Expanded choice for parents and pupils within the public school system.To reach those ends, the legislation

also sought to combine flexibility withaccountability. The new charterschools would have freedom frommany of the state statutes and regula-tions governing other public schools.In return, they would be expected tomeet measurable pupil outcomes. Thelegislation, in other words, wouldprovide a small number of schools“with a method to change from rule-based to performance-basedaccountability systems.”

Motivated educators and commu-nity members could create schools intheir own vision. The survival of thoseschools would depend on adherenceto the charter, an agreement workedout between school operators and asponsoring school district. The char-ter had to include a way of measuringpupil achievement results. If theschool did not capitalize on its free-dom from bureaucratic requirementsand produce academic results within a specified time period (generally five years), the district could close the school.

California’s Charter Schools Actwas a state-level experiment. Thelegislation limited the number ofcharter schools to 100, with no morethan 10 per school district. The capwas set to quell fears that schoolscreated by inexperienced communitymembers with possibly questionableagendas—and taught by uncreden-

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

2 ● Charter Schools in California ● June 2004

Inside This ReportHopes and Visions Blend with Realities ......4

Creation, Operation, and Governance

of Charter Schools Evolve ............................7

Funding of Charter Schools Is

a Tough Issue ............................................15

Providing Facilities Has Proved To Be

a Major Challenge......................................20

This report was researched and written by:Brian EdwardsMary Perry

With research support from:Noli BrazilCarol Studier

EdSource thanks Reed Hastings for underwritingthe research and development of this report.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.


June 2004 ● Charter Schools in California ● 3

Charter School Vital Statistics: Types of schools

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 6/04

Schools by type in 2003–04

Conversion schools (a regular public school that becomes a charter school) 30%Start-up schools (a school established as a charter school) 70%Classroom-based instruction (a traditional classroom system) 69%Nonclassroom-based instruction (e.g., independent study, computer-based learning) 31%

School configurations in 2003–04Most charter schools, like most traditional schools, are configured as elementary, middle, or high schools. A substantial proportion, however, departfrom that model by serving kindergarten through 12th graders inclusively or serving a grade span that is non-traditional (e.g., grades 3–10). Incomparison to the state as a whole, charter schools are also substantially more likely to be high schools. (Just 11% of all public schools in 2002–03were high schools.)

In the chart to the right:● An elementary school is one in which the lowest grade served is 4 or below

and the highest grade is up through 8. (Examples: K–6, K–8, 2–4, 4–8) ● A middle school is one in which the lowest grade served is 5 or above and the

highest grade is up through 8. (Examples: 5–6, 6–8, 7–8)● A high school is one in which the lowest grade served is 9 or higher and which

serves at least two grades. However, a 7–12 school counts as a high school.(Examples: 9–10, 10–12, 11–12, 7–12)

● A non-traditional school is one that serves only one grade or serves grades inmore than one type listed above. (Examples: K, K–9, 4–12, 1–10, 7–11, 12)

● A K–12 school serves all of grades kindergarten through 12.

Grade levels served in charter schools in 2002–03

A comparison of the grade levels also shows that charter school students are disproportionately of high school age. Of particular note,non-charter enrollments show a drop off in 11th and 12th grades that is not present in charter schools.

Number of students Percent of total enrollment

Grade Charter Non-Charter Charter Non-Charter

Kindergarten 10,737 446,203 8% 7%1st 10,498 475,688 7% 8%2nd 9,957 479,167 7% 8%3rd 9,925 483,203 7% 8%4th 10,015 481,495 7% 8%5th 9,842 478,308 7% 8%6th 10,278 484,960 7% 8%7th 11,686 488,452 8% 8%8th 10,614 462,939 7% 8%Ungraded elementary 350 39,422 <1% 1%9th 13,503 508,605 10% 8%10th 11,711 459,937 8% 8%11th 10,768 417,349 8% 7%12th 11,576 373,605 8% 6%Ungraded secondary 292 23,318 <1% <1%

Total 141,752 6,102,651 100% 100%

K–6

7–8

9–1234% 29%

16% 16%

50% 55%

Elementary42%

Non-traditional15%

K–1213%

Middle/Junior High

7%

High23%



tialed, nonunionized teachers—would not live up to their promiseand would harm students. Policymak-ers built into the experiment arequirement that the CaliforniaDepartment of Education (CDE)complete an evaluation of the charterschool approach six years after theeffective date of the law—longenough to see a complete cycle ofcharter approval and renewal.

By 1995 California’s local educa-tion agencies had approved 100charter schools and the State Board ofEducation had authorization to waivethe cap. This allowed local agencies toapprove about 40 additional charterschools before state policymakersenacted legislation in 1998 allowingdistricts to authorize more charters.

Assembly Bill (AB) 544 ex-panded the statewide cap to 250 in1998–99 and allowed for an addi-tional 100 charters each yearthereafter. In 2003–04 the state has atotal of 459 active charter schools(and 68 with charters pending). (See

Figure 1 on this page.) The bill alsoeliminated the 10-school limit oncharters within a district.

This experiment was to be“revenue neutral,” meaning that thestate would spend no more on charterschools than it otherwise would havespent had charter school studentsattended traditional public schools.Funding would “follow the student”as he or she left a traditional publicschool to attend a charter school. Thecost of school facilities was left out ofthe equation entirely, an omission thatquickly raised ambiguities for charterschools and their districts.

Admissions requirements keep chartersexplicitly publicFrom the beginning, charter schoolshave been envisioned as explicitly publicin certain regards. They are to benonsectarian in their programs, admis-sion policies, employment practices, andall other operations. They cannot chargetuition or discriminate against anystudent based on ethnicity, national

origin, gender, religion, or disability.Like other public schools, such asmagnet schools, they are allowed to haveadmissions guidelines to increase thelikelihood of a match between astudent’s interests and the school’smission. For example, a charter schoolwith a curriculum centered on perform-ing arts may require pupils to audition.

Further, admission to a charterschool is not to be based on where astudent lives, except that when a regularschool is converted to a charter it mustgive preference to students who livewithin the former attendance area.Since 1998 charters have been requiredto use an admissions-by-lottery processif demand exceeds capacity, with pref-erence to pupils residing in the district.The chartering authority can permitother preferences on an individualschool basis as long as they are nondis-criminatory.

Hopes and visions blend with realities In concept, charter schools are easy toembrace. Who could be against the ideaof reducing bureaucracy and red tape inschools in order to focus on results?Certainly policymakers on both sides ofthe aisle can support those goals. Aswith so many education policies,however, the devil lies in the details.When educators in the field start decid-ing how these schools will reallyoperate—and how they will fit into thepublic school system—difficult ques-tions arise and not everyone isoptimistic about charters. Advocatesand opponents make claims and coun-terclaims with respect to this new typeof school. As the movement hasmatured, some studies have looked atthese issues in California and nationally.

Are charter schools more accountablefor results?California law requires charter schoolsto state in their petitions the measura-

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

93–94

94–95

95–96

96–97

97–98

98–99

99–00

00–01

01–02

02–03

03–04

Ope

n ch

arte

r sc

hool

s

459

85

figure 1 The number of charter schools has grown steadilysince 1993


© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

ble pupil achievement outcomes theywill strive for and monitor. The charter-granting agency, which can bea district, county, or state board, canclose the school if it determines thatthe school has not pursued or met itsgoals as stated. Authorizers haverevoked 20 charters, according to aJanuary 2004 report by California’sLegislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).

When charter schools were firstauthorized in California, this“perform or shut down” dynamic didnot exist in the non-charter world.However, that was before the stateimplemented its standards-basedaccountability system in the late1990s based on pupil achievementoutcomes (mostly annual statewidestandardized test results).

Today schools that do not meetperformance targets can face seriousconsequences whether or not they arecharter schools. A 2003 study byCalifornia’s Bureau of State Auditsindicated that these new state policiesmay have considerably more bite thanthose in the charter law. The studyshowed that some charter schoolswere not monitoring student out-comes as outlined in their charters,and the four charter-granting agenciesstudied (large urban districts) werenot holding charters accountable forresults. Questions about accountabil-ity for student performance are anarea of growing focus for chartersupporters and critics alike, just asthey are for the public school systemas a whole.

Do independence and flexibility improveefficiency and encourage innovation?By design, charter schools are exemptfrom many of the laws that governother public schools. Most also do notoperate under the constraints of acollective bargaining agreement andseniority rights with their teachers.

That means they are able to hire theirown teachers rather than taking theones the district sends. Some arrangetheir own contracts for maintenanceand other noneducation services.Further, should they feel constrainedby a particular state law, they can seeka waiver from the State Board ofEducation if their chartering agency

will not seek one for them. (Otherpublic schools must rely on theirgoverning school district to request awaiver on their behalf.)

These freedoms are supposed toallow charter schools to be inventiveand efficient. Charter operators cancertainly offer examples of creativearrangements that allow them to savemoney compared to other publicschools. These savings are supposedto be directed into instruction. Untilrecently, however, California charteroperators could argue that they havenot really had the chance to provethese suppositions. Many start-upschools have had to use operationalfunds for facilities costs. Further, California’s education fundinglevels—particularly in the context ofthe state’s high-cost labor market andhigh proportion of disadvantagedstudents—mean that Californiaschools generally have to get alongwith about a third fewer staff than istrue in other states (though thisvaries by grade level). In addition,about a third of school funding inthis state is earmarked for categoricalprograms, and the charter commu-

nity as a whole gets less categoricalfunding on average than the non-charter sector, according to a 2003RAND evaluation of Californiacharter schools. The net result is thatmost California charter operators saythey have fewer funds than otherpublic schools in the state.

It is possible that some charter

schools have less funding becausetheir operators do not know enoughabout school finance or do not havetime to pursue viable sources ofincome. Charter operators wouldlikely assert that they do not havetime to “jump through hoops” to getthe funding or adhere to program-matic requirements to keep receivingthe money. Many charter schoolscould also be criticized for not beingbig enough to realize economies ofscale. Charter proponents wouldlikely respond that their small sizecreates a more comfortable environ-ment for students who do not fit intothe traditional public schools. Someproponents and opponents alikeargue that charters can make do withless because their teachers and otherstaff are not union members, a situa-tion that creates either problems oradvantages depending on the ob-server’s point of view.

The overarching question iswhether any funding discrepanciescharter schools may experience hurtthe quality of education they canprovide students. Freed from thedemands of a centralized bureauc-



© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

California’s Charter Schools Act, which passed in 1992,was a state-level experiment.San Carlos Elementary School in San Mateo County was the first school to receive a charter.It opened in 1993 and today serves 220 students in grades K–8.

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



racy, charters should theoretically beable to do more with less. On aver-age, their student achievement iscomparable to non-charter schools,according to the RAND report. Onecould therefore argue that charterschools are doing at least as well,though performance comparisonsare complex.

The flexibility charter schoolsenjoy is also supposed to enable themto try new methods of operation andinstruction, with successful innova-tions serving as models for otherschools. Some say that many chartersdo not look all that different from

other public schools and that rivalry ora lack of communication betweencharters and non-charters preventsinnovations from spreading to tradi-tional public schools. It could beargued that the lack of communica-tion is not surprising given the factthat the original Charter Schools Actcalled for charter schools to be oper-ated “independently from the existingschool district structure.”

Whether or not charter schools’innovations are spreading to otherpublic schools, charters have devel-oped some important alternatives forstudents. New choices at the high

school level are of particular note.Prior to the creation of charterschools, most California studentssimply had no choice but to attendtheir local large, comprehensive high school. Low graduation rates and high remediation rates amongthose students who go on to col-lege both indicate that traditional high schools are failing to serve largeportions of students. Early, if limited,performance results for charter highschools—many of which serve difficultpopulations—give some cause for optimism on both counts, though the voluntary nature of attending

Charter School Vital Statistics: Staffing and enrollments in 2002–03Teacher characteristics California’s charter schools employed 7,177 teachers in 2002–03, about 2.4%of the state’s total teacher work force. As the chart to the right shows, charterschool teachers are noticeably more likely to hold emergency credentials thantheir peers in non-charter schools. In addition, teachers in charter schools aremore likely to be new to the profession.While 12% of teachers in non-charterschools have two or fewer years of experience, the same is true for 21% of theircharter school counterparts.

Enrollments and staffing ratios In 2002–03 charter schools served 2.3% of California’s public schoolstudents, or about 142,000 pupils. While charter schools generally havelower enrollments—and some are quite small—a handful rival the largestpublic schools in terms of size. The average charter school has about 370students compared to the 700 students in the average non-charter school.The relatively small size of charter schools helps to explain why the ratio ofpupils to administrators is substantially smaller. Pupil-teacher ratios arevery similar between charters and non-charters.


*An administrator is only reported at one school; so if he or she works at two or more schools, these numbers may be slightly inflated.†Based on full-time equivalent.

Charter school and non-charter school teacher credentialing

76%

88%

20%

8%4%

6%2% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

100%

Fullycredentialed

Emergencycredentialed

Pre-intern and other intern

Waiver

Charter schoolsNon-charter schools

60%

70%

80%

90%

Perc

ent

of t

each

ers

Charter schools by grade span Overall charter Overall non-charter

Elementary Middle High K–12 Non-traditional

Number of schools 175 26 85 60 37 383 8,717Enrollment 54,186 10,969 26,944 39,470 10,183 141,752 6,102,651Average school size 317 441 358 658 275 370 700Pupils per administrator*† 273 218.9 236.7 327.7 163 260.1 382.9Pupils per teachers† 19.3 23.3 23.8 23.7 22.9 21.8 21.1

Note: Teachers may hold multiple credentials.



charter schools also needs to be takeninto account.

But have those instances of inno-vation been worth the costs offlexibility? Some schools have notadhered to their charters, and in a fewcases there have been allegations ofoutright abuses. Charter proponentssee those as a few bad apples that donot spoil the whole lot.

Proponents also say that some ofthe worst fears about flexibility havenot materialized. Some skepticsfeared that charters schools wouldtake advantage of their freedom andindoctrinate students in a religion orcult. A 1996 study of charter schoolsby the bipartisan, independent LittleHoover Commission found thesefears to be unfounded. Since thenthere may have been one or two casesof abuse, but it has not been a wide-spread problem.

Are more choices and increased competition improving the entire education system? Ideally, charter schools provide alter-native educational approaches withinthe public system. Thereby, teachers,parents, and students are able to findthe schools that fit them best. Char-ter opponents fear that those parentsand students most likely to choosecharter schools are the ones who are most motivated. That leavesbehind schools with high concentra-tions of less academically-orientedstudents. Some critics also worrythat parents may not have enoughinformation about their choices tomake good decisions.

Other critics say the charter move-ment is not going far enough. Theybelieve that the real answer is a vouchersystem in which low-income familiesare granted public dollars so they canchoose among all public and privateschools. They believe that if families

have full access to the type of educa-tion they seek for their children, publicschools will feel serious competitivepressure to perform well and be more“client-centered.” There is currentlynot enough research to verify theextent to which this free-enterpriseapproach to education actually resultsin generalized improvements in stu-dent achievement.

Opponents of the competitivetheory, and the charter movementgenerally, say that other reforms—if executed properly and given enoughtime—will bring about the desiredchange in schools. Those other reformsinclude smaller classes, smaller schools,intervention programs for strugglingschools and students, other approachesto reforming governance, overhaulingthe school-finance system, teacher andadministrator professional develop-ment, and others.

Creation, operation, and governanceof charter schools evolveCalifornia’s experience with charterschools has evolved within the contextof these varied hopes and concerns.Based on that experience and thecontinuing debates, the state’s policiesrelated to charter school operationshave changed over time.

Given the fairly bold nature of theoriginal charter experiment, thelanguage in California’s 1992 CharterSchools Act is relatively brief andnonspecific. It covers the charter peti-tioning and approval process forschools and entire districts, the dura-

tion of a charter and criteria for char-ter revocation, some funding issues,and the evaluation requirement.

The brevity and relative lack ofspecificity was in part by design. Ina state as diverse as California, withalmost 1,000 school districts thatvary dramatically in size and situa-tion, many issues between charter-granting entities and charter schools

would have to be worked out locally.Not all of it was by design, however;legislators could not have foreseenall the issues that have come up overtime. Since 1993 when the CharterSchools Act went into effect and thefirst California charter schoolopened, the Legislature has contin-ued to add and fine-tune its policydirection. (See the box on page 9.)

In some cases, new statutes haveprovided more freedom or resourcesto charter schools. In other cases,legislators have reacted to reportedabuses by tightening the regulationsand reporting requirements. In addi-tion, the state’s standards-basedreforms related to testing andaccountability beginning in the mid-1990s have, for the most part,included charter schools. The accu-mulation of this body of law andpolicy has resulted in a fairly sophisti-cated set of rules for how charterschools are authorized, operated,governed, and staffed in California.

Charters begin with the petition processThe first official step in creating acharter school is the development

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

Charter school operators can convert an existing schoolor create an entirely new one.The largest conversion charter to date is Granada Hills High School in Los Angeles Unified School District,which opened in 2003 and has more than 3,900 students.

and submission of the charter peti-tion. Anyone can circulate a petitionto start a charter school, which theythen submit to a chartering author-ity—generally a school district, butalso a county office of education or,in limited circumstances, the State

Board of Education. Prospectivecharter school operators canconvert an existing public school orcreate an entirely new one. Theformer type is known as a “conver-sion” and the latter as a “start-up”charter school.

State law specifies who must sign acharter school petition based onwhether the school is a conversion orstart-up. Conversion schools musthave the signatures of at least 10% ofthe district’s teachers or 50% of theteachers at the existing school. Thiswas originally the only option, perhapsreflecting an implicit expectation thatteachers would be converting existingschools into charters, rather than theimpetus coming from parents orothers outside of the existing schoolsystem. Changes in 1998—in AB544—made it easier to create a start-up school. Signatures from at least halfthe parents of students expected toenroll in the school in its first year cannow qualify a petition, as can signa-tures from half the teachers at theproposed charter school.

California law also specifies theelements that must be contained in thecharter document and establishes theprocess by which the petition is to bereviewed. Originally, the charter peti-tion had to have a total of 13 elementsthat described not only the school’sstructure, but also its expectations forstudent performance. The schoolboard considering the petition could,in addition, require a description ofthe school’s facilities, administrativeservices, and the potential civil liabilityeffects on the school and district—anoption that later became a staterequirement. Preference was to begiven to petitions demonstrating anability to help low-achieving pupils,but in practice this has rarely comeinto play.

Since 1992 lawmakers have addedseveral more elements to the basicpetition. The box on this page lists theoriginal elements and those that havebeen added. The additions includeformalized procedures for resolvingdisputes—a reflection of the hostilitythat some districts had shown toward

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



Each charter petition must at least contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of each of16 required elements. They include:

● A description of the educational program of the school, as specified. If the school is a highschool, the charter must describe the process for communicating course-transferability andcollege-eligibility information to parents.

● The measurable pupil outcomes identified for use by the school.

● The method by which pupil progress in meeting those outcomes is to be measured.

● The school’s governance structure, including parental involvement.

● The qualifications to be met by individuals employed by the school.

● Procedures to ensure health and safety of pupils and staff.

● The means by which the school will achieve racial and ethnic balance among its pupils,reflective of the general population residing in the district.

● Admission requirements, if applicable.

● The manner in which annual financial audits will be conducted, and how audit exceptionsand deficiencies will be resolved.

● The procedures by which pupils may be suspended or expelled.

● Provisions for employee coverage under the State Teachers’ Retirement System, the PublicEmployees’ Retirement System, or Social Security.

● The public school alternatives for pupils residing within the district who choose not toattend charter schools.

● A description of the rights of any employee of the school district upon leaving the employ-ment of the school district to work in a charter school, and of any rights of return to theschool district after employment at a charter school.

● A dispute resolution process.

● A declaration of whether the charter school will be the exclusive public school employer ofthe charter school employees.

● The procedures to be used if the charter school closes.

The school board considering the petition must also require a description of the school’s facil-ities, administrative services, and the potential civil liability impact on the school and district.

— Education Code §47605(b)(5)(A-P)

A charter petition must include specific elements


Since the passage of Senate Bill 1448—the Charter Schools Act of 1992—more than 30 other laws have addressed the operation, oversight, or funding of char-ter schools. Some dealt with small changes in regulation and some covered numerous aspects of charter school law. The table below lists the major bills andindicates the key policy areas they addressed, plus state bond measures that addressed facility issues.

Key policy areas addressedBill number and author Approval & Governance Student Teachers Facilities Funding Other

revocation admissionsprocess

1992

SB 1448 (Hart) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

1996

AB 3384 (Knox) ✔ ✔ ✔

AB 2135 (Mazzoni) ✔

1998

AB 544 (Lempert) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

1999

AB 1115 (Budget committee) ✔ ✔

SB 267 (Lewis) ✔

AB 631 (Migden) ✔ ✔

SB 434 (Johnston) ✔

2000

SB 1759 (Lewis) ✔

SB 1728 (Lewis) ✔

SB 1841 (Poochigian) ✔

Proposition 39 ✔

2001

SB 955 (Alpert) ✔ ✔

SB 740 (O’Connell) ✔ ✔ ✔

2002

SB 2039 (O’Connell) ✔

AB 14 (Goldberg) ✔

AB 1994 (Reyes) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Proposition 47 ✔

2003

AB 1137 (Reyes) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

2004

Proposition 55 ✔

A timeline: Major state laws related to charter schools and the key policy areas they address

EdSource 6/04

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.


© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



charter schools, the unorthodoxmethods and inexperience of somecharter operators, and continuingissues related to funding. Collectivebargaining rights and representationfor charter school employees have alsobeen addressed. And since 2002, peti-tions have had to include proceduresfor closing the school.

Not all the important elements ofa charter school’s plan are in the peti-tion. For example, the school canchoose to receive its funding throughits chartering district or directly fromthe state. State law allows charterschools to make this decision annually.

Over time, charter law has alsoresponded to the resistance somedistricts have shown to approvingcharters. The 1992 law envisionedthat local school boards would

choose whether to authorize thecharter schools that intended tooperate in their districts. If thedistrict disapproved, petitionerscould appeal the decision to a reviewpanel at the county office of educa-tion, which could ask the district torevisit its decision. If the districtdenied the charter again, the charterschool supporters could ask thecounty board to hear their petition.

AB 544 made significant changesin the approval and appeal processes in1998, most notably by requiringapproval as the default decision ofschool boards. They are expected togrant the charter unless they makewritten findings that the petitionershave proposed an unsound educa-tional program, are demonstrablyunlikely to implement the charter, or

do not meet specific petition require-ments. The law also allows petitionersto go directly to a county office as thechartering authority if the countywould otherwise be responsible for thestudents (such as youth in the juvenilejustice system or some Special Educa-tion students).

Should the district deny the charter,petitioners now go directly to thecounty board. If the county denies themas well, they can appeal that decision tothe State Board of Education (SBE).Charter petitions submitted directly tocounty offices of education, and thendenied, can also be appealed to the stateboard. The SBE could approve the char-ter and then assign oversight to a districtor county office in which the schoolwould be located. Beginning in 2003,schools that have a statewide con-stituency, such as online schools, can godirectly to the state board.

Since charter schools became areality in California, 86 have come andgone either as a result of decisionsmade by the school operators them-selves or the authorizing districts,according to the LAO’s 2004 report.The idea that a charter would not justcontinue indefinitely was built intoCalifornia law from the beginning.Today, charters are approved for up tofive years and renewal periods areanother five years. A district can revokea charter for any of the followingreasons: a material violation of thecharter; failure to meet or pursue thepupil outcomes described in the peti-tion; violation of generally acceptedaccounting standards of fiscal manage-ment; and violations of the law.However, unless the violation consti-tutes a severe and imminent threat tothe health or safety of students, charteroperators are given a chance to remedythe situation. The SBE also has theauthority to revoke a charter if it findsfiscal mismanagement.

California allows charter districts

An entire district can convert to charter status if it gathers signatures from at least half of itsteachers, addresses the required elements in the petition, and secures approval of the statesuperintendent of public instruction and the State Board of Education. An important factor inwhether a petition is approved is the petition’s description of alternatives for students who donot wish to attend a charter school because no student can be compelled to do so.

In the districts that have secured complete conversion, every school is independently oper-ated. Proponents see this option as a way to create more options for parents within a district,decentralize most operations so more funds are available to individual schools, and attractcapable teachers and leaders to public schools through improved working conditions.

All-charter districts

County District Number of schools

Fresno Alvina Elementary 1

Fresno Kingsburg Elementary Charter 9

Humboldt Jacoby Creek Elementary 1

Kings Delta View Joint Union Elementary 1

Kings Island Union Elementary 1

Kings Kings River Hardwick Union Elementary 1

Kings Pioneer Union Elementary 2

Stanislaus Hickman Community Charter 3

During the charter approvalprocess, most school districts scruti-nize petitions carefully. Charterschools can have a variety of impactson a school district whether theysucceed or not. Their ongoing opera-tion affects finances and facilities mostnoticeably. Their closure, should itoccur, can also affect other schoolsand staff, depending on the personneland “right of return” policies agreedto in the petition.

Laws cover charter school governance,accountability, and oversightAs public schools supported by taxdollars, charters are implicitlysubject to the federal and stateconstitutions as well as laws thatgenerally apply to governmentalbodies, such as contracting laws.This includes the legal protectionsand entitlements extended to certaincategories of students, includingthose with disabilities and thosewhose primary language is notEnglish. Employment laws, such asteachers’ due process rights, alsoapply to charter schools. However,charter schools run by or asnonprofit corporations face ambi-guities: a body of law coversnonprofits, and it is sometimesunclear whether education ornonprofit regulations govern.Whether charter schools mustconduct their affairs according tothe open meeting provisions of theBrown Act is an example of a grayarea; the Legislature is wrestlingwith this issue as it considers AB1860 (Reyes).

Charter schools are accountable forstudent performanceThe Charter Schools Act explicitlyrequires charter schools to meetstatewide performance standards.While this may have had little impact

through 1997—during the yearswhen California was enmeshed indeveloping its state assessmentsystems and academic content stan-dards—it has proven important since.Charter schools, like all public schoolsin California, must participate in thestate testing system. They are alsorated based on the Academic Perfor-mance Index (API) unless they havefewer than 11 valid test scores or serve

a majority of at-risk pupils, in whichcase they fall under the AlternativeSchool Accountability Model. Inaddition, California’s charter schools,along with all other public schools,must make Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP) under the federal No ChildLeft Behind Act (NCLB). Thosereceiving Title I funding under NCLBface a series of interventions if theyrepeatedly fail to make AYP.

Recently, state leaders strength-ened the connection between charterschool renewals and student perform-ance. Beginning in 2005, charterschools that have operated for at leastfour years will be required to show acertain level of academic performancein order to have their charters renewed.Schools can fulfill this requirement bymeeting their growth targets on theAPI, by ranking above the 30thpercentile statewide or in the group of100 schools to which they are mostsimilar, or by qualifying for the state’s

alternative accountability system. Theschool will also be able to renew if itschartering authority determines thatits performance is comparable to thatof other district schools its studentswould otherwise attend.

California law does not spell out governance expectationsBy law, local school districts are underthe oversight of a publicly elected

governing board made up of local resi-dents. Traditional public schools thatreceive funds from one of a host ofcategorical programs must have an elected school site council—comprising parents, teachers, andother staff—for the purpose of devel-oping a school plan.

No such specifics cover thepublic oversight of charter schools.While a charter school petitionmust describe the school’s gover-nance structure, it is not required tohave any particular type of govern-ing body or board per se. TheCharter School Act simply statesthat every school is required toconsult regularly with parents andteachers about its educationalprograms. In 1998, AB 544 author-ized charter schools to operateas—or be operated by—nonprofitcorporations and also guaranteedthe chartering authority one repre-sentative on the nonprofit’s board.

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



Networks are seen as a promising strategy…because theycan provide both professional and financial support to afledgling school.Animo Inglewood High School, the second Green Dot Public Schools network school, has 280 students ingrades 9–10. It opened in August 2002, and after its first year, its academic performance is ranked “4” amongall high schools in the state and a “10” among 100 similar high schools.

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



The lack of statutory specificitywith respect to governance has helpedfoster the development of a variety ofgovernance structures. Increasingly,charter school networks are steppingin to instigate the creation of charterschools and then manage thoseschools based on a set philosophicaland operational strategy. In mostcases, these networks begin with onesuccessful school whose approach isthen replicated. In some cases, acentral office manages administrativedetails and realizes economies ofscale for a group of schools. TheEducation Code does not limit thesize of networks or prohibit for-profit enterprises from runningcharter schools, though mostnetworks in California are nonprofit.Networks are seen as a promising

strategy for charter school develop-ment in part because they can provideboth professional and financialsupport to a fledgling school andreduce the leadership burden for theschool principal. On the other hand,the “central office” approach runs therisk of creating the same layers ofbureaucracy for which non-charterschool systems are criticized. (See thebox on this page for a list of charterschool networks in California.)

District oversight has been lackingPerhaps predictably, concerns beganto emerge over time about theabsence of effective oversight on thepart of school districts and aboutabuses of the system. The law allowscharter-authorizing districts tocharge up to 1% of a charter school’s

revenues for the actual costs ofproviding oversight, or up to 3% ifthey provide the charter school withsubstantially rent-free facilities. (Thesources of revenue that authorizingdistricts may draw from are the char-ter school’s general-purpose andcategorical block grant funds, whichare described on pages 15–20.)

In 2002 the Bureau of State Audits(BSA) issued a critical report on char-ter school oversight based on theirexamination of four large schooldistricts. BSA asserted that althoughoversight responsibilities were notexplicitly stated in the law, they wereimplied by school districts’ power toapprove and revoke charters, collectfees for oversight costs, and inspect orobserve charter schools at any time.BSA expected but found little evidence

Some of the major charter school networks are active in California

Charter group and Number of Some special featuresfounding year California

school sites

Aspire Public 10 Focuses on low-income communities; offers longer school day and year; requires personal Schools, 1999 learning plans for each student developed with teachers and parents outlining learning

goals for each semester.See: www.aspirepublicschools.org

Knowledge is Power 8 (31 nationwide) Founded as middle grades charter schools for low-income students; focuses on longerProgram (KIPP), 1994 school day and year; 2–3 hours of homework each night.

See: www.kipp.org

Green Dot Public 3; 5–7 to open in Focuses on high school level and Los Angeles area; hopes the Los Angeles Unified School Schools, 1999 the next four years District will create more small schools for district; works closely with teacher unions.

See: www.greendotpublicschools.org

Leadership Public 1; 3 in planning High school program that combines a traditional, rigorous college-preparatory curriculumSchools, 2001 with small school size, personal attention, and a leadership program for students.

See: www.leadps.org

High Tech High Influencing program Prepares students with skills needed to succeed in the high-tech workplace and elsewhere;Schools, 2000 and building design integrates technical and academic education; offers internships for all students.

for 4 new schools See: www.hightechhigh.org/HTHL/HTHL.htmbeing built in San Diego over the next 10 years

that districts had established policiesand procedures for assessing charterschools’ financial management andacademic achievement. They also ques-tioned the way districts charged andaccounted for their oversight services.

The districts in question stronglydisagreed with BSA’s findings. Theyasserted that BSA was holding them to a standard that the law does notrequire and that they have little or nogrounds to deny or enforce a charter.These disputes highlight the difficulty

in finding the right balance betweencharter school independence on oneside and responsible management ofpublic resources on the other.

State lawmakers react to limitedinstances of abuseIn 2002 oversight and governanceissues were also on the minds oflawmakers. Of particular concern wasalleged financial misconduct by a verysmall number of charter schools thatwere operating satellite sites. These

charter schools appeared to have notappropriately overseen their satellites,particularly with regard to fiscalmanagement. Legislators passed AB1994 to restrict charter schools’ability to operate multiple sites and to try to force them to locate their operations completely within theboundaries of their charteringauthority. In addition, the countysuperintendent of schools now hasauthority to monitor the operation oflocal charter schools.

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



Charter School Vital Statistics: Student characteristics in 2002–03Student enrollment by ethnicityIn terms of ethnicity, students in charter schools vary substantially from those in non-charter schools. In particular, it appears that charter schoolsare less likely to serve Hispanic students. Other data from the Education Data Partnership website provides further evidence of this. It shows thatin districts in which Hispanics are the largest ethnic group, charters are less likely than non-charter schools to also have Hispanics as their largestethnic group. The reverse is true regarding white students.

Other student characteristicsCharter schools are less likely to serve students who areEnglish learners and who come from low-income families.Many charter schools report that they do not participate inthe subsidized meal program because of the paperworkrequirements involved, so some believe the latter group ofstudents is undercounted in charter schools. However, theCalWORKS data, which indicate students whose familiesreceive public support, do not depend on school participa-tion and yet shows the same general difference.

Multiple/No Response 1%

Multiple/No Response 4%

Charter school students Non-charter school students

Asian 8%

Asian 4%

Other4%

Other4%

Hispanic45%

Hispanic36%

African American8%African American

10%

White34%

White43%

Special program enrollment

32%

5%

10%

17%

26%

49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Free/reduced-price meals CalWORKS English learner

Charter schoolsNon-charter schools

Perc

ent

of s

tude

nts


© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



Reacting to other “creative” organ-izational strategies on the part ofcharter school operators, legislatorsalso added some restrictions relatedto school district configurations.Charter schools approved after Jan. 1,2003, are prohibited from servinggrade levels not served by theirauthorizing agency unless the charter

school serves all the grades offered bythe authorizing entity. So, for exam-ple, a new charter high school servinggrades 9–12 could not be charteredby a K–8 elementary district, but aK–12 school could.

A more far-reaching change was anew requirement—effective begin-ning in 2003–04—that charterschools must at the end of eachschool year submit a financial state-ment to their chartering authority, theOffice of the State Controller, andthe California Department of Educa-tion (CDE). Like school districtsgenerally, the charter schools mustsubmit their reports after the schoolyear has ended.

While BSA officials acknowledgedthese new oversight provisions in their report, they questioned whetherthe changes would amount to much without a commitment from the char-tering entities and the CDE toincrease monitoring. Lawmakers re-sponded to the BSA report in 2003when they enacted AB 1137, whichrequires chartering authorities to:

● Designate a staff member as a con-tact person for the charter school.

● Annually visit each charter school.● Ensure that each charter school

submits quarterly financial reports. ● Monitor the fiscal condition of

each charter school.● Adjust the amount charged for

related administrative costs.

● Provide timely notification to thestate if the charter school is to ceaseoperation. All of these oversight activities

are supposed to be covered by theoversight fees that chartering author-ities already charge.

New regulations tackle teacher issuesIn California public schools generally,the school site does not hire its ownemployees. Rather, all employees fromthe cafeteria worker to the principalhave their formal employment relation-ship with the school district. Districts,in turn, vary in the process they use toassign employees to school sites.

Within the parameters set bylaw, issues of salary, benefits, working conditions, seniority, eval-uation, and retention are governedby school district policies. Many of those policies are negotiatedbetween the district and unions as the collective bargaining rep-resentatives for various groups ofemployees. Classified employees—such as maintenance workers, class-

room aides, and school secretaries—are represented separately fromcredentialed employees, such asteachers, counselors, and nurses. Insome districts, principals also haveunion representation.

Within this context, the originalcharter legislation had to address thequestion of employment status. Thepetition was to include a descriptionof the right of any employee whowas leaving the district to work in acharter school and to return to thedistrict after leaving the charterschool. (Petitions must address theissue but do not have to guaranteeanything specific.) Further, if acharter school participates in theState Teachers’ Retirement System(STRS), all employees qualifyingfor STRS must be covered andtreated as if they worked in a tradi-tional public school. The same istrue for classified employees andtheir pension system, the PublicEmployees Retirement System.Clarity about the protections of anindividual’s status within his or herschool district and the state’s retire-ment system was a necessity.

Conversely, the original law wassilent regarding what status—ifany—charter school employeeswould have within their district’sbargaining unit or if they could formtheir own units. The need to addressthis question became more obviousover time, particularly among thosecharter schools that were conversionsbut remained closely tied to theirauthorizing district. In 1999, AB631 added the requirement that acharter school petition declarewhether the school or the charteringentity is the employer for collectivebargaining purposes. Charter opera-tors tend to declare themselves as theemployer to maintain their inde-pendence and negotiate their own

Charter schools offering nonclassroom-based instructionmust apply to the State Board for a determination of their funding.Modoc Charter School, with a central office in Shasta County, was chartered by Modoc Joint Unified SchoolDistrict. It opened in January 2000 and provides independent study services to 415 students of all ages.

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



contracts with their employees asopposed to being folded into thedistrict’s existing collective bargain-ing agreement. About a third of thestate’s charter schools have teacherswho have chosen to be represented bya union, and most of those areconversion schools.

The new law also made it explicitthat public school collective bargain-ing laws applied to charter schools.This means that charter schoolemployees doing similar work have theright to choose a representative andform collective bargaining units tonegotiate their salaries, benefits, and working conditions with theemployer. They can also choose not tounionize. If the school’s charter doesnot specify that it will be the publicschool employer of record for collec-tive bargaining purposes, then thedistrict assumes those responsibilities.

The original charter act did notsay a teacher had to be fully creden-tialed. To some degree, this approachreflected the times. A serious overhaulof the state’s credentialing process andteacher preparation standards wasbeing debated amid skepticism aboutthe quality and restrictiveness of both.Between 1992 and 1999, Californiatook substantive action in this areaand also increased the pathways by which college graduates, career-changing adults, and credentialedteachers from other states could earnfull certification as California teachers.

Since 1998 most teachers in char-ter schools, regardless of when theystarted teaching or were hired, havebeen required to meet the same creden-tialing requirement that teachers inother public schools do. That includesallowing emergency permits andwaivers, plus interns and pre-interns.(This requirement may not apply toteachers of noncollege-preparatory,noncore courses.)

Charter schools are also required tokeep proof of teacher certification onfile for periodic inspection by the char-tering authority.

Funding of charter schools is atough issueAs is true with public education gener-ally in California, one of the mostdifficult issues for charter schools isfunding. California’s school financesystem is largely controlled by the stateand predicated on the assumption that

funding goes to local education agencies (LEAs)—typically schooldistricts and county offices of educa-tion—which in turn allocate funds toschool sites. Charter schools representnew entities in this system and func-tion at times like a school within adistrict and at times like a separateLEA. The rules have evolved as thesedual identities have become moreclearly defined, but funding remains an area of change and sometimes ofcontention. (See the box above.)

The funding allocation process creates challenges andsome tensions

Charter schools receive their funding from a combination of local property taxes and staterevenues. State law specifies a month-by-month allocation process that is not fully synchro-nized with when districts receive funding or when schools incur operational costs. As a result, the process can create cash flow problems and some tensions between districts and charter schools.

This is especially true with respect to property tax revenues. The district to which the charterapplied, regardless of whether it approved the charter, must provide the charter school with acertain portion of property tax revenues each month (by the 15th of the month) beginning inAugust each year. For some districts this can be problematic because they do not receive theirproperty taxes until early December.

Property taxes typically cover between 30% and 50% of a charter school’s regular per-pupilfunding. State aid makes up the rest. State funds are allocated to direct-funded charterschools on the same schedule as school district apportionments. The bulk of state fundinggoes to districts based on their average daily attendance (ADA). During the first sevenmonths of the fiscal year, through January, the monthly amount is keyed to attendancefigures for the prior school year. In February each year, when current attendance figuresbecome available, the state adjusts a district’s allocation based on the new figures to arriveat a new annual entitlement.

The law does not specify how a charter school should estimate its ADA for funding purposes.Because the ADA number is based on an averaging of how many students actually attendschool throughout the year, districts and charter schools must use an estimate that theyhave to agree upon before school opens. For charter schools with growing student popula-tions and for new schools, such estimates can be guesswork at best. The schools have anincentive to maximize the count, while districts may want to minimize it. Legislation enactedin 1999 (AB 1600) set up a formal process for estimating ADA in new charter schools.The school, charter-granting district, and county office of education must all certify the ADAestimate, preventing gross overestimates of attendance that cost both the state and school districts.

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



Base funding for charter schoolsprovides a set amount per pupilMost state revenues that schooldistricts receive fall into one of twocategories: general-purpose revenuesand categorical program funding,which is earmarked for specificpurposes. The amount per pupil thatdistricts receive depends on a varietyof formulas that result in substantialvariation from one district to another.

By contrast, charter schools(except for those in charter districts)receive their funding as a uniform, setamount per pupil, with one amountfor general purposes and another a “categorical block grant” that represents aggregate funding forapproximately 44 of the categoricalprograms school districts can receive.While school districts must operatecertain programs or follow specificregulations to receive virtually all cate-gorical funding, charter schools mayspend categorical block grant fundingat their discretion. The block grantfunds are allocated based on the aver-age daily attendance (ADA) at theschool, not the students enrolled. Theamounts vary depending on the age ofthe school’s students, with moremoney being provided as students getolder. (See Figure 2 on page 17.)

In addition, charter schoolsreceive about $111 for each studentthey serve who is identified as anEnglish learner or eligible forfree/reduced price meals. Schoolsreceive double funding for eachpupil who is both poor and anEnglish learner. Schools with 10 orfewer eligible students get a mini-mum grant amount of $4,901.Those with 11 or more eligiblestudents get at least $7,356. This isin lieu of state Economic ImpactAid, which provides about $220 perpupil to school districts for studentsidentified as English learners or as

low-income based on CalWORKS(welfare program) participation—generally a smaller number thanthose eligible for free meals.

The general-purpose fundingcharter schools receive can becompared to the revenue limitamounts school districts receive.How much a district receives dependson the grades it serves, whether it issmall, and its unique formula calcula-tion based on historical patterns andparticipation in certain programs.Figure 2 displays the six categories ofschool districts that the state hasdelineated for revenue-limit fundingpurposes and their per-pupil fundingamounts. Although some districts’revenue limits vary substantially fromthe averages listed, the overwhelmingmajority of students attend school indistricts with revenue limits within aband of $350 per pupil. One dif-ference between charter schools’general-purpose funding and schooldistricts’ revenue-limit funding is thata school district gets the sameamount of revenue-limit funding perpupil regardless of student age. Forexample, a unified school districtwould get the same amount ofmoney for a kindergarten pupil as itwould for a 12th grader.

Categorical block grants are decliningThe 44 programs included in thecharter school categorical block grantcover a wide variety of purposes, butmany of them represent a relativelysmall amount of funding. Of the 22largest state categorical programs(those that received $50 million ormore in 2003–04), just five were partof the categorical block grant. Theyincluded the School ImprovementProgram, Instructional Materials,Supplemental Grants, 9th Grade ClassSize Reduction, and the BeginningTeacher Support and Assessment

(BTSA) program. (See the full list ofprograms in the charter school cate-gorical block grant on page 19.)

Schools that receive the categoricalblock grant are not eligible for separatefunding for any of the 44 programs,but they can apply for the many otherstate and federal programs for whichthey qualify. Not included in the blockgrant, for example, are federal categor-ical programs and a number of thelargest state programs such as K–3Class Size Reduction, Transportation,Targeted Instructional ImprovementGrants (formerly Desegregation),Adult Education, Special Education,and Child Nutrition (free/reduced-price meals program).

The process a charter schoolmust follow to apply for theseprograms depends on its relation-ship to its chartering authority.Some charter schools choose to belocally funded, which means they gettheir funds through their authorizingagency. Other charter schools estab-lish themselves as a near equivalentof an LEA and are called direct-funded because they receive fundsdirectly from the state. Locallyfunded charters can only receivefederal and state categorical programmonies if their authorizing agencyapplies for them on the school’sbehalf. Direct-funded charters, likeindependent LEAs, apply for theprograms on their own.

The LAO points out in its Janu-ary 2004 report that the number ofcategorical programs in the blockgrant has decreased each year since itwas implemented while the numberof programs for which chartersmust apply separately has increased.Along with a decrease in the numberof programs in the block grant hascome a reduction in the fundingrepresented by the programs. In2000–01 the included programs

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



represented $3 billion or 27% of allavailable categorical funding. In2003–04 the included programsrepresented 15% of all availablecategorical funding. Not only theshare fell, but also the absoluteamount went down by $1.3 billiondespite a relatively constant level oftotal categorical funding during thattime. This has translated to a declinein the per-pupil rate for grades 9–12from $313 in 2000–01 to $164 in 2003–04.

The 2003–04 school year marksthe first year in which direct-fundedcharter schools will have to submitfinancial data to the state. Thosesubmissions will help provide infor-mation about which additionalcategorical funds charter schoolsreceive. However, the allocations thatgo to locally funded schools do nothave to be separated out from generaldistrict financial reporting, making itdifficult to determine their use ofcategorical funds.

Do charter schools receive less fundingthan other public schools?The question of whether charterschools receive their “fair share” ofoperating funds is much debated with-out a clear answer. This lack of clarityis not surprising given the complexityof California’s school finance systemgenerally and the difficulty of answer-ing the same question for any specificschool or district in the state.

That said, certain aspects of thecharter school funding process couldresult in a charter school receivingeither more or less funding than itsnon-charter counterparts. The hypo-thetical comparisons in Figure 3 onpage 18 explain some of the fundingdifferences between the two systems.To the extent that charter schools arewilling to trade some flexibility forcategorical funds, they can qualify for

a substantial amount of categoricalmoney through programs such asChild Nutrition and K–3 Class SizeReduction. Charter schools also havethe option of negotiating with theirchartering agency for a share of othercategorical programs. They can alsonegotiate for local miscellaneousrevenues, such as parcel tax proceedsand interest income.

In addition, the federal govern-ment has provided California withsome funds earmarked for charterschools under the Public CharterSchools Grant Program. Charterdevelopers, new charter schools, andthose charter schools with a historyof success are eligible for grants. Themoney can be used to disseminateinformation about successful prac-tices in charter schools and to developand implement start-up proposals.

The program operates in three-yearcycles; 2003–04 is the final year ofthe current cycle. The state allocatednearly $84 million from January2001 through June 2003. Typicallyabout half of the schools competingfor funds are successful in securinggrants. The state’s process for select-ing proposals favors schools andoperators with “educationally dis-advantaged students, past success in starting and operating charterschools, and accountability.”

Special Education funding laws apply tocharter schoolsCharter schools must abide by thelaws that protect the rights of studentswith disabilities. Both state and federalSpecial Education laws require thatthese students receive a free, appropri-ate public education in the least

figure 2

Charter schools receive funds based on the grade level of the students they serve, with the general-purpose funds taking the place of district revenue-limit funds. An additional amount—the categoricalblock grant—is in place of a portion of the categorical funding districts receive. Charter schools havediscretion over how they use the entire base funding amount.

2003–04 estimated base charter school funding

Kindergarten 4th–6th 7th–8th 9th–12th–3rd grade grade grade grade

General purposes $4,528 $4,594 $4,723 $5,485

Categorical block $172 $177 $129 $164grant

Total base per-pupil $4,700 $4,771 $4,852 $5,649funding

School districts receive revenue-limit funding based on the type of district they are (elementary, unified,or high school), their size, and historical formulas. Revenue-limit funds represent about two-thirds ofthe revenues districts receive from the state, but that can vary substantially among districts.

2003–04 average revenue limits by district type

Elementary (kindergarten–8th grade) $4,645 Small (<101 students) $5,516

Unified (kindergarten–12th grade) $4,843 Small (<1,501 students) $5,184

High school (9th–12th grade) $5,585 Small (<301 students) $6,128

Per-pupil charter and school district funding amounts are basedon different calculations


© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



restrictive setting. If any public schoolstudent is thought to need SpecialEducation services, school agenciesmust assess the student and, if neces-

sary, develop and implement an indi-vidualized education program (IEP).This may call for the school to providerelatively low-cost services (such as

sending a child to a reading specialisttwice a week) or intensive servicesevery day, which can cost tens of thou-sands of dollars per year.

figure 3

General purpose funds (localproperty taxes plus somestate support in mostdistricts)

State categorical funds: Unified districts received an average of $984* per pupil for all state categorical programs (including but not limited tothe programs in the charter school block grant but excluding Adult Education, Child Development, Special Education, and Economic Impact Aid or EIA). Listed below are examples of state categorical programs and their funding levels, one of which (EIA) would not be included in the $984 figure and two that would. Charter schools may have access to funding from categorical programs outside of the block grant if they operate qualifying programs or negotiate a share with their chartering district.

$4,778* (average per-pupilrevenue limit for unifieddistricts)

$4,512 per pupil $5,459 per pupil

Charter block grant

Economic Impact Aid (EIA)(Students who are poor andEnglish learners receivedouble funding.)

K–3 Class Size Reduction

Targeted InstructionalImprovement Grants(formerly Desegregation)

Including Titles I–X of the NoChild Left Behind Act (NCLB),plus various programs

Public Charter Schools GrantProgram

Includes parcel taxes, inter-est income, and various otherlocal revenue sources

Federal categorical programs

Local miscellaneous funds

N/A

$220 for each eligiblestudent based on CalWORKSand English learner status

$906 per K–3 student ifdistrict chooses to participate

$194 average per pupil in the69 districts that receive funds

$449* average per pupil(excluding Special Education)

N/A

$359* average per pupilstatewide (2002–03)(Amounts vary widely amongdistricts.)

$198 per pupil

$111 (in lieu of EIA, flexible funding) for each eligible studentbased on free/reduced-price meals and English learner status

Charters can negotiate with their authorizing district for a share ofthese funds, if applicable.

Charters may negotiate with districts for a share of these funds.

State lottery $130 per student $130 per student

Locally funded charters can apply for various federal programsthrough their chartering authority, and direct-funded schools cando so independently. They must comply with all applicable regula-tions and reporting requirements.

Charter schools can apply for grants to help with start-up andongoing costs. California received $24.1 million for its charterschools in 2002–03.

$189 per pupil

$906 per K–3 student ifschool chooses to participate

N/A

Funding amounts in 2002–03 differ between the average unified district and charter schoolsin this hypothetical comparison

Lottery funds

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 6/04*Education Data Partnership

Type of funds Unified school district K–3 charter school High school charter

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



Local education agencies mustsubmit to the state a “local plan”detail-ing how they will meet their obligationsto special-needs students under stateand federal law. Given the relativelysmall size of the majority of districts inCalifornia, most coordinate serviceswith other districts in their area andform a Special Education Local Plan-ning Area (SELPA). Some largerdistricts form their own SELPAs. In2003 California’s 982 districts wereorganized into 116 SELPAs.

It is legally presumed that a charterschool is an arm of its charter-granting agency and thus a part of itsSELPA, much like any other publicschool. Charters can establish them-selves as LEAs and join a SELPA ontheir own, but few have done so. Morecharter schools would probablydeclare themselves an LEA for SpecialEducation purposes if they were freeto join the SELPA of their choosing,but SELPAs have no obligation toaccept charters that are locatedoutside their boundaries. If a charterschool does not want to join the localSELPA, the school can form its own; but it would have a difficult time surviving. Some state leaders have discussed alternatives to the geographically-based SELPA system,but the state has not implemented them.

Each SELPA must submit to thestate its policies, governance plan,and financial statements along withassurances that it will meet stateand federal requirements. Thedetails of these plans matter tocharter schools because SpecialEducation funding flows from thestate to the SELPA, and theSELPA’s policies determine howmuch each of its members receives.

Since 1998–99 Special Educa-tion funding in California has beenbased on the total number ofstudents enrolled in a SELPA, rather

● Academic Improvement & Achievement: Regional Partnerships

● Agricultural Vocational Incentive Grants

● Apportionment: Apprenticeship Program and Elementary School Intensive Reading Program

● California Assessment Program Advanced Placement (AP)

● Exams–Fee Assistance

● California Peer Assistance & Review Program for Teachers

● California Public School Library Act

● Carl Washington School Safety & Violence Prevention, Grades 8–12

● Class Size Reduction, Grade 9 (or continuation of grades 10–12 Class Size Reduction)

● College Preparation Partnership: College Entrance Exams Preparation Courses

● Dropout Prevention: Implementation Model and Motivation/Maintenance (OutreachConsultants)

● Early Intervention for School Success (EISS)

● Education Technology: California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP)/Statewide Educa-tional Technology Services (SETS)/Supplemental Grant

● Gifted & Talented Education (GATE)

● Healthy Start: Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Grant (TPPG) and Planning and Operational Grants

● High-Risk Youth & Public Safety: First-Time Offender

● Instructional Materials Fund

● The Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program

● Mathematics Professional Development Grants, Grades 4–12

● Math and Reading Professional Development

● Miller-Unruh Reading Program

● Partnership Academies Program: Operation Grants and Program Plan Grants

● Restricted Revenue Limit: Community Day Schools

● School Community Policing Partnership

● School Improvement Programs (SIP): Grades K–6 and Grades 7–12

● School/Law Enforcement Partnership: Mini-grants and Safety Plans for New Schools

● School/Law Enforcement: School Community Violence Prevention and Conflict Resolution &Youth Mediation

● Specialized Secondary Programs

● Staff Development: Intersegmental College Readiness, Intersegmental ComprehensiveTeacher Education Institutes (CTEI), Advanced Placement (AP) Challenge Grant, and Begin-ning Teacher Support & Assessment (BTSA)

● Standards-based Math Staff Development, Grades 4–12

● Supplemental Grants

● Supplementary Programs: Foster Youth Services and Opportunity Programs and Classes

● Teaching as a Priority (TAP) Recruitment Block Grant

● Tenth Grade Counseling (academic progress and counseling review)

The Charter School Categorical Block Grant includes 44 categorical programs

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



than on the number of SpecialEducation students and the servicesthey receive. The average allocation isroughly $550 per ADA. This usuallycovers about 75% of an agency’s full cost of serving special-needsstudents. Districts are expected tobear 25% of Special Education coststhrough their general operatingbudgets. The law requires that a char-ter school share in that obligation,contributing “an equitable share ofits charter school block grant funding

to support districtwide SpecialEducation instruction and services.”However, the law does not specifywhat an equitable share is or how tocalculate it. In California Charter SchoolFinance 2003, Eric Premack estimatesthat the typical amount is between$200 and $300 per pupil—a signifi-cant number.

Charter schools have to negotiatewith their charter-granting agencyhow costs, revenues, and responsibil-ities will be allocated. For example, aschool with no capacity to servespecial-needs pupils may need to bearits share of the agency’s cost and allowthe charter-granting agency to keepthe school’s share of Special Educa-tion funding. In return, the agencywould provide all Special Educationservices or give the school funds tocontract out for the services. A morecapable school could provide themore common services and con-tribute toward just the high-cost orlow-incidence cases.

Nonclassroom-based instruction hascaused concerns One area of charter school operationthat has been of particular and unan-ticipated concern involves schools thatoffer nonclassroom-based instructionsuch as independent study, homeschooling, work study, and distance-learning. State policymakers first dealtwith these issues in 1999 when theyenacted a bill to apply to charterschools the same independent studyrequirements that traditional public

schools face. (For example, an inde-pendent study program’s pupil-teacherratio must not be bigger than othereducational programs in a district.)

In 2001 Senate Bill 740 dealt withnonclassroom-based instruction morecomprehensively. The bill required theState Board of Education (SBE) toadopt regulations and a process forsetting funding levels for nonclassroom-based instruction in charter schools.The purpose was to prevent charterschool operators from profitingunfairly by providing inexpensive or inadequate nonclassroom-basedinstruction and receiving fundingequal to classroom-based schools.

An advisory committee helpedthe SBE develop the regulations. Oneof the first issues to settle was thedefinition of “nonclassroom-basedinstruction.” The SBE now defines aschool’s instructional program asnonclassroom-based when the schooldoes not require attendance of itspupils at the school site under the

direct supervision and control of aqualified teaching employee for atleast 80% of the required instruc-tional time.

Charter schools that offer nonclassroom-based instruction mustapply to the SBE for a determinationof reimbursement for such instruc-tion. The board adjusts the amount offunding that a charter school receivesfor nonclassroom instruction basedon the amount the school spent oncertificated staff salaries and benefits,school configuration, and the teacher-pupil ratio. To receive full funding in2003–04 and beyond, a school mustspend at least half of its publicrevenues on certificated staff salariesand benefits and at least 80% of allrevenues on instruction-related costs.If a school does not spend at least40% on salaries and benefits and at least 60% on instruction-relatedcosts, the school receives no fundingfor its nonclassroom-based instruc-tion. However, the board so far has nothad to deny funding to any school.

Providing facilities has proved to bea major challengeSoon after charter schools began oper-ation in California, it became clear thatfacilities were going to become an issuebetween school districts and would-becharter operators. To some degree, theproblems evolved from the unwrittenexpectation in the original law thatschools would be “conversions” anduse district facilities—a potentialproblem when many districts alreadyhad severe facility shortages. As themovement matured and charter advo-cates became interested in starting upentirely new schools, housing the newventures was a common challenge.

In the ensuing years, Californiawent through some fairly contentiousproblems—particularly from theschool district perspective—before

[Some] districts and charters have worked togetherharmoniously to address their facility challenges.Sequoia Union High School District is using its facilities bond money to construct a new building for East PaloAlto High School, a charter school serving 223 students in grades 9–11.

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



state leaders stepped in to both clarifydistrict obligations and provide somefinancial support. Increased statewidefunding for school facilities fromvoter-passed bond elections has alsohelped the situation significantly.

Recent laws clarify the district’s obligationThe Charter Schools Act wassupposed to be revenue neutral, withoperational funding following thestudent from the traditional school tothe charter school. Providing facilitiesfunding on top of that would havecost the state money. The only refer-ence to facilities was a provisionallowing the charter-granting agencyto require a description of the school’suse of district buildings. (Through itssilence, the law exempted chartersfrom complying with the Field Act,which limits the buildings that can beused as classrooms by requiring strict

on-site inspections during theconstruction process along with thehighest commercial level of seismicsafety features. Charters thus havemore options for school facilities thando traditional public schools.)

Once the limit on the number ofcharter schools was expanded in 1998(AB 544), pressure around this issuebegan to increase. Proposition 39,passed by California voters in Novem-ber 2000, lowered the voter-approvalthreshold for local general obligationbonds for school facilities from two-thirds to 55%. It also gave charterschools much greater access to facili-ties. As of November 2003, schooldistricts must make facilities availableto a charter school operating in thedistrict. The space has to be adequateto accommodate the school’s in-district students in conditionscomparable to other district schools.

It must also be contiguous (not scat-tered throughout the district),furnished, and equipped. The facilitiesremain district property. The schooldistrict must make reasonable effortsto provide the charter school withfacilities near to where the charterschool wishes to locate and may notmove the charter school unnecessarily.

A charter school may request facili-ties based on its attendance projections,and the district is obligated to allocatefacilities consistent with those projec-tions. However, the district can rejectrequests for facilities for fewer than 80students and must be reimbursed foroverestimates of student attendance. Adistrict can also charge a charter schoolfor any facilities the district pays forthrough its operating revenues.

The State Board of Educationadopted regulations meant to governimplementation and define terms.

Charter School Vital Statistics: School distribution as of March 2004Distribution by school district type The distribution of open charter schools among different types of schooldistricts varies somewhat from the distribution of non-charter schools.

Charter and non-charter school distribution by district type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

100%

Charter schools Non-charter schools

County office of education

High school districts(grades 9–12)60%

70%

80%

90%

Perc

ent

of s

choo

ls

Elementary districts(grades K–8)

Unified districts(grades K–12)

7%

32%

53%

8%

2%

26%

66%

6%


Geographic distribution of charter schools About 5% of all California public schools are charters.However, among the state’s 58 counties, the distri-bution of charter schools varies widely, neithercorresponding to regions within the state nor the sizeof the county. For example, the counties with no char-ter schools and the counties with the highestproportion of charter schools both tend to be smalland rural. A total of 12 counties have no charterschools at all. They range in size from Alpine Countywith a total of nine schools to Imperial County with 65 schools.

Conversely, in eight small counties charter schoolsmake up 10% or more of all schools. Those countiesare Kings, Mendocino, Mono, Nevada, Santa Cruz,Shasta, Stanislaus, and Yuba.

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



However, some ambiguity remains.As a result, tension (and even hostil-ity in some cases) continues betweensome charter operators and charter-ing authorities. However, otherdistricts and charters have workedtogether quite harmoniously toaddress their facility challenges.

Funding for facilities has also increasedCharter schools have benefited, alongwith other public schools, from Califor-nia’s strong and continued investment inschool facilities since the mid-1990s. Inaddition, lawmakers have created someinnovative programs to help charterschools pay for their facility and othercapital needs, including earmarking aportion of state bond proceeds specifi-cally for charter facilities.

State bonds provide funds under theCharter School Facilities ProgramProposition 47 (approved by Califor-nia voters in November 2002) andProposition 55 (approved in March2004) authorized the sale of K–12school facilities bonds totaling $11.4 billion and $10 billion, respec-tively. These propositions created thefirst opportunity for charter schoolsto directly access facility bond fundsfrom the state. Prior to this, charterschools had to convince districts toinclude them on their application forstate funds. The state’s Office ofPublic School Construction knows ofonly five new construction projectsand four modernization projects thatwere funded the old way.

The first state bond included $100 million for charter school facili-ties. After a delay to finalize the new reg-ulations, the first application deadlinefor these apportionments was April 1,2003. A total of 25 entities applied forthe grants, far exceeding the amountavailable. The State Allocation Board(SAB) had to select which schools

would get funds, making sure theyrepresented a cross section of charterschools. It made six preliminary appor-tionments, effectively exhausting theProposition 47 funds. Voters approvedan additional $300 million for charterschools as part of Proposition 55.

The Charter School FacilitiesProgram (CSFP) governs the expendi-ture of these state bond proceeds. Likethe program for school districts gener-ally, the CSFP allows a charter school,or the school district on its behalf, to apply for state funds for newconstruction projects. The state fundscover only 50% of the cost of theproject; the charter school must comeup with the other half, either as a lumpsum or as lease payments over time(not more than 30 years). Unlike theprogram for districts, however, charterschools cannot receive funds formodernization. And charter schoolsoffering nonclassroom-based instruc-tion are not eligible for funds.

To qualify for funding, a charterschool must prove to the CaliforniaSchool Finance Authority (CSFA)that it is financially sound. For exam-ple, applicants must have operatedfor at least 24 months as a “finan-cially capable concern” and offeredinstruction for at least two academicyears. If applicants represent a newschool, they must have at least twoyears’ experience running another char-ter school successfully.

In addition, the SAB must deemthe district in which the charter schoolis located eligible for state bond funds.The district is eligible if it cannot“house” all the students it anticipateshaving in the next five years. A districtgenerally establishes eligibility basedon crowding conditions over theirentire area or individual high schoolattendance areas. Any facilities paid forwith state bonds must also complywith the Field Act.

Lawmakers create the Charter SchoolRevolving Loan FundIn 1996 state lawmakers created theCharter School Revolving Loan Fund(CSRLF) from existing state andfederal funds (AB 3384). Charter-granting authorities could borrow upto $50,000 on behalf of start-upcharters. The schools had to use themoney in their first year of operationand then were expected to repay theloan within the next two years. Themoney could be used for any start-upcosts, including facilities.

In the years since, the CSRLF haschanged significantly in response to theexperiences and needs of charterschools. The maximum loan amountover the lifetime of a charter school isnow $250,000; schools can use the loanproceeds beyond their first year of oper-ation, and the repayment period can beup to five years. Charter schools oper-ated by or as nonprofit corporations canborrow directly from the CSRLF, asopposed to getting the money throughthe chartering authority. The charterschools are solely liable for these loans.A Charter School Security Fund in theState Treasury collects the interest paidon CSRLF loans and uses those fundsto repay the CSRLF if a schooldefaults. Priority for loan applicationsgoes to new charter schools.

Help is available to support the cost ofleasing facilitiesYet another program, the CharterSchool Facility Grant Program (SB740), helps charter schools with rentor lease expenses (versus new con-struction costs). To be eligible for afacilities grant, a charter school musthave at least 70% of its pupils eligiblefor free/reduced-price meals or belocated in an attendance area with thesame sort of student population.(With the state average at about 49%,this program is meant to serve areas

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



with populations considerably poorerthan average.) Eligible schools arereimbursed up to three-quarters of their annual facilities rent and lease costs but not more than $750 per pupil. The state appro-priated $5.5 million for the pro-gram in 2002–03 and $7.7 millionin 2003–04.

Charter schools have often foundthat obtaining adequate facilities presents a significant obstacle in partbecause lending institutions viewthem as risky investments. The factthat charters may be revoked for poorperformance and must be renewedevery five years creates this problem.Also, in contrast to other publicschools, charter schools cannot issuelow-risk general obligation bonds theway school districts can (with voterapproval). The federal governmentcreated the Credit Enhancement forCharter School Facilities program to help charter schools address these issues. This program provided

$37.3 million nationwide in competi-tive grants to organizations that arewilling to guarantee loans and leaseson behalf of charter schools. Cur-rently seven organizations servecharter schools in 13 states, three ofwhich are active in California. (See thebox below left.)

What’s next?The charter school experiment thatbegan in California 12 years ago hasnot proved to be a panacea for all the problems of public education.Neither has it created the chaos orabuses that opponents feared. Rather,charter schools have become a viablealternative in a public school systemthat continues to struggle with how toeffectively educate all students to highstandards when resources are limitedand students come to school with suchvaried needs. According to the LAOreport: “Two statewide evaluations ofcharter schools in California haveconcluded that they are meeting theoriginal legislative intent—expandingfamilies’ choices, encouraging par-ental involvement, increasing teacher satisfaction, and raising academicachievement, particularly for certaingroups of disadvantaged students.”

Several organizations in Californiahave worked to strengthen the chartermovement by helping charter opera-tors write their petitions and thenimplement the school plans they envi-sion. In 2003 some of these effortswere consolidated into the CaliforniaCharter Schools Association, a volun-tary membership organization. Amongits goals is increasing the percentage of public school students in charterschools from about 2% to 10% withinthe next 10 years. Another importantresource for charter school operatorsneeding technical and professionalassistance is the Charter SchoolsDevelopment Center at the California

State University Institute for Educa-tion Reform in Sacramento.

As charter schools gain legitimacy,they are also garnering increased sup-port, or at least attention, from otherquarters. Not the least of these is agroup of private foundations andindividual donors who are makingsubstantial investments.

The California Teachers Associa-tion (CTA), which has been anoutspoken critic of charter schools,now seems to be acknowledging thatcharter schools are here to stay. Theunion’s emphasis has shifted to thetask of “empowering” charter teach-ers through union membership andservices, including leadership train-ing. CTA is spending $250,000 ofits own funds plus an equal amountfrom its parent organization, theNational Education Association(NEA), to organize teachers in Cali-fornia charter schools. This is part ofa national effort by NEA. An April14, 2004, article in Education Weekstated that NEA leaders “argue thatunionized teachers can play a watch-dog role in charter schooling bypushing for greater public account-ability, particularly in schools run byfor-profit companies.”

The EdWeek article goes on to say:“Some California charter leaders areupbeat about the prospect for pro-ductive partnerships with unions,pointing to some places where suchrelationships have been forged. Othersare deeply suspicious of the 335,000-member CTA’s organizing effort,afraid it will bring to charter schools arules-oriented mentality that they leftregular public schools to escape.”

Both the state and federal govern-ment have also developed policiesthat envision chartering as one strat-egy for taking over low-performingschools that fail to improve. A fewschools may face these types of sanc-

Three Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities granteeswork in California

● Low Income Investment Fund1330 Broadway, Suite #600Oakland, CA 94612510/893-3811, ext. 316

● Raza Development Fund111 W. Monroe St., Suite #1610Phoenix, AZ 85003602/417-1401

● Local Initiatives Support Corp.501 7th Ave., 7th floorNew York, NY 10018212/455-9884

Additional information about the programis available at: www.ed.gov/programs/charterfacilities/index.html

tions under California’s ImmediateIntervention / UnderperformingSchools Program (II/USP) andHigh Priority Schools GrantProgram (HPSGP).

Those numbers are small com-pared to the number of schools thatcould face charter conversion just afew years from now under the federalNo Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).Each year, schools receiving federalTitle I dollars are expected to meet a number of performance targets,known collectively as AdequateYearly Progress (AYP). Schools thatdo not make AYP two years in a rowenter an intervention program calledProgram Improvement. Continuedfailure to make AYP subjects aschool to more and more seriousconsequences. After seven years, aschool must implement an alterna-tive governance structure, which can include converting to a charterschool. Under the state programs,most schools make the modest prog-ress necessary to escape sanctions.

However, under the federal program,schools face higher and higherperformance targets each year, whichalmost guarantees that large numbersof schools will eventually enter Year 7of Program Improvement and have toradically alter their governance struc-ture. California has roughly 5,500schools that receive Title I funding. Ofthose, about 1,200 are currently inProgram Improvement, and 340schools are already in their fifth orsixth year of not making AYP. It mustbe noted that the state has not yetinvoked the charter option for schoolsin the state’s intervention programs,and the decision to convert ProgramImprovement schools to charter statuswould lie with the governing district.

The idea of intervening in failingschools by making them chartersraises a key question: To what degreeare charter schools helping Califor-nia students succeed academically?

From the start, accountabilityfor student outcomes was a centralpromise of the charter concept,and that promise is coming due.Even many of the movement’sstaunchest supporters believe thatcharter schools need to pay moreattention to their students’academic progress. A number ofresearchers have assessed studentachievement in charter schools, andEdSource hopes to contribute tothis knowledge base. A fall 2004report will review what otherresearchers have found and analyzeAPI scores of charter schools withthe hope of providing some insightinto the factors that help make a charter school successful.EdSource is also developing acomprehensive charter school data-base designed to further informCalifornia about this ongoingeducational experiment.


Kelvin K. Lee, PresidentSuperintendent,Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District

Peter Schrag, Vice PresidentContributing Editor, Sacramento Bee

Lawrence O. Picus, Fiscal OfficerProfessor, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California

Robert G. Haskell, SecretarySenior Vice President, Public Affairs,Pacific Life Insurance Company

Ray BacchettiScholar in Residence, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

Davis CampbellPresident, CSBA Governance Institute

Susan J. CochranPresident, American Association of University Women–California

Christopher CrossChairman, Cross & Joftus, LLC

Brenda DavisPresident-Elect, California State PTA

Joni E. FinneyVice President, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

Gerald C. HaywardSenior Partner, Management, Analysis, and Planning, Inc.

Ann Nkiruka IfekwunigweNational Board Certified Teacher, Carthay Center Elementary School

Jacqueline JacobbergerPresident, League of Women Voters of California

Paul J. MarkowitzTeacher, Las Virgenes Unified School District

M. Magdalena Carrillo MejiaSuperintendent, Sacramento City Unified School District

John B. MocklerPresident, John Mockler & Associates

Ted OlssonManager, Corporate Community Relations, Silicon Valley,IBM Corporation

Amado M. PadillaProfessor of Education, Stanford University

Krys WulffDirector-at-Large, American Association of University Women

2003–04 EdSource Board of Directors

Trish WilliamsEdSource Executive Director

4151 Middlefield Road, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4743 • 650/857-9604 • Fax: 650/857-9618

[email protected] • www.edsource.org • www.ed-data.k12.ca.us

© C

opyr

ight

200

4 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

● The RAND evaluation on California’s charter schools canbe found at: www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1700

● See the Legislative Analyst’s Office report at:www.lao.ca.gov/2004/charter_schools/012004_charter_schools.htm

● Information about the California Charter SchoolsAssociation can be found at: www.charterassociation.org

● For the Charter Schools Development Center’s website,go to: www.cacharterschools.org

● To order Eric Premack’s book, California Charter SchoolFinance, go to: www.cacharterschools.org/pubs.html#Finance

● The 1996 Little Hoover Commission report on charterschools can be found at: www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/138rp.html

● To see the 2002 report by the Bureau of State Audits, goto: www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/summaries/2002-104.html

● To learn more about the charter movement throughoutthe U.S., see:www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs_docs/index.htm

To Learn More

Charter Schools in California - EdSource · increase each year, and a new associa-tion of charter...

Documents

Transcript of Charter Schools in California - EdSource · increase each year, and a new associa-tion of charter...