-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [Planning and Evaluation Service]{.smallcaps}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

![](media/image1.jpeg)

**Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Year One Evaluation
Report**

**[2000]{.smallcaps}**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.5152777777777777in"
height="1.632638888888889in"}

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[U.S. Department of            | **[Office of the Under            |
| Education]{.smallcaps}**         | Secretary]{.smallcaps}**          |
|                                  |                                   |
| **[Doc #2001-06]{.smallcaps}**   |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

![](media/image3.wmf)SRI International---P03615

**SRI International Evaluation Team Authors:**

Lee Anderson

Nancy Adelman

Kyo Yamashiro

Mary Beth Donnelly

Kara Finnigan, Consultant to SRI International

Jose Blackorby

Lynyonne Cotton

**With the assistance of:**

Eric Hirsch, National Conference of State Legislatures

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract Number EA 98-CO-0074. The views expressed herein are those of
the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of
Education is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Richard W. Riley

*Secretary*

**Office of the Under Secretary**

Judith A. Winston

*Under Secretary (A)*

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Elementary and Secondary Education Division**

Ricky T. Takai

*Director*

December 2000

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation
Service, Elementary and Secondary Education Division*, Evaluation of the
Public Charter Schools Program: Year One Evaluation Report*, Washington,
D.C., 20202.

**To order copies of this report, write:**

Planning and Evaluation

Elementary and Secondary Education Division

U. S. Department of Education

Washington, DC 20202;

via fax, dial (202) 401-1670;

via phone, dial (202) 401-1958

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
www.uscharterschools.org and www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/.

# Acknowledgments

> The authors wish to thank several colleagues whose names do not appear
> in this volume:
>
> To Bonnee Groover, whose grasp of the project, its deadlines, and a
> growing list of software, kept the study running smoothly.
>
> To Kathryn Valdes, whose responsive, competent, and creative computer
> programming made the survey data make sense.
>
> To Klaus Krause, whose careful editing made this report make sense.
>
> To Meredith Miller, the project officer for this study, a true partner
> in each stage of the evaluation.
>
> To the members of the study's Technical Work Group: Jose Afonso,
> Josephine Baker, Marcella Dianda, James Goenner, Margaret Goertz, Eric
> Hirsch, Ginger Hovenic, Karen Seashore Louis, Bruno Manno, Wayne
> Martin, and Eric Rofes.
>
> And a special thanks to the state charter school coordinators and
> charter school authorizers who were interviewed and the members of the
> charter school community who participated in focus groups.

# Evaluation of the public charter schools program: Year one evaluation report Executive summary

The Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP), established in 1994,
represents the federal government's commitment to help charter schools
meet planning, start-up, and early implementation costs. By helping
charter schools overcome financial barriers, the PCSP is also designed
to increase the number of charter schools nationwide. As of October
1999, 1,692 charter schools were in operation in 30 states, Washington,
D.C., and Puerto Rico.

Researchers at SRI International are conducting the first national
evaluation of the PCSP. In addition to gathering systematic information
about the program at the local, state, and federal levels, the 52-month
study will continue to document the evolution of the charter school
movement (a process begun under another study funded by the U.S.
Department of Education and conducted by RPP International). Data
collection and analysis for the SRI study are driven by a series of
research questions on the operations and impacts of the PCSP, the
characteristics of charter schools, charter school flexibility, and
charter school accountability.

## The Public Charter Schools Program and the Charter School Movement 

Federal interest in supporting the development of the charter school
movement began in 1993, when President Clinton first proposed the Public
Charter Schools Program and several Senators and Representatives
proposed the Public Schools Redefinition Act. No action was taken,
however, until the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) in 1994. At that time, the PCSP was enacted as
Title X, Part C, of ESEA, with an initial appropriation of \$6 million
in FY 1995. The PCSP is a discretionary grant program, administered in
the Office of School Improvement Programs in the Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education. The PCSP is intended to support the planning,
development, and/or initial implementation of charter schools, providing
relatively unencumbered seed funding for states with charter school laws
to distribute to charter school groups during the first 3 years of a
charter school's existence. The statute also makes provision for
individual charter schools to apply directly to the Secretary of
Education for a grant if their states choose not to participate or have
been denied a grant.

Congress reauthorized the PCSP in 1998 by passing the Charter School
Expansion Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-378). Eligibility for subgrants was
expanded to include mature charter schools, which could apply for funds
to disseminate promising school practices. The appropriation for FY 2000
was \$145 million.

Even though charter schools in the United States predate the PCSP, the
movement is still less than 10 years old. Since the first charter school
opened in 1992 in Minnesota, the number of these schools has increased
steadily, and President Clinton has repeatedly challenged educators to
increase the number to 3,000 by 2002. As the movement has grown, it has
also struggled. Stories began to emerge early about the difficulties
that charter schools---particularly those that were being created from
scratch---faced in their first months and years (RPP International and
the University of Minnesota, 1997). Depending on the specifications
about state and local funding streams in a state's charter school
legislation, groups seeking to open charter schools were often obliged
to capitalize the planning and early development of their schools out of
their own pockets or by incurring debt. Finding, renting or buying, and
renovating space were particular barriers, according to early surveys of
the charter school field.

## SRI International's Evaluation of the PCSP

The PCSP legislation authorized an evaluation of the program, along with
other national activities. Researchers at SRI International began this
first evaluation of the PCSP in October 1998. The 52-month study has two
purposes: (1) evaluation of the rapidly growing Public Charter Schools
Program and (2) continued documentation of the evolution of the charter
school movement begun under the National Study of Charter Schools,
conducted by RPP International. The findings reported in this document
are from the first year of the SRI evaluation, which included telephone
surveys of (1) state charter school coordinators (N=38), (2)
representatives of a purposive sample of agencies that are authorized to
award charters to charter schools under state charter school laws
(charter school authorizers) (n=48), and (3) directors of a subset of
charter schools that received PCSP grants directly from the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) (n=14). Year 1 data collection also
included the extraction of information from federal files maintained on
PCSP grantees, analysis of state charter laws, interviews with federal
staff, and focus groups with charter school planners and operators and
with charter school authorizers.

Two additional reports are planned under this contract. They will
include charter school-level data from multiple sources: (1) the
National Study of Charter Schools conducted by RPP International; (2)
the National Center for Education Statistics' Schools and Staffing
Survey (SASS), which included a charter school supplement in its
1999-2000 data collection effort; and (3) the SRI survey of charter
schools in 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. In addition, the SRI evaluation team
will conduct a substudy of student performance in charter schools
compared with student performance in regular public schools in a limited
number of states where such comparisons can be made under rigorous
design considerations.

## Broad Research Questions

The dual purposes of this evaluation are evident in the broad research
question clusters that guide the data collection, analysis, and
reporting requirements. Some questions are concerned specifically with
the Public Charter Schools Program, and others are about the evolution
of the charter school movement in a more general sense.

-   How does the PCSP encourage the development of charter schools?

-   How do state PCSP grantees and charter school authorizers encourage
    the development of charter schools?

-   How do federally funded charter schools/school planners use their
    PCSP subgrants?

-   What are the characteristics of charter schools and the students and
    families who are involved with them?

-   What flexibility provisions are charter schools granted?

-   How do charter schools measure student performance, and are charter
    school students making progress on these and other measures?

Additional details about the research questions, study design, data
collection, and data analysis are presented in Chapter 1 of the report.

## The Growth of the Charter Movement 

The number of charter schools is increasing steadily (see Exhibit 1).
The National Study of Charter Schools (Nelson et al., 2000) reports
several interesting statistics about this growth, which the SRI data
supplement in this report. SRI will continue documenting this growth in
later reports. Please note that charter schools are not yet in operation
in all states that have enacted charter school laws.

Exhibit 1

NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOL STATES

  ------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------------------
  **Beginning   Number of      **Number of    **Number of **Source**
  of School     States with    States with    Charter     
  Year**        Charter School Charter        Schools**   
                Laws           Schools**                  

  1992-1993     2              1              2           Nelson et al.
                                                          (2000). (Note: Data
                                                          include Washington,
                                                          D.C., starting in
                                                          1996-1997, but not
                                                          Puerto Rico, which
                                                          authorized charter
                                                          schools in 1993.)

  1993-1994     8              3              36          

  1994-1995     11             6              100         

  1995-1996     18             10             254         

  1996-1997     26             17             432         

  1997-1998     30             24             721         

  1998-1999     34             28             1,122       

  1999-2000     38             32             1,692       SRI. (Includes D.C.
                                                          and Puerto Rico.)
  ------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------------------

## Organization of the Report

The Year 1 data in this report paint a comprehensive picture of a number
of issues: the development of the Public Charter Schools Program, state
and charter school authorizer perspectives on charter school flexibility
and accountability, and the charter school activities of states and a
sample of charter school authorizers. This picture, however, is also a
"snapshot" of a rapidly evolving movement during a narrow time interval
(summer and fall 1999).

The report is organized according to the evaluation themes and findings
from the first year of data collection and analysis. The overarching
themes and specific findings are as follows:\
\
**[Evaluation Theme 1]{.underline}: Like the charter school movement
itself, the Public Charter Schools Program has grown and matured since
its implementation in 1994.**

> **Finding**: Increasing numbers of new and developing charter schools
> are receiving support from federal funds through the Public Charter
> Schools Program (PCSP).

**[Evaluation Theme 2]{.underline}: Public Charter Schools Program funds
flow as Congress and the U.S. Department of Education intended---as
grants to states and then directly to charter schools as subgrants.
Overall, 95 percent or more of PCSP funds are spent at the charter
school level.**

> **Finding**: As allowed in the legislation, states retain 5 percent or
> less of their PCSP grants for administrative purposes.
>
> **Finding**: As allowed in the legislation, states have developed
> their own procedures for awarding subgrants.
>
> **Finding**: States use different definitions of "start-up,"
> differences that affect eligibility for PCSP subgrants.
>
> **Finding**: The use of PCSP subgrant funds is largely unrestricted.

**[Evaluation Theme 3]{.underline}: In addition to providing financial
support, the Public Charter Schools Program has provided national
leadership in the charter school movement through policy-setting,
research, networking, and technical assistance to the field.**

> **Finding**: The PCSP takes a leadership role within the Department of
> Education in helping shape the national charter school agenda.
>
> **Finding**: PCSP staff have taken an active approach to connecting
> charter school operators, sponsors, and support groups with each other
> and with other resources.
>
> **Finding**: The PCSP is responsive to technical assistance requests
> from states and other PCSP grantees.

**[Evaluation Theme 4]{.underline}: States, in general, are working
toward increasing the avenues available to charter applicants, either by
expanding the types of agencies that can charter or by loosening limits
on the numbers of charter schools permitted.**

> **Finding**: State laws allow a diverse range of agencies to award
> charters to schools.
>
> **Finding**: Although caps on the number of charter schools have been
> an obstacle to charter school growth in some states, the overall trend
> is to loosen or expand these limits over time.

**[Evaluation Theme 5]{.underline}: Reports from states and charter
school authorizers suggest that charter schools have certain freedoms
that other public schools do not, but that they are also subject to many
of the same regulations and requirements. Perceptions of these freedoms
differ between state and charter school authorizer respondents, and
among charter school authorizers.**

> **Finding**: Half of the 38 states with charter school laws
> automatically grant waivers from many state laws, rules, and
> regulations; the other half either require charter school applicants
> to negotiate waivers on a case-by-case basis or ban waivers
> altogether.
>
> **Finding**: In general, state charter school policies do not exempt
> charter schools from state student assessment or budgeting/auditing
> requirements. Charter school authorizers, on the other hand, reported
> that charter schools have considerable autonomy over key aspects of
> their programs.
>
> **Finding**: In general, charter school authorizers that are *not*
> local educational agencies (e.g., agencies like state boards of
> education, institutions of higher education, and special chartering
> boards) allow charter schools greater flexibility and autonomy.

**[Evaluation Theme 6]{.underline}: Both states and charter school
authorizers are establishing processes to hold charter schools
accountable, often focusing on student achievement.**

> **Finding**: In general, states reported that charter schools are held
> to the same student outcome measures as other public schools,
> particularly with respect to state testing requirements. Similarly,
> charter school authorizers reported that nearly all charter schools
> have measurable goals in the area of student achievement.
>
> **Finding**: In the majority of states with charter school
> legislation, charter schools are accountable to multiple agencies.
>
> **Finding**: The most prominent roles and responsibilities of charter
> school authorizers, as reported by states, include reviewing,
> negotiating, and monitoring the terms of the charter agreement and
> monitoring student performance.
>
> **Finding**: During the charter-granting process, charter school
> authorizers reported focusing on curriculum, finances, and assessment
> and accountability. Once charter schools are up and running, charter
> school authorizers focus on monitoring student achievement, financial
> record keeping, and compliance with federal or state regulations.
>
> **Finding**: Charter school authorizers that are *not* local
> educational agencies (particularly those that are states) and those
> that have chartered large numbers of schools are more likely to have
> well-developed accountability policies, processes, and procedures than
> local charter school authorizers.

**[Evaluation Theme 7]{.underline}: States and charter school
authorizers have many corrective actions at their disposal; most have
been used in moderation.**

> **Finding**: Though not a frequent occurrence, in about half of the
> states the accountability process has resulted in some type of
> sanction against one or more charter schools. Generally, corrective
> actions are related to fiscal and management issues.
>
> **Finding**: Charter school authorizers echoed state reports
> concerning the variety, frequency, and causes of corrective actions
> involving charter schools.
>
> **Finding**: Corrective actions, when they did take place, were more
> common in states with older charter school legislation, larger
> populations of charter schools, and multiple chartering entities.

As this list of themes and findings indicates, the key issues explored
in the Year 1 report are the Public Charter Schools Program, charter
school flexibility, and charter school accountability, mostly from the
perspective of respondents to the state coordinator and charter school
authorizer surveys. Information from federal interviews and the focus
groups is incorporated anecdotally.

The report concludes with a chapter on the study findings as of Year 1
and on the impact of charter schools from the perspective of Year 1
survey respondents. The conclusion also presents information on the
evaluation team's plans for future rounds of data collection, analysis,
and reporting.

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

The Public Charter Schools Program and the Charter School Movement i

SRI International's Evaluation of the PCSP ii

Broad Research Questions ii

The Growth of the Charter Movement iii

Organization of the Report iii

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION AND THE YEAR 1 REPORT 1

The Public Charter Schools Program 1

The Charter School Movement 2

Research Questions and Data Sources 4

Data Collection and Analysis 12

Organization of the Report 13

CHAPTER 2: THE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS PROGRAM (PCSP) 17

Evaluation Theme 1: Like the charter school movement itself, the Public
Charter Schools Program has grown and matured since its implementation
in 1994. 17

Evaluation Theme 2: Public Charter Schools Program funds flow as
Congress and the U.S. Department of Education intended---as grants to
states and then directly to charter schools\
as subgrants. Overall, 95 percent or more of PCSP funds are spent at the
charter\
school level. 23

Evaluation Theme 3: In addition to providing financial support, the
Public Charter Schools Program has provided national leadership in the
charter school movement through\
policy-setting, research, networking, and technical assistance to the
field. 28

CHAPTER 3: FLEXIBILITY 33

Evaluation Theme 4: States, in general, are working toward increasing
the avenues\
available to charter applicants, either by expanding the types of
agencies that can charter\
or by loosening limits on the numbers of schools permitted. 33

Evaluation Theme 5: Reports from states and charter school authorizers
suggest that\
charter schools have certain freedoms that other public schools do not,
but that they are\
also subject to many of the same regulations and requirements.
Perceptions of these\
freedoms differ between state and charter school authorizer respondents,
and among\
charter school authorizers. 38

CHAPTER 4: ACCOUNTABILITY 43

Evaluation Theme 6: Both states and charter school authorizers are
establishing processes\
to hold charter schools accountable, often focusing on student
achievement. 43

Evaluation Theme 7: States and charter school authorizers have many
corrective actions\
at their disposal; most have been used in moderation. 56

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION PLANS FOR YEAR 2 AND YEAR 3 59

How does the PCSP encourage the development of charter schools? 59

How do state PCSP grantees and charter school authorizers encourage the
development\
of charter schools? 60

How do federally funded charter schools/school planners use their PCSP
subgrants? 61

What are the characteristics of charter schools and the students and
families who are\
involved with them? 61

What flexibility provisions are charter schools granted? 61

How do charter schools measure student performance, and are charter
school students\
making progress on these and other measures? 62

REFERENCES 65

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Number of Charter Schools and Charter School States iii

Exhibit 1-1: Number of Charter Schools and Charter School States 4

Exhibit 1-2: Research Questions and Data Sources 6

Exhibit 1-3: Types and Numbers of Charter School Authorizers in Year 1
Sample 9

Exhibit 1-4: Mean Number of Schools Chartered, by Type of Charter School
Authorizer 10

Exhibit 1-5: Location and Type of Focus Groups 12

Exhibit 1-6: List of Themes by Chapter 14

Exhibit 2-1: PCSP Appropriations and Number of State Grantees: 1995-99
17

Exhibit 2-2: Annual Summary Statistics on Size of PCSP Grants 19

Exhibit 2-3: Reported Sources of Charter School Start-Up Funds 20

Exhibit 2-4: Number of PCSP Subgrants Awarded, by State and Year 21

Exhibit 2-5: Number and Proportion of States with Specific Criteria for
Determining\
Subgrant Funding Levels 26

Exhibit 2-6: Eligibility Criteria for PCSP Planning Subgrants 27

Exhibit 2-7: Sources of Technical Assistance in Preparing Applications
31

Exhibit 2-8: Sources of Technical Assistance in Preparing Reports 31

Exhibit 3-1: Types of Agencies Permitted to Charter 36

Exhibit 3-2: States with Statewide Caps and Number of Charters Opened 37

Exhibit 3-3: How State Laws are Waived for Charter Schools 39

Exhibit 3-4: Types of Freedoms Granted to Charter Schools, as Reported
by States 40

Exhibit 3-5: Charter School Authorizers' Reports of Charter School
Control 42

Exhibit 3-6: Extent to Which Charter Schools Control Policies and
Decisions Related\
to Finance and Management, by Type of Authorizer 42

Exhibit 4-1: State Reporting Requirements for Charter School Authorizers
45

Exhibit 4-2: Proportion of Charter Schools with Measurable Goals, as
Reported by\
Charter School Authorizers 46

Exhibit 4-3: Agencies Identified by State Coordinators as Responsible
for Ensuring Accountability 47

Exhibit 4-4: Roles and Responsibilities of Charter School Authorizers,
as Reported\
by States 48

Exhibit 4-5: Importance of Program Elements in Decision to Issue a
Charter, as\
Reported by Charter School Authorizers 49

Exhibit 4-6: Changes Required and Denial of Applications Relating to
Particular\
Program Elements 50

Exhibit 4-7: Areas Monitored by Charter School Authorizers 51

Exhibit 4-8: Existence of Written Policies, by Type of Charter School
Authorizer 54

Exhibit 4-9: Charter School Authorizers with Separate Office and/or
Staff Dedicated\
to Charter Schools, by Type of Charter School Authorizer 55

Exhibit 4-10: Percentage of Time Spent on Charter Schools, by Type of
Charter\
School Authorizer 55

# Chapter 1

# overview of the evaluation and the year 1 report

The Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP), established in 1994,
represents the federal government's commitment to help charter schools
meet planning, start-up, and early implementation costs. By helping
charter schools overcome financial barriers, the PCSP is also designed
to increase the number of charter schools nationwide. As of October
1999, 1,692 charter schools were in operation in 30 states, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.[^1]

Researchers at SRI International are conducting the first national
evaluation of the PCSP. In addition to gathering systematic information
about the program at the local, state, and federal levels, the 52-month
study will continue to document the evolution of the charter school
movement (a process begun under another study funded by the U.S.
Department of Education and conducted by RPP International). Data
collection and analysis for the SRI study are driven by a series of
research questions on the operations and impacts of the PCSP, the
characteristics of charter schools, charter school flexibility, and
charter school accountability.

## The Public Charter Schools Program

Federal interest in supporting the development of the charter school
movement began in 1993, when President Clinton first proposed the Public
Charter Schools Program (PCSP) and several Senators and Representatives
proposed the Public Schools Redefinition Act. No action was taken,
however, until the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) in 1994. At that time, the PCSP was enacted as
Title X, Part C, of ESEA, with an initial appropriation of \$6 million
in FY 1995. The PCSP is a discretionary grant program, administered in
the Office of School Improvement Programs in the Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education. The PCSP is intended to support the planning,
development, and/or initial implementation of charter schools, providing
relatively unencumbered seed funding for states with charter school laws
to distribute to charter school groups during the first 3 years of a
charter school's existence. The statute also makes provision for
individual charter schools to apply directly to the Secretary of
Education for a grant if their states choose not to participate or have
been denied a grant.

Congress reauthorized the PCSP in 1998 by passing the Charter School
Expansion Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-378). Eligibility for subgrants was
expanded to include mature charter schools, which could apply for funds
to disseminate promising school practices. The appropriation for FY 2000
was \$145 million.

According to the authorizing legislation, the purpose of the Public
Charter Schools Program is to "increase national understanding of the
charter schools model by (1) providing financial assistance for the
planning, program design and initial implementation of charter schools;
(2) evaluating the effects of such schools, including the effects on
students, student achievement, staff, and parents; and (3) expanding the
number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the
Nation" (Sec. 10301\[b\]).

These purposes are addressed by providing grants to states. States
determine the process for putting 95 percent or more of the state grants
into the hands of charter school planning groups and charter schools in
the form of subgrants. These subgrants can be used for planning,
implementation, and---for schools that have been in operation for 3
years or more---dissemination of promising charter school practices and
programs. If a state has not applied for or received a PCSP grant,
charter school planners may apply directly to the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) for funds.

In addition, the Secretary of Education is authorized "\[t\]o provide
for. . . evaluations or studies that include the evaluation of the
impact of charter schools on student achievement" and "\[t\]o provide .
. . for the collection of information regarding the financial resources
available to charter schools. . . " (Sec. 10305\[a\]). The research
reported in this document was supported by PCSP funds set aside for
research and other national activities.

## The Charter School Movement 

Even though charter schools in the United States predate the PCSP, the
movement is still less than 10 years old. Since the first charter school
opened in 1992 in Minnesota, the number of these schools has increased
steadily, and President Clinton has repeatedly challenged educators to
increase the number to 3,000 by 2002. As the movement has grown, it has
also struggled. Stories began to emerge early about the difficulties
that charter schools---particularly those that were being created from
scratch---faced in their first months and years (RPP International and
the University of Minnesota, 1997). Depending on the specifications
about state and local funding streams in a state's charter school
legislation, groups seeking to open charter schools were often obliged
to capitalize the planning and early development of their schools out of
their own pockets or by incurring debt. Finding, renting or buying, and
renovating space were particular barriers, according to early surveys of
the charter school field.

Exhibit 1-1 illustrates the growth of the charter school movement. The
National Study of Charter Schools (Nelson et al., 2000) reports several
interesting statistics about this growth, which the SRI data will
supplement in this and later years. For an overview of charter school
activity by state, see Appendix A.

## SRI International's Evaluation of the PCSP.

The PCSP legislation authorized an evaluation of the program, along with
other national activities. Researchers at SRI International began this
first evaluation of the PCSP in October 1998. The 52-month study has two
purposes: (1) evaluation of the rapidly growing Public Charter Schools
Program and (2) continued documentation of the evolution of the charter
school movement begun under the National Study of Charter Schools,
conducted by RPP International.[^2] The findings reported in this
document are from the first year of the SRI evaluation, which included
telephone surveys of (1) state charter school coordinators in 36 states,
Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico (N=38); (2) representatives of
agencies that are authorized to award charters to charter schools under
state charter school laws (charter school authorizers) (n=48); and (3)
directors of charter schools that received PCSP grants directly from the
U.S. Department of Education (ED) (n=14). Year 1 data collection also
included the extraction of information from federal files maintained on
PCSP grantees, analysis of state charter laws, interviews with federal
staff, and focus groups with charter school planners, operators, and
charter school authorizers.

Exhibit 1-1

NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOL STATES

  ------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------------------
  **Beginning   Number of      **Number of    **Number of **Source**
  of School     States with    States with    Charter     
  Year**        Charter School Charter        Schools**   
                Laws           Schools**                  

  1992-1993     2              1              2           Nelson et al.
                                                          (2000). (Note: Data
                                                          include Washington,
                                                          D.C., starting in
                                                          1996-1997, but not
                                                          Puerto Rico, which
                                                          authorized charter
                                                          schools in 1993.)

  1993-1994     8              3              36          

  1994-1995     11             6              100         

  1995-1996     18             10             254         

  1996-1997     26             17             432         

  1997-1998     30             24             721         

  1998-1999     34             28             1,122       

  1999-2000     38             32             1,692       SRI. (Includes D.C.
                                                          and Puerto Rico.)
  ------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------------------

## 

## Research Questions and Data Sources

The dual purposes of this evaluation are evident in the broad research
question clusters that guide the data collection, analysis, and
reporting requirements. Some questions are concerned specifically with
the Public Charter Schools Program, and others are about the evolution
of the charter school movement in a more general sense. Exhibit 1-2
displays the research questions under each cluster and summarizes the
data collection methods that are being used to address them.

During the 4-year evaluation, answers to the research questions will be
obtained through several sources of quantitative and qualitative data.
The sources will differ for each of three planned reports. The data
sources that were used this year are described below. The sources that
will be used in later years are revisited in the last chapter of this
report. Data sources for this report consisted of the following:

**Telephone survey of state charter school coordinators.** The charter
coordinators (or equivalent) for all 38 states with charter school
legislation were surveyed by phone in the summer and fall of 1999. The
survey instrument incorporated a combination of open- and closed-ended
items on charter school-related operations, requirements, and
flexibility, and the state's PCSP grant. Members of the SRI study team
administered the surveys, which took approximately one hour per survey
respondent. The response rate was 100 percent. (The basic
characteristics of the state universe are displayed in Appendix A.)

**Telephone survey of charter school authorizers.** A sample of 50
authorizers that have awarded charters to charter schools was selected
during the spring and summer of 1999. Among the states with charter
school laws, many types of entities are authorized to issue charters.
Because of uncertainties about the respondent pool for this part of the
charter school story, the evaluation team and the study's Technical Work
Group favored a purposive sampling strategy for the first year of data
collection to maximize the diversity of authorizers surveyed. Data
collection took place at the same time as the state coordinator survey
and involved the same researchers. The charter school authorizer survey
also took about one hour to complete. Survey questions were designed to
document charter school authorizers' experiences in assisting and
monitoring charter schools; granting, renewing, and revoking charters;
and financial issues (including the federal PCSP funds). Forty-eight
charter school authorizer surveys were completed within the data
collection window, for a response rate of 96 percent.

Exhibit 1-2

# RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 35%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="2" rowspan="3"></th>
<th rowspan="3"><p><strong>Federal File Extraction</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 1-3)</strong></p></th>
<th colspan="11"><strong>PCSP Evaluation: Telephone
Surveys</strong></th>
<th colspan="4" rowspan="2"><p><strong>Other</strong></p>
<p><strong>Surveys</strong></p></th>
<th colspan="6" rowspan="2"><strong>PCSP Evaluation: Other Data
Collection</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th colspan="4"></th>
<th colspan="2"></th>
<th colspan="5"><p><strong>Charter Schools</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Year 2-3)</strong></p></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="4"><strong>State Coordi-nators (Years 1 &amp;
3)</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><p><strong>Charter School Authorizers</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 1-3)</strong></p></th>
<th><strong>PCSP Charter Schools</strong></th>
<th colspan="4"><strong>Non-PCSP Charter Schools</strong></th>
<th><strong><br />
RPP</strong></th>
<th colspan="3"><strong><br />
SASS</strong></th>
<th colspan="3"><p><strong>Federal Interviews</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 1-3)</strong></p></th>
<th colspan="3"><p><strong>Site Visits*</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 2-3)</strong></p></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="24"><strong>How does the PCSP encourage the development of
charter schools?</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>How the PCSP awards grants.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Proportion of charter schools receiving PCSP grants—nationally and
by state.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><em>Reasons for differences in the proportion of funded charter
schools among funded states.</em></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Accessibility, usefulness, and timeliness of federal technical
assistance to states, schools, planners.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Impact of the PCSP on state policies.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="24"><strong>How do state PCSP grantees and charter school
authorizers encourage the development of charter schools?</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>How states define “start-up” in establishing funding
eligibility.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Number of states that allow planning grants; number of schools
opened as a result.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>How states award subgrants.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>State requirements for use of federal funds.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">X</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Accommodations by charter school authorizers for low-income
community charter applications.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Accommodations of states for low-income community charter
applications for federal assistance.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Extent to which differences in subgrant amounts between
and within states reflect differences in start-up needs.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3">X</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Sustaining charters after federal funding expires.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">X</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Linkage with policies to intervene in failing
schools.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Accessibility, usefulness, and timeliness of state
technical assistance to schools and school planners.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">X</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Exhibit 1-2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED)

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 35%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3" rowspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3" rowspan="3"><p><strong>Federal File
Extraction</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 1-3)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="12"><strong>PCSP Evaluation: Telephone
Surveys</strong></td>
<td colspan="6" rowspan="2"><p><strong>Other</strong></p>
<p><strong>Surveys</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="4" rowspan="2"><strong>PCSP Evaluation: Other Data
Collection</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"><p><strong>Charter Schools</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Year 2-3)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"><strong>State Coordi-nators (Years 1 &amp;
3)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><p><strong>Charter School Authorizers</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 1-3)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>PCSP Charter Schools</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Non-PCSP Charter Schools</strong></td>
<td><p><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong><br />
RPP</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="5"><p><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong><br />
SASS</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Federal Interviews</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 1-3)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="3"><p><strong>Site Visits*</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 2-3)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="28"><strong>How do federally funded charter schools/school
planners use their PCSP subgrants?</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Average and range of federal subgrant awards—nationally
and by state.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Proportion of start-up costs accounted for with the
federal grant.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Kinds of planning and implementation activities
supported by federal subgrants; extent activities are dictated by state
authorizing legislation.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Start-up barriers overcome by federal funds.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Importance of access to federal grant money in obtaining
or pursuing charter.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><em>Differences between charter schools that receive
PCSP grants and those that do not.</em></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="28"><strong>What are the characteristics of charter schools
and the students and families who are involved with them?</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Grade levels and student population served.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="5">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Educational approaches implemented.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="5">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Background and demographic characteristics of instructional and
administrative staff.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Newly created vs. public or private school conversions.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="5">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Selection criteria for admission and the frequency/extent of waiting
lists.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="5">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Demographic composition of charter schools, compared with the
traditional public schools in their surrounding areas.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="5">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Targeting and accommodation of special populations.</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="5">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><em>Professional development opportunities available for
teachers.</em></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="5">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Exhibit 1-2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES (CONCLUDED)

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 35%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="2" rowspan="3"></th>
<th rowspan="3"><p><strong>Federal File Extraction</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 1-3)</strong></p></th>
<th colspan="11"><strong>PCSP Evaluation: Telephone
Surveys</strong></th>
<th colspan="3" rowspan="2"><p><strong>Other</strong></p>
<p><strong>Surveys</strong></p></th>
<th colspan="5" rowspan="2"><strong>PCSP Evaluation: Other Data
Collection</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th colspan="4"></th>
<th colspan="2"></th>
<th colspan="5"><p><strong>Charter Schools</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Year 2-3)</strong></p></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="4"><strong>State Coordi-nators (Years 1 &amp;
3)</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><p><strong>Charter School Authorizers</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 1-3)</strong></p></th>
<th><strong>PCSP Charter Schools</strong></th>
<th colspan="4"><strong>Non-PCSP Charter Schools</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><p><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong><br />
RPP</strong></p></th>
<th><p><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong><br />
SASS</strong></p></th>
<th colspan="3"><p><strong>Federal Interviews</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 1-3)</strong></p></th>
<th colspan="2"><p><strong>Site Visits*</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Years 2-3)</strong></p></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="22"><strong>What flexibility provisions are charter schools
granted?</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Extent to which flexibility provisions granted by state and local
laws are realized in practice.</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">X</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Factors associated with successful and unsuccessful implementation
of flexibility provisions.</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">X</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Most critical flexibility provisions.</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><h6
id="parent-involvement-activities-and-parent-requirements."><em>Parent
involvement activities and parent requirements.</em></h6></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="22"><p
id="how-do-charter-schools-measure-student-performance-and-are-charter-school-students-making-progress-on-these-and-other-measures"
class="heading"><strong>How do charter schools measure student
performance, and are charter school students making progress on these
and other measures?</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Measures of accountability.</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">X</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Measures of student performance for which charter schools are
accountable and how assessed.</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Extent to which students meet student performance goals.</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Range and frequency of corrective action for charter schools that do
not meet the student performance terms of their charters.</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Students meeting or exceeding the state performance standards, if
applicable.</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Comparability of student achievement gains to those of their
traditional public school counterparts.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Conditions under which charter schools improve student
achievement.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><em>Parent beliefs about charter schools and other
schools.</em></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4">x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\* = Site visits include the written parent survey as a data source.

### Note: Italicized research questions were added by the SRI evaluation team {#note-italicized-research-questions-were-added-by-the-sri-evaluation-team .unnumbered}

In Exhibit 1-3, the charter school authorizer sample is displayed
according to the type of agency. To facilitate the analysis of broader
types of charter school authorizer, the local, state, institution of
higher education, and other categories were created by collapsing
similar types of agency.

There are limits to the conclusions that can be drawn from the purposive
and therefore nongeneralizable sample of charter school authorizers.
However, the sample supplies interesting information regarding the basic
features of and variation across charter school authorizers. As is true
across the country, most of the charter school authorizers in the Year 1
sample were local school districts (n=34). The other authorizers
included in the sample were either state-level bodies (state boards of
education, state educational agencies), institutions of higher education
(IHEs), or independent chartering boards (n=14). The type of charter
school authorizer appears to be closely linked to the number of schools
charteredlocal agencies in our sample chartered fewer schools than
other types of charter school authorizers (grouped as "nonlocal"
agencies in most of the analyses for this report). Exhibit 1-4 displays
the variation in average number of schools chartered by local and
nonlocal authorizers and other descriptive statistics about them.

Exhibit 1-3

TYPES AND NUMBERS OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS IN YEAR 1 SAMPLE

+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| #### Type o                 | **n**  | **Collapsed        | **n**   |
| f Charter School Authorizer |        | Category**         |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| Local school board          | 13     | Local educational  | 34      |
|                             |        | entity             |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| Local school district       | 19     |                    |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| County board or office of   | 2      |                    |         |
| education                   |        |                    |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| State board of education    | 5      | State entity       | 8       |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| Chief state school officer  | 1      |                    |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| State educational agency    | 1      |                    |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| Multiple state entities     | 1      |                    |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| University or college       | 3      | Institution of     | 3       |
|                             |        | higher education   |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| Community college           | 0      |                    |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| Independent or special      | 2      | Other entity       | 3       |
| charter school board        |        |                    |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| Municipal government        | 1      |                    |         |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+
| Total sample                | 48     |                    | 48      |
+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+

Exhibit 1-4\
MEAN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS CHARTERED, BY TYPE OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER

+-----------------------+-----------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Type**              | > **Number of   | > **Number  | > **Percent |
|                       | > Schools       | > of        | > of Year 1 |
| **of**                | > Chartered**   | >           | > Sample    |
|                       | >               | Authorizers | > (n=48)**  |
| **Authorizer\***      | > **(mean)**    | > in Year 1 |             |
|                       |                 | > Sample**  |             |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Local               | > 6             | > 34        | > 71%       |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Nonlocal            | > 46            | > 14        | > 29%       |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-------------+-------------+

> \* Because of the small number of "state," "higher education," and
> "other" authorizers included in the sample, the team collapsed these
> data into one category "nonlocal" and the data by type of authorizer
> are presented by "local" and "nonlocal" categories for most of the
> remainder of this report.

It is important to note some details that do not show up in Exhibit 1-4.
First, approximately one-third of local charter school authorizers
chartered only *one* school (none of the other types of agencies had
chartered only one school). Second, only 9 percent of local charter
school authorizers chartered 16 or more schools, compared with 64
percent of nonlocal authorizers. The Year 1 surveys did not explore why
the number of schools chartered is so closely linked to type of
authorizer, but from past charter school work the team has learned that
local charter school authorizers tend to charter in their local
attendance area, whereas nonlocal agencies charter schools across the
state or region.

**Telephone survey of charter schools receiving PCSP grants directly
from ED.** In states that have not applied for or do not receive PCSP
grants, charter schools are eligible to apply for start-up and
implementation grants directly from the federal government. A total of
23 charter schools either currently receive these grants or have in the
past. A survey of PCSP-related questions was administered to
representatives from these schools by a member of the study team.
Fourteen charter schools responded, for a response rate of 61
percent.[^3]

**Extraction of information from federal files on PCSP grantees.** With
the cooperation and assistance of PCSP staff at ED, members of the study
team retrieved information for the states, charter schools, and school
districts that received PCSP grants before 1999. The federal files for
25 states, 21 charter schools, and 2 school districts were reviewed
before Year 1 data collection occurred. The federal files provided
background information on grantees that team members used for
"precoding" several items prior to telephone surveys. In addition to
federal files, team members also gathered information on states from
various other (principally Web-based) sources, including state laws,
regulations and guidelines, and charter school profiles. By supplying
information on the survey from these other sources, the precoding step
saved time for the survey respondents. As a result, especially in the
case of PCSP-related items, respondents often simply confirmed or
corrected the information gleaned from the federal files.

**Interviews with PCSP staff and other government respondents.** In an
effort to place the PCSP in the context of other school reform and
public school choice issues in the federal government, members of the
study team conducted eight semistructured individual and group
interviews with 12 Department of Education employees. Interviews were
conducted with members of the PCSP program staff, staff of the Planning
and Evaluation Service at ED, and those individuals from other ED
offices involved in the Departmentwide school choice team. Although
interviews were informally tailored to interviewees, team members sought
to elicit general information about the nature and involvement of the
respondents in the choice team, ED's monitoring of the PCSP law, and the
nature and types of technical assistance provided to the field. More
specific information on the information gathered from these interviews
is incorporated anecdotally in Chapter 2.

**Focus groups with charter school operators, charter school planners,
and charter school authorizers.** Through an addition to the original
evaluation design and in consultation with the U.S. Department of
Education, members of the SRI study team designed and conducted a series
of 18 charter school-related focus groups in January and February 2000.
The focus groups were conducted to help the Department determine the
format and content of future technical assistance activities. The groups
consisted of individuals planning charter schools (six focus groups),
persons who were already operating charter schools (nine focus groups),
and representatives of authorizers that had awarded charters (three
focus groups). Logistical support (scheduling, recruiting participants)
was provided by the Charter Friends National Network and their local
contacts. Exhibit 1-5 indicates where the focus groups of each type were
conducted.

Exhibit 1-5

LOCATION AND TYPE OF FOCUS GROUPS

+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| ### **Location**  | ### **Type of  |                |               |
|                   |  Focus Group** |                |               |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
|                   | ###            | ###            | ### **Ch      |
|                   |  **Charter Sch | **Charter Scho | arter School  |
|                   | ool Planners** | ol Operators** | Authorizers** |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| Boston, MA        |               |               |               |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| Denver, CO        |                |               |              |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| Detroit, MI       |               |               |               |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| Miami, FL         |                |               |              |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| Minneapolis, MN   |               |               |               |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| Oakland, CA       |                |               |              |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| Philadelphia, PA  |               |               |               |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| Phoenix, AZ       |               |               |               |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| San Antonio, TX   |               |               |               |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+

## 

## Data Collection and Analysis

Telephone surveys were administered in the summer and fall of 1999 by
members of the SRI evaluation team. The surveys of PCSP grantees were
relatively straightforward since the team had names, contact
information, and job titles for state charter school coordinators and
the leaders of charter schools that received PCSP funding directly from
the federal government. Even where staff turnover had occurred, it was
usually easy to identify the new respondent, schedule an appointment,
and administer the survey. In a few cases, a second respondent was
contacted to obtain information that was not provided by the first
(typically because he or she was new to the job).

Identifying the appropriate respondents for the charter school
authorizer survey was a larger and more time-consuming challenge. Team
members usually had to call more than one office in a charter school
authorizer to determine the right person to take the survey. The variety
of types of charter school authorizer contributed to this situation.
Even within local educational agencies (LEAs), the largest type of
charter school authorizer in our sample and among the universe of
agencies that have awarded charters, different kinds of personnel
responded, ranging from the district superintendent to the district's
general counsel. Other respondents included the vice president of a
state board of education and a district administrator who served
part-time as the principal of a charter school.

Once data were collected and tabulated, a variety of data sorts and
cross-tabulations were performed. Formal statistical estimates of the
universe were not conducted on the Year 1 data, either because the
entire universe was sampled (in the case of state coordinators and
charter schools receiving PCSP funds directly from ED) or because the
sample was not generalizable to the relevant universe (in the case of
charter school authorizers). Hence, most of the information reported in
the following sections is based on simple, descriptive statistics.

## Organization of the Report

The Year 1 data in this report paint a comprehensive picture of a number
of issues: the development of the Public Charter Schools Program, state
and charter school authorizer perspectives on charter school flexibility
and accountability, and the charter school activities of states and a
sample of charter school authorizers. This picture, however, is also a
"snapshot" of a rapidly evolving movement during a narrow time interval
(summer and fall 1999).

Readers who would like more detail about future data collection
activities for this evaluation are referred to Appendix B.

The report is organized according to the evaluation themes and findings
from the first year of data collection and analysis. The broad themes
are identified in Exhibit 1-6.

Exhibit 1-6

LIST OF THEMES, BY CHAPTER

##### 

##### Chapter 2: The Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP)

Evaluation Theme 1: Like the charter school movement itself, the Public
Charter Schools Program has grown and matured since its implementation
in 1994.

Evaluation Theme 2: Public Charter Schools Program funds flow as
Congress and the U.S. Department of Education intended---as grants to
states and then directly to charter schools as subgrants. Overall, 95
percent or more of PCSP funds are spent at the charter school level.

Evaluation Theme 3: In addition to providing financial support, the
Public Charter Schools Program has provided national leadership in the
charter school movement through policy-setting, research, networking,
and technical assistance to the field.

##### Chapter 3: Flexibility

Evaluation Theme 4: States, in general, are working toward increasing
the avenues available to charter applicants, either by expanding the
types of agencies that can charter or by loosening limits on the numbers
of charter schools permitted.

Evaluation Theme 5: Reports from states and charter school authorizers
suggest that charter schools have certain freedoms that other public
schools do not, but that they are also subject to many of the same
regulations and requirements. Perceptions of these freedoms differ
between state and charter school authorizer respondents, and among
charter school authorizers.

##### Chapter 4: Accountability

Evaluation Theme 6: Both states and charter school authorizers are
establishing processes to hold charter schools accountable, often
focusing on student achievement.

Evaluation Theme 7: States and charter school authorizers have many
corrective actions at their disposal; most have been used in moderation.

As this list of themes indicates, the key issues explored in the Year 1
report are the Public Charter Schools Program, charter school
flexibility, and charter school accountability, mostly from the
perspective of respondents to the state coordinator and charter school
authorizer surveys. Information from federal interviews and the focus
groups is incorporated anecdotally.

The report concludes with a chapter that summarizes the study findings
as of Year 1 and provides information on the evaluation team's plans for
future rounds of data collection, analysis, and reporting.

Two additional reports are planned under this contract. They will
include charter school-level data from multiple sources: (1) the
National Study of Charter Schools conducted by RPP International; (2)
the National Center for Education Statistics' Schools and Staffing
Survey (SASS), which included a charter school supplement in its
1999-2000 data collection effort; (3) the SRI survey of charter schools
in 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, and (4) site visits to charter schools in
2000-2001 and 2001-2002. In addition, the SRI evaluation team will
conduct a substudy of student performance in charter schools compared
with student performance in regular public schools in a limited number
of states where such comparisons can be made under rigorous design
considerations.

#   {#section-3 .unnumbered}

# CHAPTER 2 THE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS PROGRAM (PCSP)

## Evaluation Theme 1: Like the charter school movement itself, the Public Charter Schools Program has grown and matured since its implementation in 1994. {#evaluation-theme-1-like-the-charter-school-movement-itself-the-public-charter-schools-program-has-grown-and-matured-since-its-implementation-in-1994. .THEME}

### [Finding]{.underline}: Increasing numbers of new and developing charter schools are receiving support from federal funds through the Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP). {#finding-increasing-numbers-of-new-and-developing-charter-schools-are-receiving-support-from-federal-funds-through-the-public-charter-schools-program-pcsp. .FINDING}

PCSP appropriations have grown steadily larger as the number of states
with charter school laws has increased (see Exhibit 2-1). At the time of
the data collection on which this report is based (fall 1999), 36 states
plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico were eligible to apply for
PCSP funding. Of those that had charter school legislation in fall 1999,
only three (8 percent) had never applied for a PCSP grant (Nevada,
Mississippi, and Wyoming), although not all applicants had yet been
successful in obtaining a grant.

Along with the steady increase in the annual appropriation for the PCSP,
the size of the average state grant has also consistently grown. Exhibit
2-2 displays annual summary statistics about PCSP funding to states.

There is considerable variation in the size of PCSP grants to states.
For example, in 1998, Delaware received about \$541,000, and California
received nearly \$9 million. In part, the federal determination of grant
amount is based on the projected number of eligible charter schools to
be supported in a state in a given year. Other factors are also
considered, however, including the cases that states make in their
proposals about charter school needs in relation to state policies and
regulations for charter schools. In the first few years of the PCSP, a
number of states underestimated their needs. As larger appropriations
became available, the PCSP Office staff worked with these states to make
better estimates and to provide additional funding through supplemental
awards. In Appendix C, supplemental awards have been combined with basic
grant amounts to produce annualized totals per state.

Exhibit 2-1

PCSP APPROPRIATIONS AND NUMBER OF STATE GRANTEES: 1995-99

  ---------- --------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Year**   **Number of State           **Size of PCSP Appropriations**
             Grantees**                  

  1995       10                          \$6,000,000

  1996       20                          \$18,000,000

  1997       23                          \$51,000,000

  1998       24                          \$80,000,000

  1999       31                          \$100,000,000
  ---------- --------------------------- --------------------------------

In states with charter school legislation that do not have a state PCSP
grant (either because the state didn't apply or its application was
rejected), the PCSP legislation allows ED to award funds directly to
charter schools. Seven states have schools that have received funds
directly from ED, either currently or in the past. These states are
Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New
Mexico. (A planning group received funds in Arkansas, prior to charter
award.) The number of schools receiving funds directly from ED grew from
2 to 40 between 1995 and 1999. This growth is due mostly to the large
number of direct-funded charter schools in Arizona, starting when the
state was ruled ineligible for a state grant in 1997. In contrast to the
pattern with state grants, where grants to states and subgrants to
schools have both increased, the average amount of direct grants to
charter schools *decreased* as the total number of these grants grew
larger.

The federal Public Charter Schools Program has quickly become an
important source of start-up funding for charter schools in most states
with charter school legislation. According to state survey data, PCSP
grants are a source of start-up funds in 35 of the 38 states contacted
(92 percent).[^4] In 14 of the 35 states, the PCSP is the only source of
start-up funds for charter school planning and early implementation. In
others, additional sources are available, as Exhibit 2-3 shows. The
remaining 21 also rely on one or more of the following types of
resources: state funds, funds provided by the charter school authorizer,
or other sources of funds that include foundations and the private
sector.

Exhibit 2-2

ANNUAL SUMMARY STATISTICS ON SIZE OF PCSP GRANTS

> ![](media/image4.wmf)

Exhibit 2-3*\
*REPORTED SOURCES OF CHARTER SCHOOL START-UP FUNDS

**(Source: 1999-2000 Survey of State Charter School Coordinators)**

The pattern of growth in the number of PCSP subgrants awarded annually
mirrors the growth in the number of states with charter school
legislation, the number of states eligible for PCSP grants, and
increases in PCSP appropriations. In general, more and more new and
developing charter schools are benefiting from the availability of the
federal funds. In some states, however, the pattern is more variable
(see Exhibit 2-4). There are no consistent reasons for this variability.
In Pennsylvania, for example, the number of subgrant awards dipped
slightly from 1997 to 1998. In Connecticut, growth in the number of
charter schools is slow; therefore, existing charter schools are "aging
out" of eligibility for PCSP funds and not being replaced by newer
schools.

Exhibit 2-4\
NUMBER OF PCSP SUBGRANTS AWARDED, BY STATE AND YEAR

  ----------------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------
  **State**               **1996 (n=12)** **1997 (n=17)**   **1998 (n=19)**

  Alaska                  11              21                5

  California              32              52                83

  Colorado                35              49                14

  Connecticut             12              15                16

  Delaware                0               5                 9

  District of Columbia    4               22                30

  Florida                 5               33                70

  Georgia                 17              9                 26

  Illinois                0               12                15

  Kansas                  23              15                15

  Minnesota               13              15                36

  Missouri                0               0                 10

  New Jersey              0               14                9

  Pennsylvania            0               43                41

  Puerto Rico             16              20                43

  Rhode Island            0               0                 2

  South Carolina          0               22                15

  Texas                   12              15                61

  Wisconsin               50              78                81

  **Total**               230             440               581

  **Mean**                19              26                31

  **Median**              14.5            20                16
  ----------------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------

The survey of charter school authorizers also confirmed the importance
of PCSP start-up funds to the continuing development of the charter
school movement. Charter school authorizer representatives reported that
PCSP subgrants were a common source of start-up funds for schools
sponsored by at least 69 percent of the authorizer sample. This figure
was probably even higher, since 23 percent of authorizer respondents did
not know whether their state or sponsored schools received PCSP funds.
(Only 8 percent of the authorizers knew for sure that their schools had
*not* received subgrants.)

One final, indirect indicator of the importance of the PCSP to charter
schools comes from 4 years of data compiled for the National Study of
Charter Schools, conducted by RPP International. In each year of this
study, new charter school operators were asked to identify barriers to
opening their schools. In 1995-96 and 1996-97, the lack of start-up
funds was identified by nearly 60 percent of survey respondents as the
greatest single obstacle that they faced (59 percent in 1995-96 and 55
percent in 1996-97). By 1998-99, lack of start-up funds remained the
number one barrier, but the proportion of respondents from new charter
schools identifying it had dropped to 39 percent (RPP International and
the University of Minnesota, 1997; Berman et al., 1998; Nelson et al.,
2000). Although this change in the intensity of the problem cannot be
attributed directly to the PCSP, the authors of the study's fourth-year
report speculate that the combination of the PCSP and the availability
of some state start-up funding was making a difference (Nelson et al.,
2000, p. 44).

## Evaluation Theme 2: Public Charter Schools Program funds flow as Congress and the U.S. Department of Education intended---as grants to states and then directly to charter schools as subgrants. Overall, 95 percent or more of PCSP funds are spent at the charter school level. {#evaluation-theme-2-public-charter-schools-program-funds-flow-as-congress-and-the-u.s.-department-of-education-intendedas-grants-to-states-and-then-directly-to-charter-schools-as-subgrants.-overall-95-percent-or-more-of-pcsp-funds-are-spent-at-the-charter-school-level. .THEME}

PCSP grants are awarded competitively, whether to states or to
individual schools in states that do not receive grants. The existence
of a state charter school law does not guarantee that a state will
receive a PCSP grant. According to staff of the PCSP Office, several
state applications have been denied over the years for reasons that
range from the fact that no charters have been awarded to concerns about
equity to questions about the planned state strategies for supporting
charter schools.[^5] However, most states where charters have actually
been awarded have eventually received funds. Because of the competitive
process, the program has not necessarily funded all the individual
schools that apply directly to ED in a given year.

### [Finding]{.underline}: As allowed in the legislation, states retain 5 percent or less of their PCSP grants for administrative purposes. {#finding-as-allowed-in-the-legislation-states-retain-5-percent-or-less-of-their-pcsp-grants-for-administrative-purposes. .FINDING}

The PCSP legislation specifies that state grantees may reserve up to 5
percent of their total grant for administrative purposes at the state
level. Some states have tried to have this rule waived to keep more
money for purposes such as evaluation or establishing and supporting a
state charter school resource organization. According to PCSP Office
staff, no exceptions have been made.

The amount of funding for state administration of the PCSP program is
relatively modest. On average, based on 1998 state grants, a state had
about \$130,000 for administrative purposes. Most state coordinators
indicated that they do retain 5 percent of their total funding, but some
states hold back smaller amounts. For example, in 1998, the state
educational agency in Georgia reserved only \$10,000 (less than 1
percent) of its \$2,421,053 grant. Appendix C shows the amounts that
states had available for subgrants in each year of funding after their
allowable or actual set-asides were deducted from the total grant
amount.

Seventeen states provided a breakdown of the state portion of their PCSP
grant for 1998-99 (see Appendix D). The budgeting categories requested
by the SRI team matched the budget page in the PCSP application. The
largest expenditure category is salaries, with a mean of about \$45,000
allocated to this purpose per state.

Prior to this data collection effort, it was unclear whether charter
school authorizers played a significant role in the flow of PCSP funding
from the state to a charter school. On the basis of a sample of 48
charter school authorizers, the answer is straightforward: unless the
charter school authorizers were state bodies, they had very little
involvement in decisions about PCSP funds. In addition, unless the
charter school authorizers were state bodies, they did not receive PCSP
funds for their own activities. Although charter school authorizers
often functioned as the flow-through agencies or fiscal agents for
disbursing PCSP funds, this relationship rarely entailed other types of
involvement or withholding. In fact, only two school districts reported
receiving a share of a subgrant. (Appendix E provides a percentage
breakdown of charter school authorizers receiving PCSP funds.)

### [Finding]{.underline}: As allowed in the legislation, states have developed their own procedures for awarding subgrants. {#finding-as-allowed-in-the-legislation-states-have-developed-their-own-procedures-for-awarding-subgrants. .FINDING}

States have taken primarily two approaches to distributing subgrants:
(1) a subgrant competition with winners and losers in which charter
schools or charter school planners respond to a request for proposals
and are rated and ranked (67 percent) and (2) a calculation that
distributes the available PCSP funds for subgrants to all eligible
charter schools or planners in the state (43 percent). These approaches
are not necessarily mutually exclusive. (Appendix F provides additional
information on how states award PCSP subgrants.)

Some states staged their subgrant awards and employed both distribution
methods, often awarding an equal lump sum as a planning grant to all
groups with newly awarded charters. Implementation grants might then be
competed or awarded by a formula that took into account various factors
but generally included an enrollment size variable. For example:

-   Massachusetts awarded an equal, lump sum planning grant following
    charter approval. Implementation grants were awarded by a formula
    that accounted for enrollment, year of implementation, and other
    factors.

-   North Carolina distributed 80 percent of available subgrant funds
    equally among all eligible charter schools. The remaining 20 percent
    was distributed by a formula based on enrollment.

-   Colorado awarded subgrants competitively but also applied an
    enrollment formula to the selected subgrantees.

Many states preferred to award PCSP subgrants in annual installments to
control for the possibility that efforts to start a charter school might
fail or flounder. In the states where this had happened, any PCSP funds
that were withheld from a failing enterprise were generally
redistributed to other charter schools.

In their subgrant award processes, some states establish priority
factors for targeting some or all of the funding. For example, 36
percent of respondents gave priority to applicants from schools that do
or will serve special student populations, and 14 percent targeted
schools located in low-income communities. (Appendix G provides
additional information on those factors given priority in the subgrant
process.) Other priority strategies were idiosyncratic to a state. For
example, Connecticut had a statewide educational priority to reduce the
racial isolation of students. Charter schools that addressed this goal
were eligible for a supplemental PCSP grant. The District of Columbia
Board of Education focused particularly on first-year schools, whereas
New Jersey intended for 50 percent of its charter schools to be in urban
areas and distributed PCSP funds accordingly. Puerto Rico also targeted
its PCSP subgrant awards to applicants who focused on technology,
innovative practices, and teacher training.

Whether a state has set priorities or not, most states apply some
criteria in making subgrant awards and determining funding levels (see
Exhibit 2-5). A state ceiling on the award level for subgrants was
applied by a total of 18 states---the most commonly reported response
category in the exhibit. The grant applications that the states
themselves submitted to ED were often based on theoretical projections
about the numbers of charter schools that they expected to support and
the stages of development at which those schools would be in any given
grant year. This logic translated into a maximum subgrant amount that
the states planned to award to an individual school over a 3-year
period. States, therefore, think in terms of ceilings or caps on
subgrants. For example, an Ohio respondent reported that the state has
set a maximum of \$150,000 per charter school for PCSP-funded
implementation grants. (Planning grants in Ohio come from state funds.)
Missouri expects to award subgrants up to a maximum of \$80,000, and
Virginia is considering a \$100,000 cap.

Exhibit 2-5\
NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF STATES WITH SPECIFIC CRITERIA\
FOR DETERMINING SUBGRANT FUNDING LEVELS\
(n=30 States)

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -----------
  **Selected Criterion**                           **Number of **Percent
                                                   States**    of States**

  State ceiling on subgrant award level            18          60%

  Quality of subgrant proposal                     17          57%

  Funding level requested                          17          57%

  Justification for funds requested                17          57%

  Funds available for subgrants divided by the     15          50%
  number of eligible charter school applications               

  Recommendations of peer reviewers/field          13          43%
  reviewers                                                    

  Student enrollment or projected student          13          43%
  enrollment                                                   

  Start-up needs greater than in other charter     10          33%
  schools                                                      

  Negotiation of funding level with subgrantee     9           30%

  Number or percentage of educationally            6           20%
  disadvantaged students                                       
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------- -----------

The majority of states reported that the quality of subgrant proposals
is important in determining subgrant recipients and funding levels. Even
if the overall subgrant award strategy that a state uses is not
competitive, the application process sometimes involves multiple stages
of review, comment, and revision before an award is made. A number of
states issued elaborate subgrant application packages. In Colorado,
California, and Illinois, the application package included the scoring
rubric that would be used to rate and rank the proposals, making the
quality criteria clear and systematic for applicants. Twenty-four states
reported that they used some type of proposal review process with panels
or committees of reviewers. (Appendix H provides detail on the criteria
used to award PCSP funds, by type of subgrant.)

In later reports, SRI International will report on the number of schools
receiving subgrants, the range of subgrant amounts, and the use of PCSP
funds in charter schools.

### [Finding]{.underline}: States use different definitions of "start-up," differences that affect eligibility for PCSP subgrants. {#finding-states-use-different-definitions-of-start-up-differences-that-affect-eligibility-for-pcsp-subgrants. .FINDING}

Definitions of what constitutes the "planning" period are particularly
variable among the PCSP states. Much of the variation can be attributed
to the chartering process specified by a state's charter school law,
since some specify the length of planning periods and others are more
flexible on the time allowed between the charter award and when the
school is operational. Among the 24 states that make some distinction
between types of subgrants (e.g., planning, implementation), 5 states
(20 percent) award planning subgrants to groups that have not yet
received a charter from a charter school authorizer; 4 states (17
percent) award subgrants to groups with a preliminary charter that will
not be finalized until a charter school actually opens; and 15 states
(63 percent) award subgrants to schools that are fully chartered but not
yet open for business. Exhibit 2-6 displays eligibility criteria for
planning subgrants. (In addition to different definitions of what
constitutes the planning period, state grantees may also define those
entities eligible to receive PCSP subgrants. Appendix I provides an
overview of eligible PCSP recipients, by type of subgrant.)

### [Finding:]{.underline} The use of PCSP subgrant funds is largely unrestricted. {#finding-the-use-of-pcsp-subgrant-funds-is-largely-unrestricted. .FINDING}

Once subgrants are awarded, most states place very few restrictions on
how the subgrantees can use the money. Major construction costs are
barred by federal rules, although minor renovations could be undertaken
with PCSP funds with permission of the federal program office. Most
states reported that they barred charter schools from using subgrants
for purchasing facilities, but many allowed the money to be applied to
renting and leasing of space. Application packages often listed examples
of allowable activities but specified that the list was suggestive, not
comprehensive.

However, on the basis of their growing years of experience in working
with new charter schools, some state coordinators and charter school
offices reported that they were becoming more proactive in steering
schools and planning groups toward more specific uses of PCSP funds. In
Massachusetts, for example, planning grants were relatively
unrestricted, but implementation grants had designated categories (e.g.,
student assessment, evaluation, dissemination), and charter schools were
required to allocate funds to these and other categories. Colorado
emphasized the same uses without actually designating budget
allocations. Texas required subgrantees to use some funding to support
Internet access.

Exhibit 2-6

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PCSP PLANNING SUBGRANTS

![](media/image7.wmf)

## Evaluation Theme 3: In addition to providing financial support, the Public Charter Schools Program has provided national leadership in the charter school movement through policy-setting, research, networking, and technical assistance to the field. {#evaluation-theme-3-in-addition-to-providing-financial-support-the-public-charter-schools-program-has-provided-national-leadership-in-the-charter-school-movement-through-policy-setting-research-networking-and-technical-assistance-to-the-field. .THEME}

Although its funding levels have grown quickly, the PCSP nevertheless
remains a relatively small federal program with a relatively
circumscribed constituency. These circumstances, plus the charter school
movement's sense of itself as a "cause," have encouraged close working
relationships between the federal program office and the field.

The PCSP is administered by a small program office that is housed within
the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education of the U.S. Department
of Education. The PCSP Office has a Director and approximately four
other staff to oversee the grant-making process, the monitoring of
grantees, and the development and implementation of national charter
school activities.[^6]

###  [Finding]{.underline}: The PCSP takes a leadership role within the Department of Education in helping shape the national charter school agenda.  {#finding-the-pcsp-takes-a-leadership-role-within-the-department-of-education-in-helping-shape-the-national-charter-school-agenda. .FINDING}

PCSP staff and representatives of other offices in ED have formed a
collaborative, Departmentwide team on school choice issues. This team
drafted the proposal for the reauthorization of the PCSP in 1998. In
addition, the team has collaborated on developing final regulations
designed to ensure that new and expanding charter schools receive the
funds for which they are eligible under other federal programs, such as
Title I and special education. These final regulations were published in
December 1999. The PCSP is also involved in the development of
nonregulatory guidance on this issue. Data from the survey of state
coordinators indicate that two-thirds (66 percent) of state grantees
have found federal staff to be responsive and helpful regarding
questions about charter schools and federal entitlements.

In October 1998, Congress reauthorized the PCSP legislation. The
reauthorized law seeks to put policy pressure on states to increase both
flexibility and accountability for charter schools. For example, to
enhance flexibility for charter schools, states are strongly encouraged
to allow at least one other type of charter school authorizer besides
local educational agencies and to ensure that charter schools have
autonomy over their own budgets and expenditures. On the accountability
side, states that review each operating charter school at least once
every 5 years are given priority in the application process. (In some
states, it is currently 15 years before a charter comes up for renewal.)

The new emphasis in the reauthorized PCSP statute on giving charter
schools elbow room and regularly holding them accountable appears to
have had a moderate impact on provisions in state charter school laws
and regulations in the year since enactment. The survey of state
coordinators found that seven state officials believe that the
reauthorized federal law has led to changes in state charter school
policies. These include:

-   More frequent review and evaluation of charter schools.

-   An increase in the number of agencies allowed to charter.

-   Addition of an appeals process for charters that are denied.

-   An increase in the number of charter schools allowed.

-   An increase in the degree of charter school autonomy allowed.

Independent of the federal legislation, many states have adopted
different combinations of these provisions on their own in new or
amended charter school laws.

To inform policy-making and contribute to documentation of the
development of the charter school movement, the PCSP also uses its
national activities set-aside to support an extensive research and
demonstration project agenda. Appendix J summarizes the research,
demonstration, and evaluation projects that were supported with PCSP
funds from 1995 through 1999. Most such projects are funded through
contracts with ED.

The research and demonstration projects have been designed to
investigate issues that are of interest or concern to the charter school
movement, but intended audiences are far broader and include
policy-makers and the education community at large. The PCSP Office is
in the process of identifying a new set of research needs and issue
areas concerning the continued development of the charter school
movement. The new agenda is being informed by focus groups with charter
school authorizers and charter school developers and operators, as well
as debriefing conferences with researchers.

### [Finding]{.underline}: PCSP staff have taken an active approach to connecting charter school operators, sponsors, and support groups with each other and with other resources. {#finding-pcsp-staff-have-taken-an-active-approach-to-connecting-charter-school-operators-sponsors-and-support-groups-with-each-other-and-with-other-resources. .FINDING}

The PCSP Office has been responsible for organizing, supporting, or
simply participating in a variety of networking and information-sharing
activities using a number of different strategies. These include
multiple on-line networks and discussion groups for various stakeholder
groups---for example, charter school operators, charter school
authorizers, and state coordinators. The program office also planned and
organized two well-attended national charter school conferences
(November 1997 and March 1999) and has helped shape a popular charter
school Web site (www.uscharterschools.org). All of these activities have
helped to broaden and shape the discourse on public school choice.

### Finding: The PCSP is responsive to technical assistance requests from states and other PCSP grantees. {#finding-the-pcsp-is-responsive-to-technical-assistance-requests-from-states-and-other-pcsp-grantees. .FINDING}

The national evaluation of the PCSP program has been asked specifically
to address research questions concerning the availability and
effectiveness of technical assistance provided by program staff to the
field. Recipients of PCSP grants were asked about technical assistance
needed and received in the context of preparing their proposals and
their annual reports. In general, states and charter schools applying
directly to ED for a PCSP grant perceived greater need for technical
assistance at the application stage (see Appendix K). We then asked
those respondents who had needed assistance where they had gotten it.
The results are shown in Exhibits 2-7 and 2-8. Federally sponsored
sources (ED staff, the U.S. charter schools Web site, and national
conferences) were named most frequently.

Survey respondents were also given the opportunity to comment on the
quality of the technical assistance that they received from the PCSP
Office and other sources. In terms of the application process, 20 of 27
respondents (74 percent) were generally satisfied or very satisfied with
the process and the assistance received, whereas 5 respondents offered
significant criticisms of both application processes and the
responsiveness of the staff. Fewer respondents had comments about the
annual reporting process, and 63 percent of states were satisfied with
the help received. Critics of the technical assistance relationship at
the reporting stage focused on the lack of clarity and guidance about
how to handle carryover funds from one grant period to the next.

Exhibit 2-7\
SOURCES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PREPARING APPLICATIONS

![](media/image8.wmf)

Exhibit 2-8

SOURCES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PREPARING REPORTS

![](media/image9.wmf)

#  {#section-4 .unnumbered}

#   {#section-5 .unnumbered}

# Chapter 3 Flexibility

## Evaluation Theme 4: States, in general, are working toward increasing the avenues available to charter applicants, either by expanding the types of agencies that can charter or by loosening limits on the numbers of charter schools permitted.  {#evaluation-theme-4-states-in-general-are-working-toward-increasing-the-avenues-available-to-charter-applicants-either-by-expanding-the-types-of-agencies-that-can-charter-or-by-loosening-limits-on-the-numbers-of-charter-schools-permitted. .THEME}

The decision to allow charter schools to open in a particular state
begins with the crafting of legislation required to authorize them.
Charter school laws come into existence through the political process
and reflect the overall political climate in the state, including its
current educational policies (e.g., standards and accountability), as
well as the input of many interest and advocacy groups. These laws
usually define the general purpose of schools, the absolute number of
schools that can open, who can operate them, what agencies can sponsor
them, how charter schools will be funded, and expectations for how to
evaluate their success. There is tremendous variation in the ways in
which states have come to the task of authorizing charter schools
through legislation, and previous research has suggested that states can
either encourage or discourage charter schools and charter school growth
through their legislative approach (Berman et al., 1998; Jennings et
al., 1998; Hirsch, 2000).

The legislative landscape is also constantly changing as new states
enact legislation and existing laws are amended. The 1998
reauthorization of the federal Public Charter Schools Program explicitly
established priority criteria for awarding grants with the intention to
promote greater flexibility (and accountability) in new and amended
state charter school laws. These priorities included: increasing numbers
of high-quality charter schools, additional types of authorizing
agencies besides LEAs, broad autonomy over fiscal matters, and periodic
reviews. Although few state policies have been changed in direct
response to PCSP priorities, many state laws are moving in directions
that the U.S. Congress encouraged in the charter school amendments. As
states reevaluate charter school laws over time, an overall trend has
been to expand the types of agencies that can award charters or to
loosen limits on the numbers of charter schools (Hirsch, 2000).

### [Finding]{.underline}: State laws allow a diverse range of agencies to award charters to schools. {#finding-state-laws-allow-a-diverse-range-of-agencies-to-award-charters-to-schools. .FINDING}

Local boards and state boards of education are most frequently permitted
to grant charters; however, many other types of agencies---e.g.,
universities and colleges, independent chartering boards, and municipal
governments---are also involved in chartering. As Exhibit 3-1 indicates,
states allow a diverse set of agencies to award charters to charter
schools. For example, approximately one-fifth of states with charter
legislation permit universities and colleges to authorize charter
schools. County boards, municipal governments, intermediate districts,
and chief state school officers are also represented in this group of
charter school authorizers.[^7]

Over the last few years, several states have even expanded the types of
agencies that are permitted to charter in the state. For example,
Minnesota has added private colleges to an already diverse list of
charter school sponsors. Wisconsin authorized the creation of charter
schools by the common council of the City of Milwaukee (the Mayor's
office), the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and
the Milwaukee Area Technical College in the Milwaukee school district.
Massachusetts, which previously had allowed only new charter schools
sponsored by the state, amended its law and created Horace Mann
charters---converted public schools that must receive approval by the
local school district and teachers' union before applications are sent
to the state.

The diversity of types of agencies is also represented in the different
relationships and processes established for chartering. Appendix L
describes in greater detail a way of grouping some of the
interrelationships created by state legislative provisions regarding who
can grant charters.

### [Finding]{.underline}: Although caps on the number of charter schools have been an obstacle to charter school growth in some states, the overall trend is to loosen or expand these limits over time.  {#finding-although-caps-on-the-number-of-charter-schools-have-been-an-obstacle-to-charter-school-growth-in-some-states-the-overall-trend-is-to-loosen-or-expand-these-limits-over-time. .FINDING}

Formal caps on the numbers of charter schools are an interesting
political indicator of a state's willingness to engage in charter school
reform. Some states are clearly more cautious than others in the number
of charter schools they allow. However, over the last few years,
legislative trends have pointed in the direction of lifting caps in
several states. Since 1997, at least 10 states have made adjustments to
caps by increasing the number, lifting a cap entirely, or removing
expiration (or "sunset") provisions on charter school legislation. In
addition, respondents in states that have caps frequently cited attempts
that have been made to raise or eliminate them. This trend began, in
some states, even before the federal reauthorization of the Public
Charter Schools Program, which now places a priority on grants to states
with legislation that encourages increasing the number of high-quality
charter schools. Policy analysts argue that these shifts might indicate
that some of these states have moved from the "experimental" phase to
viewing charter schools as an accepted part of the educational reform
landscape (Hirsch, 2000).

Almost one-third of states (12) with charter legislation have no cap on
the numbers of charters that can be opened.[^8] Another 42 percent have
an overall statewide cap or regional restrictions that add up to a
statewide cap. The remaining 10 states (26 percent) either have (a) caps
by type of authorizer or type of school or (b) annual caps overall in
the state, by type of authorizer or type of school. For more detail on
types of caps across states, please refer to Appendix M.

Some states with types of caps other than total statewide caps also have
the largest number of charter schools in operation, such as Arizona with
273 charter schools, Texas (173), Michigan (175), and North Carolina
(92). Puerto Rico (81) and Colorado (68). At the same time, certain
high-incidence states, like California and Florida, do have total
statewide caps, but they are very high or have been expanded over time.
California waived its original caps on both the total number of schools
statewide and the number of schools chartered by a single school
district, and the legislature ultimately raised the cap to 250 in 1999,
increasing automatically by 100 every year after that.

In most of the states with total statewide caps in place, there appears
to be opportunity for future growth in the charter school population.
Exhibit 3-2 shows those states with total statewide caps alongside the
number of charter schools in operation as of September 1999. In at least
two of these states (Massachusetts and Louisiana), additional increases
may be authorized in upcoming legislative sessions, as a result of
legislative amendments.

Exhibit 3-1\
TYPES OF AGENCIES PERMITTED TO CHARTER

(n=38)

  -------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
                                               **States      
                                               Permitting    
                                               Agency to     
                                               Charter**     

  **Type of Agency**                           **Number of   **Percent of
                                               States**      States**

  Local school boards                          25            66%

  State board of education                     24            63%

  Local school districts                       11            29%

  Universities and colleges                    8             21%

  Community colleges                           4             10%

  Independent or special charter school boards 4             10%

  Other (e.g., intermediate school districts,  4             10%
  local unions)                                              

  County boards of education or county offices 3             8%
  of education                                               

  Chief state school officer                   2             5%

  Municipal governments                        2             5%

  State board for higher education             0             0%

  State educational agency                     0             0%
  -------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------

On the other hand, though statewide caps may seem to be the most
restrictive, caps on numbers of charters permitted to be chartered in a
specific region or by a particular authorizer could prove to be as much
of an obstacle to a potential charter applicant. For example, Michigan's
cap applies only to universities, but the universities have been the
most active charter school authorizers in the state. In other states
with regional limitations, caps applying to certain areas have already
been reached. The Illinois charter law, for example, capped Chicago at
15 charter schools, and that limit has already been reached. The SRI
telephone survey of charter school authorizers indicated that these
respondents were aware of caps under their state laws, how caps have
been implemented, and what caps mean for their own activities. Local
implications and perceptions of state caps vary considerably, even
within the same state. Some saw their states' caps as absolute (which
were usually accurate perceptions); others understood that there was
some flexibility in how state caps were implemented. One district
administrator said that her state "can transfer allotments \[of
allowable charters\] from other regions \[of the state\] if needed
elsewhere." A few respondents, particularly in state-level charter
school authorizers, indicated that changes in their state laws had
affected their own volume of chartering.

Exhibit 3-2

STATES WITH STATEWIDE CAPS AND NUMBER OF CHARTERS OPENED\*\
![](media/image10.wmf)

## Evaluation Theme 5: Reports from states and charter school authorizers suggest that charter schools have certain freedoms that other public schools do not, but that they are also subject to many of the same regulations and requirements. Perceptions of these freedoms differ between state and charter school authorizer respondents, and among charter school authorizers. {#evaluation-theme-5-reports-from-states-and-charter-school-authorizers-suggest-that-charter-schools-have-certain-freedoms-that-other-public-schools-do-not-but-that-they-are-also-subject-to-many-of-the-same-regulations-and-requirements.-perceptions-of-these-freedoms-differ-between-state-and-charter-school-authorizer-respondents-and-among-charter-school-authorizers. .THEME}

### [Finding]{.underline}: Half of the 38 states with charter school laws automatically grant waivers from many state laws, rules, and regulations; the other half either require charter school applicants to negotiate waivers on a case-by-case basis or ban waivers altogether. {#finding-half-of-the-38-states-with-charter-school-laws-automatically-grant-waivers-from-many-state-laws-rules-and-regulations-the-other-half-either-require-charter-school-applicants-to-negotiate-waivers-on-a-case-by-case-basis-or-ban-waivers-altogether. .FINDING}

A majority of states allow charter schools significant freedom from
rules and regulations, which, in many cases, is greater than that
allowed other public schools. State charter laws and policies usually
address how other state laws are waived for charter schools. The Year 1
telephone survey of state charter coordinators included items that asked
respondents to characterize the waiver options for charter schools.

Half of the states provided charter schools with automatic waivers of
state rules and/or regulations (see Exhibit 3-3). This typically meant
that charter schools were freed from most state and district
regulations, with a few exceptions (federal regulations, health and
safety rules, and civil rights laws in many cases; also insurance, state
testing, compulsory attendance, minimum age requirements, and
desegregation requirements in a few others).

Four states did not allow state laws to be waived at all (but may have
permitted limited waivers of other policies and regulations).

Fourteen other states permitted waiver requests and/or waivers
negotiated with the charter school authorizer. In states where waiver of
regulations is left to a negotiation process, the amount of freedom
realized by a charter school may depend on the charter school
authorizer's orientation to and relationship with charter schools.

**Exhibit 3-3\
HOW STATE LAWS ARE WAIVED FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS**

###   {#section-6 .FINDING .unnumbered}

### [Finding]{.underline}: In general, state charter school policies do not exempt charter schools from state student assessment or budgeting/auditing requirements. Charter school authorizers, on the other hand, reported that charter schools have considerable autonomy over key aspects of their programs.  {#finding-in-general-state-charter-school-policies-do-not-exempt-charter-schools-from-state-student-assessment-or-budgetingauditing-requirements.-charter-school-authorizers-on-the-other-hand-reported-that-charter-schools-have-considerable-autonomy-over-key-aspects-of-their-programs. .FINDING}

State charter coordinators were asked to indicate whether their state
laws permitted certain freedoms to all, some, or no charter schools.
Respondents were also asked whether noncharter schools were eligible for
these freedoms. As Exhibit 3-4 displays, state charter school
coordinators reported that freedoms granted to charter schools are least
common when fiscal requirements and student assessment are involved.

The fact that charter schools do not have much freedom from state
budgeting and audit regulations or from student assessment requirements
reflects the expectations for all public schools. That is, institutions
that receive public funds and produce a public good (i.e., educated
students) should be accountable for the use of resources and the results
of the educational process. Although charter schools represent a growing
effort to rethink accountability, they remain public schools, and the
agencies that sponsor them retain many of the same monitoring
responsibilities that have always been in place.

Exhibit 3-4

TYPES OF FREEDOMS GRANTED TO CHARTER SCHOOLS, AS REPORTED BY STATES

(n=37)

![](media/image12.wmf)

Compared with the limited flexibility on state assessments and
budget/auditing requirements, greater flexibility is apparent in domains
related to teacher preparation and collective bargaining agreements,
where equal numbers of states grant or deny the freedoms. These freedoms
may seem relatively modest, particularly because of the charter
movement's emphasis on deregulation. However, it does appear that
charters enjoy considerably more freedoms than other public schools,
even when these other schools are eligible for such freedoms by waiver.

Data from the charter school authorizer survey appear to tell a slightly
different story about charter school freedom and control. Exhibit 3-5
suggests a high degree of control by charter schools over key areas,
including purchasing, staff salaries and benefits, and other budgetary
expenses. These findings must be interpreted with care, since the two
surveys asked these questions in different ways. However, the difference
in perspective between charter school authorizers and state charter
school coordinators is part of the diversity of the whole movement.
There are other areas where charter school authorizers reported that
charter schools have less control (e.g., assessment and student
admission policies).

The variation in perceptions of charter school autonomy within the
sample of charter school authorizer respondents and the differences
between charter school authorizers and states make it difficult to
generalize about the extent to which charter schools are really exempt
from the requirements that regular public schools face. On the other
hand, as a piece of the flexibility-accountability debate, it is clear
that the charter movement has generated significant diversity in the
application of the principles of local control---variation that could,
in turn, be an interesting factor in explaining the success or failure
of certain schools.

Exhibit 3-5\
CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS' REPORTS OF CHARTER SCHOOL CONTROL

(n=48)

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **\                                             **Total Percentage of
  \                                               Charter School
  \                                               Authorizers Reporting
  Areas That Charter Schools Control**            "Some" or "All" Charter
                                                  Schools Granted Types
                                                  of Control**

  Purchasing of supplies and equipment            92%

  Daily schedule                                  90%

  Specifying curriculum                           89%

  Budgetary expenses other than salaries and      85%
  benefits                                        

  Student disciplinary policies                   83%

  Staff hiring, discipline, and dismissal         81%

  School calendar                                 77%

  Staff salaries and benefits                     75%

  Student assessment policies                     67%

  Student admission policies                      60%
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

### [Finding]{.underline}: In general, charter school authorizers that are *not* local educational agencies (e.g., agencies like state boards of education, institutions of higher education, and special chartering boards), allow charter schools greater flexibility and autonomy.  {#finding-in-general-charter-school-authorizers-that-are-not-local-educational-agencies-e.g.-agencies-like-state-boards-of-education-institutions-of-higher-education-and-special-chartering-boards-allow-charter-schools-greater-flexibility-and-autonomy. .FINDING}

Data from the charter school authorizer survey permitted a deeper look
at the idea of control or autonomy. On the basis of the Year 1
responses, it appears that the extent to which charter schools have
control over decisions and policies is closely linked to the type of
agency that charters them. Exhibit 3-6 shows a pattern of a greater
degree of control at the individual school level when sponsors are not
local school boards, school districts, or county-level bodies.

Exhibit 3-6\
EXTENT TO WHICH CHARTER SCHOOLS CONTROL POLICIES AND DECISIONS RELATED
TO FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT, BY TYPE OF AUTHORIZER

+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Areas That Charter Schools         | **Local**     | **Other       |
| Control**                            |               | Agency**      |
|                                      | **n=34**      |               |
|                                      |               | **n=14**      |
|                                      | **(mean       |               |
|                                      | response\*)** | **(mean       |
|                                      |               | response\*)** |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Purchasing of supplies and equipment | 2.71          | 3.00          |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Student disciplinary policies        | 2.47          | 3.00          |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Student assessment policies          | 2.06          | 2.71          |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Student admission policies           | 2.06          | 2.57          |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Staff salaries and benefits          | 2.21          | 3.00          |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Staff hiring, discipline, and        | 2.41          | 3.00          |
| dismissal                            |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Budgetary expenses other than        | 2.50          | 2.93          |
| salaries and benefits                |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Daily schedule                       | 2.71          | 3.00          |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| School calendar                      | 2.38          | 2.71          |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Specifying curriculum                | 2.67          | 2.83          |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+

\* The mean scores were based on converting responses to a 3-point scale
with "all" equal to 3, "some" equal to 2, and "none" equal to 1. "Other
agency" includes state board or agency, institution of higher education,
and other types (e.g., independent chartering board).

# CHAPTER 4 ACCOUNTABILITY

## Evaluation Theme 6: Both states and charter school authorizers are establishing processes to hold charter schools accountable, often focusing on student achievement.  {#evaluation-theme-6-both-states-and-charter-school-authorizers-are-establishing-processes-to-hold-charter-schools-accountable-often-focusing-on-student-achievement. .THEME}

States approach accountability in various ways. Massachusetts, a state
with a centralized accountability system for its charter schools,
employs an experienced inspection team in the charter renewal process.
As each school comes up for renewal, a team of seasoned educators
evaluates the charter school's progress and renewal application through
observations and interviews at the school site. The team prepares a
report, including recommendations to the state (which, in this case, is
the charter school authorizer). The conclusions of the inspection team
serve as evidence for either granting or denying the school's renewal
application. In focus groups conducted by SRI International, charter
school leaders who had undergone this inspection reported that the
process was a tremendous learning experience.

It is important to note that the Massachusetts inspectorate model is not
the norm for either states or charter school authorizers. As the
following findings indicate, states and charter school authorizers have
many approaches to holding charter schools accountable.

### [Finding]{.underline}: In general, states reported that charter schools are held to the same student outcome measures as other public schools, particularly with respect to state testing requirements. Similarly, charter school authorizers reported that nearly all charter schools have measurable goals in the area of student achievement. {#finding-in-general-states-reported-that-charter-schools-are-held-to-the-same-student-outcome-measures-as-other-public-schools-particularly-with-respect-to-state-testing-requirements.-similarly-charter-school-authorizers-reported-that-nearly-all-charter-schools-have-measurable-goals-in-the-area-of-student-achievement. .FINDING}

The charter school movement is coming of age during a time when
increasing demands are being made for public school accountability.
Hence, even though charter schools may be designed to "break the mold"
and "think outside the box," these schools are usually held to the same
or greater outcome standards as other public schools. Requiring charter
schools to participate in state assessments and to submit the same
financial reports as other public schools and school districts is the
way that states usually enforce this expectation. Most survey
respondents argued that charter schools should also be held to the goals
set in their charter, in addition to the traditional measures.

State charter coordinators were asked to identify appropriate goals for
charter schools, how they should be measured, and overall expectations
for charter school accountability. The majority of respondents indicated
that their state laws dictated broad expectations for charter schools,
usually by requiring that charter schools establish measurable goals for
student performance, in addition to participating in assessment programs
and meeting state standards. In states that require specific goals to be
stated in the charter application, the goals are typically reviewed by
the charter school authorizer and, if necessary for approval, revised or
fine-tuned by the applicant. Some state coordinators cited the need for
additional goals, such as dropout rates, attendance rates, parent
involvement, and parent satisfaction.

Most states also require reports from charter school authorizers as part
of, or in addition to, the reports required of charter schools. Exhibit
4-1 displays what information charter school authorizers are required to
report to state entities. Please note that states often require charter
schools to prepare their own reports that cover this information. The
incidence of direct reports from charter schools to states is not
reflected in Exhibit 4-1.[^9] (For more information about the
relationships between state reporting requirements, the age of state
charter legislation, and other issues, see Appendix N.)

Like states, most charter school authorizers reported that measurable
goals existed for all of their charter schools. As indicated in Exhibit
4-2, the most frequently cited goal area was academic achievement.
Student attendance, student behaviors, parental involvement, and student
promotion/graduation were also important goal areas.

Other types of measurable goals that were reported included goals for
staff performance and attendance, parent satisfaction, student
retention, course completion in high school, community service/service
learning, and efforts to reduce racial, economic, and ethnic isolation.

### [Finding]{.underline}: In the majority of states with charter school legislation, charter schools are accountable to multiple agencies. {#finding-in-the-majority-of-states-with-charter-school-legislation-charter-schools-are-accountable-to-multiple-agencies. .FINDING}

Reports from state coordinators regarding who is responsible for holding
charter schools accountable show a varied picture, with multiple levels
involved. As Exhibit 4-3 demonstrates, in over half the states (22),
state coordinators reported that multiple agencies were responsible for
holding charter schools accountable, including state educational
agencies, state boards of education, the charter school authorizer (if
different from the state), and other state entities such as the state
auditor and state legislature.

Exhibit 4-1\
STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS (n=33)

![](media/image13.wmf)

An examination of the type of entity permitted to charter in each state
compared with the responses for who is responsible for holding charter
schools accountable suggests some interesting tensions about locus of
control. For example, in states where the local boards are the only type
of authorizer in the state permitted to charter---a seemingly
decentralized model for charter-granting authority---a majority reported
that both the charter school authorizer and the state agency were
responsible for holding charter schools accountable. Moreover, in two of
the local-board states, only the state agency was mentioned as the
responsible entity.

Although state charter laws and state-level infrastructures establish
many of the broad expectations for charter schools and their sponsors,
the complete accountability story requires an understanding of the
relationships between the agencies that actually award and monitor
charters and the charter schools themselves. The Year 1 sample of
charter school authorizers adds considerable detail to the state-level
accountability story and further illustrates the point that
accountability involves multiple levels, parties, and mechanisms. The
role of charter school authorizers in ensuring accountability will be
discussed in the findings that follow. In future years, with the added
perspective of charter schools, the study team will fill out a fuller
picture of the respective roles and responsibilities of each entity and
how charter schools respond to the various levels of accountability.

Exhibit 4-2\
PROPORTION OF CHARTER SCHOOLS WITH MEASURABLE GOALS,\
AS REPORTED BY CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS (n=45)

+-------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| ###                           | **      |        |        | ##     |
|                               | Percent |        |        | #####  |
| ### **Goal Area**             | of      |        |        | Mean\* |
|                               | Charter |        |        |        |
|                               | School  |        |        |        |
|                               | Author  |        |        |        |
|                               | izers** |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
|                               | **All   | **Some | **No   |        |
|                               | Sc      | Sch    | Sch    |        |
|                               | hools** | ools** | ools** |        |
+-------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Academic achievement          | 84%     | 16%    | 0      | 2.84   |
+-------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Student behaviors             | 45%     | 31%    | 24%    | 2.21   |
+-------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Student attendance            | 64%     | 21%    | 14%    | 2.50   |
+-------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Student promotion or          | 60%     | 23%    | 18%    | 2.43   |
| graduation                    |         |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Parent involvement            | 53%     | 28%    | 19%    | 2.35   |
+-------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+--------+

> \* The mean scores were based on converting responses to a 3-point
> scale with "all" equal to 3, "some" equal to 2, and "none" equal to 1.

### [Finding]{.underline}: The most prominent roles and responsibilities of charter school authorizers, as reported by states, include reviewing, negotiating, and monitoring the terms of the charter agreement and monitoring student performance. {#finding-the-most-prominent-roles-and-responsibilities-of-charter-school-authorizers-as-reported-by-states-include-reviewing-negotiating-and-monitoring-the-terms-of-the-charter-agreement-and-monitoring-student-performance. .FINDING}

Almost all states indicated that charter school authorizers were
responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and overseeing the terms of the
charter and for monitoring a charter school's student performance. Only
six states reported that charter school authorizers were *not* required
(or were required only in some cases) to review and monitor the student
performance of their charter schools. (In these cases, the state board
or other state body was responsible for reviewing and monitoring charter
schools.)

Responsibility for other activities, such as budget and personnel
administration and provision of facilities or services, varied by
activity. A majority of states did not expect charter school authorizers
to administer budgets (59 percent) and personnel functions (56 percent).
In contrast, states were more likely to assign the responsibility of
providing services such as special education to charter school
authorizers; almost 70 percent of states said that some or all charter
school authorizers were responsible for providing these services.
Exhibit 4-4 indicates the degree to which state coordinators reported
that charter school authorizers were responsible for these functions.
Further details on these responses are found in Appendix O.

Exhibit 4-3\
AGENCIES IDENTIFIED BY STATE COORDINATORS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING
ACCOUNTABILITY

Exhibit 4-4\
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS,\
AS REPORTED BY STATES (n=38)

![](media/image15.wmf)

### [Finding]{.underline}: During the charter-granting process, charter school authorizers reported focusing on curriculum, finances, and assessment and accountability. Once charter schools are up and running, charter school authorizers focus on monitoring student achievement, financial record keeping, and compliance with federal or state regulations.  {#finding-during-the-charter-granting-process-charter-school-authorizers-reported-focusing-on-curriculum-finances-and-assessment-and-accountability.-once-charter-schools-are-up-and-running-charter-school-authorizers-focus-on-monitoring-student-achievement-financial-record-keeping-and-compliance-with-federal-or-state-regulations. .FINDING}

The charter approval process is usually the first step in the
accountability process because it is where initial expectations are laid
out by schools and charter school authorizers. Charter school
authorizers reported on the importance of particular program areas at
various stages of this approval process: reviewing the charter for
approval, requiring changes to the charter, and denial of a charter.
Charter school authorizer representatives reported that the factors of
most importance to them when reviewing a charter application to
determine whether to issue a charter were finances, curriculum, and
accountability provisions. In contrast, an applicant's personnel
policies or requirements, targeted population, and student discipline
policies were considered least important. Exhibit 4-5 illustrates the
importance of various program elements when charter school authorizers
are determining whether or not to issue a charter.

Exhibit 4-5\
IMPORTANCE OF PROGRAM ELEMENTS IN DECISION TO ISSUE A CHARTER,\
AS REPORTED BY CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS (n=45)

+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| **Program**            | **Impo |          |        |       | **   |
|                        | rtance |          |        |       | Mean |
| **Element**            | in     |          |        |       | \*** |
|                        | Gr     |          |        |       |      |
|                        | anting |          |        |       |      |
|                        | Cha    |          |        |       |      |
|                        | rter** |          |        |       |      |
|                        |        |          |        |       |      |
|                        | **(p   |          |        |       |      |
|                        | ercent |          |        |       |      |
|                        | of     |          |        |       |      |
|                        | re     |          |        |       |      |
|                        | sponde |          |        |       |      |
|                        | nts)** |          |        |       |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
|                        | **Not  | **       | **So   | *     |      |
|                        | at All | Somewhat | mewhat | *Very |      |
|                        | Impor  | Unimp    | Impor  | I     |      |
|                        | tant** | ortant** | tant** | mport |      |
|                        |        |          |        | ant** |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Curriculum             | 0%     | 2%       | 13%    | 84%   | 3.82 |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Instructional          | 0%     | 5%       | 43%    | 52%   | 3.48 |
| strategies             |        |          |        |       |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Assessment             | 0%     | 4%       | 22%    | 73%   | 3.69 |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Targeted population    | 9%     | 19%      | 44%    | 28%   | 2.91 |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Admission procedures   | 2%     | 5%       | 36%    | 57%   | 3.48 |
| and student selection  |        |          |        |       |      |
| criteria               |        |          |        |       |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Finances               | 0%     | 0%       | 16%    | 84%   | 3.84 |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| School facilities      | 5%     | 12%      | 56%    | 27%   | 3.05 |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Personnel policies or  | 8%     | 23%      | 48%    | 23%   | 2.85 |
| requirements           |        |          |        |       |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Governance structure   | 0%     | 11%      | 48%    | 41%   | 3.30 |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Health and safety      | 0%     | 5%       | 36%    | 60%   | 3.55 |
| issues                 |        |          |        |       |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Student discipline     | 5%     | 22%      | 54%    | 20%   | 2.88 |
| policies               |        |          |        |       |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| School management or   | 4%     | 7%       | 38%    | 51%   | 3.36 |
| leadership             |        |          |        |       |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Mission and goals of   | 0%     | 2%       | 22%    | 76%   | 3.73 |
| the school             |        |          |        |       |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+
| Accountability         | 0%     | 0%       | 18%    | 82%   | 3.82 |
| provisions             |        |          |        |       |      |
+------------------------+--------+----------+--------+-------+------+

> \*The mean scores were based on converting responses to a four-point
> scale with "not at all important" equal to 1, "somewhat unimportant"
> equal to 2, "somewhat important" equal to 3, and "very important"
> equal to 4.

In addition to these elements, 11 respondents reported additional
program areas they considered important when determining whether or not
to issue a charter. These self-reported criteria included ways that
schools addressed the following: special education, language needs,
insurance, parent involvement, racial diversity, projected enrollment,
transportation, and student recruitment.

Charter school authorizers reported that, in some cases, they require
charter applicants to make changes to their application or program
during the application review process. Not surprisingly, many of the
same criteria important in deciding whether to issue a charter are also
important in deciding whether an applicant is asked to modify the
proposed charter: curriculum, assessment, and finance were cited as the
top areas in which charter school authorizers requested that changes be
made. Exhibit 4-6 displays those areas in a charter in which charter
school authorizers most frequently require changes to be made, as well
as the areas that commonly cause charter school authorizers to deny
applications. Again, reasons most often cited for application
denial---curriculum, finance, and management concerns---were similar to
those cited in other steps during the charter authorizing process.

In addition to the responses reported in Exhibit 4-6, approximately
one-third of the surveyed charter school authorizers described changes
that they recommended in other areas, including special education (n=3),
language needs (n=2), transportation (n=4), and the number of signatures
on the charter petition (n=2). Notable among the other areas mentioned
by single authorizers were insurance, parent involvement, racial
diversity, and collective bargaining.

Exhibit 4-6\
CHANGES REQUIRED AND DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS RELATING TO PARTICULAR
PROGRAM ELEMENTS

![](media/image16.wmf)

Once the schools have been approved, charter school authorizers reported
monitoring the following areas, whether they were included in a charter
school's goals or not: student achievement, financial record keeping,
enrollment numbers, compliance with federal or state regulations, and
other student performance indicators, such as attendance rates. These
areas are consistent with the monitoring activities most frequently
reported by charter schools in the National Study of Charter Schools
(Nelson et al., 2000, p. 50). Exhibit 4-7 indicates the program areas
monitored by chartering agencies and whether these areas apply to all,
some, or no charter schools. Exhibit 4-7 also shows the mean scores for
those areas monitored by charter school authorizers.

Respondents also reported monitoring the delivery of special education
services, test administration, maintenance of facilities, insurance
coverage, health and safety, employee rights and qualifications,
adhering to orientation and mission of the charter school, student
discipline, and meeting curriculum standards

Exhibit 4-7\
AREAS MONITORED BY CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS (n=47)

+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
|                                   | **P    |         |        | #   |
|                                   | ercent |         |        | ##  |
|                                   | of     |         |        |     |
|                                   | C      |         |        | #   |
|                                   | harter |         |        | ##  |
|                                   | School |         |        |     |
|                                   | A      |         |        | ##  |
|                                   | uthori |         |        | # * |
|                                   | zers** |         |        | *Me |
|                                   |        |         |        | an\ |
|                                   |        |         |        | *** |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
|                                   | **All  | **Some  | **No   |     |
|                                   | Sch    | Sc      | Sch    |     |
|                                   | ools** | hools** | ools** |     |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Instructional practices           | 53%    | 13%     | 34%    | 2   |
|                                   |        |         |        | .19 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Financial record keeping          | 91%    | 2%      | 6%     | 2   |
|                                   |        |         |        | .85 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Compliance with federal or state  | 89%    | 4%      | 6%     | 2   |
| regulations                       |        |         |        | .83 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Student achievement               | 96%    | 2%      | 2%     | 2   |
|                                   |        |         |        | .93 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Other student performance         | 68%    | 13%     | 19%    | 2   |
| indicators,\                      |        |         |        | .49 |
| such as attendance rates          |        |         |        |     |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Diversity of student body         | 58%    | 7%      | 36%    | 2   |
|                                   |        |         |        | .22 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Governance/decision-making        | 60%    | 13%     | 28%    | 2   |
|                                   |        |         |        | .32 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Parent satisfaction               | 65%    | 11%     | 24%    | 2   |
|                                   |        |         |        | .41 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| School waiting list               | 55%    | 7%      | 39%    | 2   |
|                                   |        |         |        | .16 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Enrollment numbers                | 79%    | 2%      | 19%    | 2   |
|                                   |        |         |        | .60 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+
| Staff or student turnover rates   | 56%    | 7%      | 38%    | 2   |
|                                   |        |         |        | .18 |
+-----------------------------------+--------+---------+--------+-----+

\* The mean scores were based on converting responses to a 3-point scale
with "all" equal to 3, "some" equal to 2, and "none" equal to 1.

###   {#section-10 .FINDING .unnumbered}

### [Finding]{.underline}: Charter school authorizers that are *not* local educational agencies (particularly those that are states) and those that have chartered large numbers of schools are more likely to have well-developed accountability policies, processes, and procedures than local charter school authorizers.  {#finding-charter-school-authorizers-that-are-not-local-educational-agencies-particularly-those-that-are-states-and-those-that-have-chartered-large-numbers-of-schools-are-more-likely-to-have-well-developed-accountability-policies-processes-and-procedures-than-local-charter-school-authorizers. .FINDING}

Although the Year 1 sample of charter school authorizers did not allow
the SRI team to draw generalizable conclusions, the sample was varied
enough to allow the team to determine trends and patterns across
different agencies. Specifically, Year 1 analyses looked at variation
between the type of authorizer and the numbers chartered along these
areas: existence of written policies, changes required to the charter,
reasons for denial, and organizational capacity. In looking across
authorizers, it is important to bear in mind that the type of charter
school authorizer appears to be closely linked to the number of schools
charteredi.e., local agencies in our sample chartered fewer schools
than other (nonlocal) agencies.

The Year 1 data from the charter school authorizer survey indicate that
the charter school promise of increased flexibility in exchange for
increased accountability may be occurring more frequently in charter
schools that are sponsored by nonlocal agencies than in those sponsored
by local agencies. In fact, local agencies not only are less likely to
allow flexibility at the school site, but also are less likely to have
established written policies or procedures regarding charter schools.
(The existence of written policies is an important indicator of charter
school authorizers' formal processes for working with charter schools.)
One interpretation is that charter schools sponsored by local agencies
are monitored through traditional accountability systems based on inputs
that are used for regular public schools, rather than through systems
emphasizing accountability for results. Future data collection will
investigate these differences in flexibility and accountability based on
the type of charter school authorizer.

Most charter school authorizers reported having established written
policies or guidelines for the charter school application and approval
process and for monitoring and revoking charters. Of the 48 charter
school authorizers surveyed, only 9 reported that they had *not*
developed any written policies on charter schools. All of these
authorizers were local agencies and had chartered five or fewer schools.
In contrast, nonlocals were more likely to have written procedures
(especially for granting the charter, revoking the charter, and imposing
sanctions). Similarly, those charter school authorizers that had
sponsored larger numbers of schools (typically nonlocal agencies) were
more likely to have written policies. Exhibit 4-8 indicates the
variation in whether a charter school authorizer reported having
established its own written policies, procedures, or guidelines in a
number of areas. In sum, 100 percent of nonlocal agencies reported
written policies in one or more areas. The comparable figure for local
agencies was 74 percent. (Put another way, a quarter of the local
charter school authorizers in the Year 1 sample had no written policies
on charter schools.)

As discussed previously, charter school authorizers often require
applicants to modify a charter before it is granted. In examining
changes required according to the number of schools chartered, a trend
emerges: generally, higher-volume charter school authorizers require
applicants to make more changes than lower-volume charter school
authorizers. This finding suggest that higher-volume charter school
authorizers may have learned from experience to be clear about their
expectations at the beginning of their relationship with charter
schools. On the other hand, some local agencies who have chartered very
few schools reported working very closely with schools as they developed
their charter and even writing the charter themselves.

A closer look at the data also reveals some differences in reasons for
denying charters, based on type of authorizer. For example, the fact
that seven local agencies reported that charter school applications were
denied because of facilities (compared with only one nonlocal agency)
indicates that facilities may have been a more pressing concern to local
charter school authorizers than to nonlocal agencies.

The variation in charter school authorizers' organizational capacities
provides some context for their abilities to oversee and monitor charter
schools. (For more detail on state infrastructures available to support
charter schools, refer to Appendix P.) The charter school authorizer
survey included items designed to gauge the existence of a monitoring
infrastructure, including whether a separate office or staff is assigned
to charter schools, what proportion of the respondent's time is devoted
to charter schools, and whether written policies exist on charter
schools. As Exhibit 4-9 shows, the likelihood of having a separate
office or staff devoted to charter schools increased when the charter
school authorizer was a nonlocal agency.

Exhibit 4-8\
EXISTENCE OF WRITTEN POLICIES, BY TYPE OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER

![](media/image17.wmf)

Another indicator of the organizational capacity to monitor and
supervise schools is the percentage of time that the charter school
authorizer respondent spent on charter-related work. In most cases, team
members spoke with the person at the charter school authorizer charged
with overseeing charter school-related efforts. Overall, the average
percentage of time spent on charter-related work by these individuals,
according to respondents, was 38 percent. This figure does not include
the time that may have been spent by others at the agency. Like the
existence of a separate staff for charter schools, the amount of time
spent on charter-related work also varied by type of charter school
authorizer; Exhibit 4-10 illustrates this variation.

In sum, nonlocal agencies are more likely to have policies in place, to
have staff dedicated to charter schools, and to have chartered a greater
number of schools. How interactions and negotiations of roles and
responsibilities play out in practice will be a subject of further
exploration as SRI gathers school-based information and additional
information from a larger sample of charter school authorizers.

Exhibit 4-9\
CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS WITH SEPARATE OFFICE AND/OR STAFF DEDICATED
TO CHARTER SCHOOLS, BY TYPE OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER\
(n=46)

![](media/image18.wmf)

Exhibit 4-10\
PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT ON CHARTER SCHOOLS, BY TYPE OF CHARTER SCHOOL
AUTHORIZER

![](media/image19.wmf)

## Evaluation Theme 7: States and charter school authorizers have many corrective actions at their disposal; most have been used in moderation. {#evaluation-theme-7-states-and-charter-school-authorizers-have-many-corrective-actions-at-their-disposal-most-have-been-used-in-moderation. .THEME}

If flexibility is the carrot of the charter movement, the threat of
charter revocation is the stick. Many argue that the most direct way of
holding schools accountable is to have the power to close the school if
it cannot deliver on the performance goals in its charter. Charters are
usually granted for a term of 3 to 5 years and either renewed or not at
the end of that term, on the basis of the school's performance (Berman
et al., 1998). In a few states, renewal is not anticipated for many
years, since the charter law allows for terms of up to 15 years (e.g.,
Arizona, which has the largest charter school population in the
country).

### [Finding]{.underline}: Though not a frequent occurrence, in about half of the states the accountability process has resulted in some type of sanction against one or more charter schools. Generally, corrective actions are related to fiscal and management issues. {#finding-though-not-a-frequent-occurrence-in-about-half-of-the-states-the-accountability-process-has-resulted-in-some-type-of-sanction-against-one-or-more-charter-schools.-generally-corrective-actions-are-related-to-fiscal-and-management-issues. .FINDING}

At present, the charter school accountability story is at a formative
stage. Only 29 percent of the states with charter school legislation
have had any schools come up for renewal, and in those states, almost
all schools seeking renewal have been successful. Renewal activity has
been most heavily concentrated in five states: California, Colorado,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In each of these states, more
than 10 schools have come up for renewal.

Whereas "renewal" of a charter seems to have common meaning across
states (though it may occur at varying points during the term of the
charter), individual states have developed their own terminology for the
negative consequences that charter schools may experience as a result of
the accountability process. For several respondents, "revocation" was
too harsh a term for what took place. For example, sometimes charter
schools have been placed on probation and ultimately ceded their
charters voluntarily before the point of charter renewal. Similarly,
"closure" seemed to be a term that states preferred, rather than
"revocation."

Survey respondents in 20 states (53 percent) reported that one or more
charter schools in their state had been subject to some corrective
action (e.g., nonrenewal, revocation, or probation). Within each of
those states, the number of charter schools affected is very
small---generally only one or two. Of the 18 states that reported no
corrective actions taken so far, 6 do not have any charter schools in
operation yet.

According to the states, the primary reasons for requiring corrective
actions have been related to money and management. Other reasons
mentioned included facilities issues, lack of enrollment, failure to
adhere to reporting requirements, and governance issues. Some "closures"
are simply a matter of failure to open because a founder's group is
unable to implement its plan or contract.

### [Finding]{.underline}: Charter school authorizers echoed state reports concerning the variety, frequency, and causes of corrective actions involving charter schools. {#finding-charter-school-authorizers-echoed-state-reports-concerning-the-variety-frequency-and-causes-of-corrective-actions-involving-charter-schools. .FINDING}

The 48 charter school authorizers surveyed had chartered a total of 837
schools, 71 of which (about 8 percent) had come up for renewal. Of those
71 schools, 76 percent had been renewed. Several schools were still
undergoing the renewal process. Only 5 schools (7 percent) had
definitely not been renewed. The reasons for nonrenewal of the five
charters included financial problems, management or leadership issues,
and student performance, among others.

A total of 27 charters had been revoked or otherwise terminated before
the renewal cycle by 14 (6 state agencies and 8 local agencies) of the
48 charter school authorizers surveyed. As with the state data, the
tendency to take corrective action is associated with the number of
schools chartered by an authorizer. Revocations were implemented
primarily by authorizers that had chartered six or more schools. Reasons
for revocation again emphasized fiscal mismanagement and leadership
issues.

Charter school authorizers also use probationary status as a means of
helping charter schools resolve problems before revocation becomes
necessary. Nine of 48 charter school authorizers had employed this
strategy with a total of 15 charter schools. Once again, authorizers
that had sponsored more schools were more likely to put a school on
probation.

Few charter school authorizers have revoked or not renewed charters
because of student performance problems. The main reason is that most
charter schools have not yet reached the end of their renewal cycles
(typically 5 years). The data from the Year 1 charter school authorizer
survey indicate that one authorizer has not renewed charter schools
because of problems relating to student performance and two authorizers
revoked charters before the end of the renewal cycle because of failure
to meet student outcomes specified in the charter. Also, one charter
school authorizer reported placing a school on probation because, among
other things, it had failed to maintain its scores on the statewide
assessment. As more charter schools come up for renewal, the study team
will be able to analyze in greater depth the reasons why charter school
authorizers revoke charters.

### [Finding]{.underline}: Corrective actions, when they did take place, were more common in states with older charter school legislation, larger populations of charter schools, and multiple chartering entities. {#finding-corrective-actions-when-they-did-take-place-were-more-common-in-states-with-older-charter-school-legislation-larger-populations-of-charter-schools-and-multiple-chartering-entities. .FINDING}

The relatively low incidence of corrective actions can be interpreted in
many ways. Does the fact that closure is rare indicate that charter
schools are succeeding as planned; does it signify that charter school
authorizers are hesitant to close schools, regardless of performance; or
does it simply indicate, as some suggest, that the movement is still
young? Analysis of the Year 1 data yields the following:

-   Among the 20 states in which some corrective action has taken place,
    almost all are somewhat older states in the movement (95 percent
    passed their charter legislation before 1997). In contrast, half of
    the states that have had no incidence of accountability measures are
    newer participants (i.e., 9 passed legislation in 1997 or later).

-   Of the states that reported no corrective actions yet, 72 percent
    have 10 or fewer charter schools. In contrast, 85 percent of states
    that have taken some corrective actions have more than 10 charter
    schools. Four of the five states with more than 100 charter schools
    (Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas) reported more than five
    occurrences of a corrective action taken.

-   States that permit multiple but independent chartering entities (see
    definition of "multiple entities" in Appendix L) account for 33
    percent of all permanently closed charter schools (and 58 percent of
    the country's total number of operating charter schools). States
    that have multiple *inter*dependent chartering entities account for
    another 31 percent (and 30 percent of the total universe of charter
    schools). States that allow only local entities to charter account
    for 22 percent of closures (and 9 percent of the charter schools
    nationally). In contrast, states where a state entity is the only
    charter school authorizer account for 14 percent of permanently
    closed charter schools, despite having only 3 percent of the
    country's total number of charter schools.

In sum, the consequences for charter schools that do not meet the terms
of their charters are just beginning to be understood as the older
charter schools face renewal in the context of increasing state and
local accountability requirements. At the same time, accountability
expectations for charter schools have been expressed strongly since the
beginning of the movement. Both parts of the charter school
equation---increased flexibility in exchange for increased
accountability---must be examined closely before judging the success of
the charter school reform.

# CHAPTER 5

# CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION PLANS FOR YEAR 2 AND YEAR 3

The findings that emerged from the Year 1 data collection and analyses
provide initial answers to the six broad research questions that guide
the national evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program---always
bearing in mind that the perspectives represented in this report are
only those of state charter school coordinators and a nonrepresentative
sample of charter school authorizers. In this final chapter, the Year 1
themes and findings are recapped in the context of their contribution to
(1) a future summative understanding of the PCSP's role in the growth
and development of the charter school movement and (2) a deepening of
knowledge about the charter school sector of the education system, with
a particular emphasis on the flexibility-accountability continuum. The
six broad research questions serve as the organizers for the chapter.
Within each section, the team's current knowledge base is summarized,
along with the questions that remain to be addressed and the upcoming
data collection activities. The chapter concludes with a brief section
on the perspectives of state charter school coordinators and
representatives of charter school authorizers about the impacts of the
charter school movement on the portions of the education system that
they regularly observe.

## How does the PCSP encourage the development of charter schools?

The PCSP was enacted to support the start-up and early implementation
needs of charter schools. The study team does not yet know how this
support has played out at the charter school level, but there are some
preliminary indicators from the first year of data collection. Over the
last 5 years, the growth of the program and the size of PCSP grants to
states have paralleled the growth in the charter school movement
overall. Funding levels are determined by the documented needs described
in a state's proposal and the estimated number of eligible subgrantees
that the grant will support over a 3-year period. In some years and in
some states, grants have been adjusted through supplements when demand
has outstripped the original grant amount and additional funding becomes
available.

The evaluation also determined that most state charter school
coordinators and local educators who have received PCSP grants directly
from ED have found federal technical assistance to be accessible,
useful, and timely. The PCSP Office plays a significant leadership role
in school choice issues, both within ED and in the field.

The evaluation cannot yet provide a precise answer to the question of
the proportion of charter schools receiving PCSP grants. Further
follow-up with charter school directors and state coordinators is needed
in this area. The evaluation team will present findings on this topic in
later reports.

## How do state PCSP grantees and charter school authorizers encourage the development of charter schools?

States have developed their own processes for awarding subgrants to
charter schools. Some hold competitions, some divide the funds equally
among eligible charter schools and planning groups, and others combine
the two strategies. These differences in award strategy are the primary
reason for differences among states in the proportion of charter schools
that receive PCSP funding. States that divide the funding equally do not
consider potential differences in start-up needs among charter schools.

Ninety-five percent or more of all PCSP grant funds devolve to charter
schools or planning groups. On the basis of a sample of charter school
authorizers of various types, almost no PCSP subgrant money is retained
by these entities, although a local educational agency may be the fiscal
agent for a subgrant.

Eligibility for subgrants varies among states. Most states allow
subgrants to groups that have obtained full or provisional charters even
if the school has not opened. A few states award subgrants (generally
small) to groups that have not yet obtained a charter. Some states have
established priority factors that play a role in the subgrant proposal
review process. However, very few states place priority on making PCSP
awards to charter schools serving low-income communities. Priority is
more likely to be given to schools serving special student populations.

According to state respondents, uses of the subgrant funds are largely
unrestricted. This perception must be triangulated with the views of the
subgrantees in a later data collection period. Other questions that
require school-level data include these:

-   How are the needs supported by PCSP funding sustained after the
    funding expires?

-   How accessible, useful, and timely is state technical assistance to
    charter schools and school planners?

## How do federally funded charter schools/school planners use their PCSP subgrants?

For this report, states were asked an open-ended question about their
knowledge of the specific uses of PCSP subgrants. In general,
respondents reported that subgrantees can and do use the funding for
almost any purpose except those that are prohibited in federal law
(e.g., purchase of real estate).

Much more about this question will be learned from an upcoming telephone
survey of a representative sample of charter schools. That survey will
be designed to answer the following questions:

-   What proportion of start-up costs are supported with the federal
    grant?

-   What kinds of planning and implementation activities do federal
    subgrants support?

-   What start-up barriers did federal funds allow charter
    schools/school planners to overcome that they otherwise could not
    have?

-   How important was access to federal grant money in the decision to
    obtain or pursue a charter?

-   What are the differences between charter schools that receive PCSP
    grants and those that do not?

## What are the characteristics of charter schools and the students and families who are involved with them?

This report covers a period when the National Study of Charter Schools,
funded by ED and conducted by RPP International, continued to bear the
responsibility for documenting the explosive growth of the charter
school movement. That study's fourth-year report can be downloaded from
the following Web site:
[www.ed.gov/pubs/charter4thyear/](http://www.uscharterschools.org/)

In the future, the SRI evaluation will be continuing the documentation
of the charter school movement through school-level surveys that cover
the following:

-   School characteristics.

-   Student demographics, in comparison with traditional local public
    schools.

-   Staff characteristics.

-   Charter school type (new or conversion).

-   Admission policies and waiting lists.

-   Targeting and accommodation of special populations.

-   Professional development opportunities for staff.

-   Parent involvement.

## What flexibility provisions are charter schools granted?

"Flexibility" has multiple meanings in the charter school context. With
respect to state charter school legislation, there is variation among
the states concerning the diversity or limitations on the kinds of
agencies that are permitted to charter. States that allow only a single
type of entity to award a charter (e.g., local educational agencies) may
offer groups seeking a charter less flexibility than those states where
several types of entity are allowed to award charters. In general,
states are increasing the range of agencies permitted to charter.

Another feature of flexibility in the chartering environment is the
presence or absence of caps on the number of charter schools allowed in
state legislation. Again, the general trend is toward the removal of
caps or expansion of the number of charter schools allowed under a cap.

Flexibility as freedom from regulation and bureaucracy is another
meaning of the term in the charter school context. In general, charter
schools are *not* exempt from state student assessment and basic
auditing requirements. Further, half of the 38 states with charter
school laws either require charter school applicants to negotiate
waivers on a case-by-case basis or ban waivers altogether.

The Year 1 data suggest that state coordinator and charter school
authorizer respondents may have different perceptions of the degree of
control and autonomy realized by charter schools. This difference of
opinion begs for triangulation with data from charter schools
themselves. It also will be important to add the charter school
perspective on state and charter school authorizer policies that affect
flexibility. Research questions on flexibility provisions that must be
addressed through future data collection activities include the
following:

-   To what extent are flexibility provisions that are granted by state
    and local laws realized in practice? Which flexibility provisions
    are most critical?

-   What factors are associated with successful and unsuccessful
    implementation of flexibility provisions?

-   What flexibility provisions do charter schools report to be the most
    critical to ensuring their success?

## How do charter schools measure student performance, and are charter school students making progress on these and other measures?  {#how-do-charter-schools-measure-student-performance-and-are-charter-school-students-making-progress-on-these-and-other-measures-1}

Accountability is a key topic to track as the charter school movement
matures and evolves. Like flexibility, accountability is a core feature
of the contract between charter schools and their charter school
authorizers. Data from states and charter school authorizers indicate
that charter schools are accountable to multiple agencies.
Accountability relationships often begin with the application review
process, where charter school authorizers report that they require
clarity on issues such as curriculum, finances, and assessment and
accountability. Annual reporting, whether to states or charter school
authorizers, focuses on student achievement, financial record keeping,
and compliance with regulations.

Note that the Year 1 data reported in this document do not include any
analyses of student performance in charter schools. The evaluation
includes a student performance substudy, the results of which will be
reported in later years.

In theory, as the result of a strict accountability process, charter
schools that do not "perform" will close. The data from this evaluation
show that mechanisms are in place for this purpose but are used in
moderation. In states and charter school authorizers where charters have
come up for renewal, few schools have failed to survive. In a number of
states, charter school authorizers do not wait until renewal to begin
corrective action if a charter school appears to be in trouble. The use
of corrective actions is more prevalent in states that are more
experienced with chartering, have more charter schools, and allow
multiple agencies to charter.

Although data from states and charter school authorizers have advanced
the evaluation team's understanding of accountability, additional survey
and interview data from charter schools are necessary to tell the rest
of the story. In addition, the evaluation team is currently designing a
substudy of student performance in charter schools. This study will
involve reanalysis of state assessment data in a limited number of
states, as well as site visits to obtain in-depth information at a small
number of charter schools. The selection criteria for some sites (e.g.,
the existence of waiting lists) may allow the team to conduct
comparisons between the performance of students who were admitted to
charter schools and students who applied to be admitted but were not.
This type of comparison would provide the opportunity to control for the
choice element (i.e., the desire to attend a charter school).

Questions that will be addressed in subsequent reports include these:

-   What are the measures of student performance for which charter
    schools are accountable, and how are they assessed?

-   Are students in charter schools meeting the performance goals set
    forth in their schools' charters?

-   Do charter school students realize achievement gains comparable to
    their traditional public school counterparts?

-   Under what conditions do charter schools improve student
    achievement?

-   What comparisons do parents make between charter schools and other
    schools attended by their children? Do parents believe these
    institutions are accountable to them and responsive to their
    concerns?

Readers who would like more detail about future data collection
activities for this evaluation are referred to Appendix B.

# References

Ahearn, E. (1999). Charter schools and special education: A report on
state policies. prepared by Project FORUM of the National Association of
State Directors of Special Education, for the Office of Special
Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

Berman, P., Nelson, B., Ericson, J., Perry, R., and Silverman, D.
(1998). A national study of charter schools: Second-year report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.

Berman, P., Nelson, B., Perry, R., Silverman, D., Solomon, D., and
Kamprath, N. (1999). A national study of charter schools: Third-year
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.

Hirsch, E. (2000). Legislative analyses prepared for SRI International.
Unpublished.

Jennings, W., Premack, E., Adelmann, A., and Solomon, D. (1999). A
comparison of charter school legislation: Thirty-three states and the
District of Columbia, incorporating legislative changes through October,
1998. RPP International: Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education.

Nelson, B., Berman, P., Ericson, J., Kamprath, N., Perry, R., Silverman,
D., and Solomon, D. (2000). The state of charter schools 2000:
Fourth-year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.

RPP International and the University of Minnesota. (1997). A study of
charter schools: First-year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

[^1]: Although 36 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have
    enacted charter school laws, charter schools are not yet in
    operation in all of these states. In the remainder of this report,
    the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are usually grouped with
    the other states.

[^2]: The National Study of Charter Schools tracked the development of
    charter schools nationwide from 1995 to 1999. This study produced
    four annual reports and a number of topical reports that are or will
    be available on-line. The fourth-year report is available at
    www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/4yrrpt.pdf.

[^3]: Although the response rate is low, the respondents did not appear
    to have any characteristics that distinguish them from the
    nonrespondents (e.g., state, status of PCSP grant, etc.).

[^4]: In two of the three states reporting that PCSP funds are not a
    source of start-up support, some charter schools were receiving
    grants directly from ED. The third state, Wyoming, has neither
    charter schools nor a state PCSP grant.

[^5]: On the state coordinator survey, nine states noted that their
    applications for PCSP funds had been denied one or more times.

[^6]: Current law allows up to 5 percent or \$5 million of
    appropriations to be held at the federal level for national
    activities (research and demonstration projects, national
    conferences, etc.). The original legislation allowed 10 percent.

[^7]: The range of types of charter school authorizers nationally was
    reflected in the Year 1 sample. The sample included a large majority
    of local educational agencies (n=34), some state entities (n=8), a
    few institutions of higher education (n=3), and independent boards
    or municipal entities (n=3).

[^8]: This statistic is consistent with data reported in the fourth-year
    report from the National Study of Charter Schools (Nelson et al.,
    2000, p. 12).

[^9]: See Nelson et al. (2000), pp. 52-53, for information on reports
    made by charter schools.