Securing appropriate facilities can be a significant challenge for those intending to open a charter school. Although, like all public schools, charter schools receive per-pupil dollars from the state, they generally receive considerably less. Additionally, because traditional public schools rely on their district to provide their school facilities, they can spend 100 percent of their per-pupil operational funding on their instructional program, whereas most charter schools must stretch operational dollars to cover facilities costs as well. This guide profiles policy interventions from eight states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Texas) and the District of Columbia that have been developed to help charter schools address various facilities-related challenges. By adapting the models described to local contexts as well as generating new models, it is hoped that states across the nation can lay the groundwork for offering all public school students the facilities needed to reach their education goals. Three appendixes include: (1) Research Methodology; (2) Statutes Pertaining to State-level Funding, Finance, and Provision of Charter School Facilities; and (3) Resources. A Glossary of Finance-related terms is included. (Contains 78 notes and 6 tables.).
All public school children are entitled to quality public educational facilities--including those who attend public charter schools. Yet charter school leaders often spend substantial time and money searching for a facility. When they find one, they encounter significant costs associated with leasing or purchasing the building. They may have to settle for old warehouses, vacant storefronts and church basements. Since only 15 states and Washington D.C. provide charter schools with some type of funding for facilities, and since charter schools have no taxing power, money spent on facilities must be borrowed, raised, or spent directly from the charter school's operating funds. This report shines a light on seven cities where innovative, affirmative policies and practices are making public facilities available to all public schools. It is hoped is that "the actual proves the possible"--and that seeing these efforts in action will spur productive relationships and collaborative practices in many more communities around the allocation of school facilities. For each city, the report describes the policies and practices in place, the processes used, the lessons learned, and the challenges that remain--even where laws are favorable to charter schools. To guide future advocacy toward fair and equitable allocation of public school buildings, this report also identifies strong policies to ensure charter schools have equitable access to surplus school district space. It is hoped that charter school advocates will use these model principles as they tackle facilities challenges in their own states and communities. (Contains 7 footnotes.).
In the spring of 2012, the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, the Colorado League of Charter Schools, and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools worked to collect data that would reveal and accurately portray the adequacy of charter school facilities and the average spending for facilities out of charter schools' operating budgets in Massachusetts. As described more fully in this report, the results of the data collection efforts provide evidence that charter schools in Massachusetts pay more for facilities compared to traditional public schools, yet charter school students do not have access to many of the same facilities and amenities as compared to their peers in traditional public schools. In order to ensure that the recommendations of this effort were research-based and supported by reliable data, Hutton Architecture Studio--a leader in educational facilities architecture--consulted on the project to provide a set of reasonable expectations for school facilities' size and amenities. In order to ensure that the policy recommendations of this report are research-based and supported by reliable data, Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. consulted on the project to provide a set of reasonable expectations for school facilities' size and amenities. Given the alignment of the Facilities Initiative and the goals and data needs of the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) Charter Schools Program (CSP), ED procured additional state surveys, including Arkansas. The National Charter School Resource Center at American Institutes for Research (AIR) has been subcontracting with the Colorado League of Charter Schools to collect the research and data on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education since October of 2011. To date, AIR has subcontracted for the data collection and research of charter school facilities in four states: Idaho (ED561933), Michigan (ED561921), Massachusetts, and New Jersey (ED561926). This report is based on facilities survey and measurement data plus enrollment and operating revenue data collected for the 2012-2013 school year. The following are appended: (1) Methodology; and (2) School Facility Standards.
Are there legitimate arguments to prevent families from choosing the education that works best for their children? Opponents of school choice have certainly offered many objections, but for decades they have mainly repeated myths either because they did not know any better or perhaps to protect the government schooling monopoly. In these pages, 14 of the top scholars in education policy debunk a dozen of the most pernicious myths, including “school choice siphons money from public schools,” “choice harms children left behind in public schools,” “school choice has racist origins,” and “choice only helps the rich get richer.” As the contributors demonstrate, even arguments against school choice that seem to make powerful intuitive sense fall apart under scrutiny. There are, frankly, no compelling arguments against funding students directly instead of public school systems. School Choice Myths shatters the mythology standing in the way of education freedom.
The number of charter schools has grown rapidly from 250 in 1995 to about 4,000 by 2007, now enrolling more than 1.1 million students in the United States. Charter schools face many challenges when they attempt to purchase or lease permanent facilities and frequently operate in temporary space that is poorly suited for delivering educational services. Unlike regular public schools, they typically do not have separate facilities funding from their school districts. Moreover, charter schools generally cannot issue bonds backed by property taxes to finance facilities. Finally, since charter schools often lack tangible assets and an operating history that could be used to support a loan application, securing facilities financing may be particularly problematic. In response to this problem, the U.S. Department of Education established the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program, which makes available grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities which use Program funds for credit enhancements so that lenders will make loans for: (1) Acquisition of an interest in improved or unimproved real property that is necessary to commence or continue the operation of a charter school; and (2) Construction of new facilities, or the renovation, repair, or alteration of existing facilities, necessary to commence or continue the operation of a charter school. The purposes of this study are to describe how the Grantees implemented their activities, as outlined in their Program document. Findings include: (1) the Program provides for improved access of charter schools to capital markets for facilities (Credit enhancements funded by the Program reduce lenders' exposure to losses in the event that a charter school defaults on its loan, improving charter schools' access to capital markets and resulting in more lending than would have occurred without the Program); (2) the Program provides for better rates and terms on financing than would otherwise be available for the charter schools served by the Program Grantees (Many of the assisted schools, according to representatives of Grantees, commercial lenders, investment banks, and rating agencies, would not have received facility loans at any price before the Program, because lenders believed that these schools reflected a prohibitively high level of risk); (3) Results regarding the differences between a Vertically Integrated model and a Fully Distributed model of service are preliminary: analysis does not provide conclusive evidence that favors one model over another, but data suggest that both models of service play a significant role in facilitating capital investment in charter schools that otherwise would not be able to secure conventional financing (lending volume to date may be lower for Grantees using a Vertically Integrated model of service, but they appear more willing to serve slightly more risky charter schools than those supported by the credit enhancements provided by Grantees using a Fully Distributed model); (4) Grantees used selection criteria to choose assisted schools that include: extent to which the applicant selects geographic service areas in which a large proportion or number of public schools have been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; extent to which the applicant selects geographic service areas in which a large proportion of students perform below proficient on state academic assessments; and extent to which the applicant selected communities to serve with large proportions of low-income students; (5) Based on a review of loan-level data and information provided by Grantees and assisted schools, there was evidence that Grantees are using innovative methods, especially related to helping charter schools borrow directly from private lenders; and (6) Overall, the Grantees and assisted schools were highly positive about the Program and believe that it is making a difference in the market. Five appendixes are included: (1) Glossary of Terms; (2) Interviews Conducted; (3) Discussion Guides; (4) Characteristics of Census Tracts and Counties in Which High Schools Assisted by Grantees between FY 2003 and FY 2005 Were Located; and (5) Program Grant Recipients: FY 2002-FY 2007. (Contains 15 footnotes and 31 exhibits.).
A heated debate is raging over our nation’s public schools and how they should be reformed, with proposals ranging from imposing national standards to replacing public education altogether with a voucher system for private schools. Combining decades of experience in education, the authors propose an innovative approach to solving the problems of our school system and find a middle ground between these extremes. Reinventing Public Education shows how contracting would radically change the way we operate our schools, while keeping them public and accessible to all, and making them better able to meet standards of achievement and equity. Using public funds, local school boards would select private providers to operate individual schools under formal contracts specifying the type and quality of instruction. In a hands-on, concrete fashion, the authors provide a thorough explanation of the pros and cons of school contracting and how it would work in practice. They show how contracting would free local school boards from operating schools so they can focus on improving educational policy; how it would allow parents to choose the best school for their children; and, finally, how it would ensure that schools are held accountable and academic standards are met. While retaining a strong public role in education, contracting enables schools to be more imaginative, adaptable, and suited to the needs of children and families. In presenting an alternative vision for America’s schools, Reinventing Public Education is too important to be ignored.
Twenty-five years ago, charter schools hadn’t even been dreamed up. Today they are mushrooming across the country. There are 6,500 charter schools operating in 42 states, with more than 600 new ones opening every year. Within a blink there will be 3 million American children attending these freshly invented institutions (and 5 million students in them by the end of this decade). It is philanthropy that has made all of this possible. Without generous donors, charter schools could never have rooted and multiplied in this way. And philanthropists have driven relentless annual improvements—better trained school founders, more prepared teachers, sharper curricula, smarter technology—that have allowed charter schools to churn out impressive results. Studies show that student performance in charter schools is accelerating every year, as high-performing models replace weaker ones. Charter schools as a whole already exceed conventional schools in results. The top charters that are now growing so fast elevate student outcomes more than any other schools in the U.S.—especially among poor and minority children. Charter schooling may be the most important social innovation of our age, and it is just beginning to boom. Philanthropists anxious to improve America have more opportunities to make a difference through charter schools than in almost any other way. This book provides the facts, examples, cautionaries, inspiration, research, and practical experience that philanthropists will need as charter schooling shifts gears from promising experiment to mainstream movement bringing improved opportunity to millions of students.
