69 

Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools 

Program: Year One Evaluation Report 

APPENDICES 

Æ
70 
71 

APPENDICES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1 APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 73 

Appendix A: OVERVIEW OF STATE CHARTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY............................................ 75 

Exhibit A-1: Overview of State Charter School Activity ................................................................. 76 

Appendix B: FUTURE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS......................................................... 79 

Exhibit B-1: Remaining Data Collection Activities ......................................................................... 79 

Exhibit B-2: Mapping Research Questions to Report.................................................................... 82 

CHAPTER 2 APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 85 

Appendix C: PCSP FUNDING AND FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS............... 87 

Exhibit C-1: Total PCSP Funding/Total Funding Available for Charter Schools by Year 

and By State ............................................................................................................ 88 

Appendix D: USES OF STATE SET-ASIDE.................................................................................... 91 

Exhibit D-1: Uses of 5% State Set-Aside, by State (1998-1999)................................................... 92 

Appendix E: PCSP FUNDS RECEIVED BY CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS........................ 93 

Exhibit E-1: PCSP Funds Received by Charter School Authorizers.............................................. 93 

Appendix F: HOW SUBGRANTS ARE AWARDED......................................................................... 95 

Exhibit F-1: How Subgrants are Awarded..................................................................................... 95 

Appendix G: FACTORS GIVEN PRIORITY IN THE PCSP SUBGRANTING PROCESS................. 97 

Exhibit G-1: Factors Given Priority in the PCSP Subgranting Process ......................................... 97 

Appendix H: CRITERIA FOR FUNDING DECISIONS ..................................................................... 99 

Exhibit H-1: Criteria for Funding Decisions................................................................................... 99 

Appendix I: RECIPIENTS OF PCSP SUBGRANTS ........................................................................ 101 

Exhibit I-1: Recipients of PCSP Subgrants................................................................................... 101

Appendix J: PCSP-SUPPORTED RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION, AND EVALUATION 

ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................ 103 

Exhibit J-1: PCSP-Supported Research, Demonstration, and Evaluation Activities ...................... 103 

Appendix K: NEED FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PREPARING APPLICATIONS AND 

REPORTS .................................................................................................................. 105 

Exhibit K-1: Need for Technical Assistance in Preparing Applications and Reports...................... 105 

CHAPTER 3 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................107 

Appendix L: COMPLEXITY IN CHARTERING AUTHORITY ........................................................... 109 

Exhibit L-1: Local, State, Multiple Independent and Interdependent Entities, by State.................. 111 

Appendix M: STATE LEGISLATIVE CAPS AND NUMBERS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS ................ 113 

Exhibit M-1: Types of Caps Across States.................................................................................... 114

CHAPTER 4 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................115 

Appendix N: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE OF STATE LEGISLATION AND 

CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER VARIABLES...................................................... 117 

Exhibit N-1: Age of Charter Legislation......................................................................................... 117 

Exhibit N-2: Relationship Between Age of Charter Legislation and Charter School Authorizer 

Variables.................................................................................................................. 118 

Exhibit N-3: Relationship Between Types of Charter School Authorizer Allowed and Other 

Charter School Authorizer Variables ........................................................................ 119 
72 

APPENDICES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded) 

Appendix O: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS, 

AS REPORTED BY STATES...................................................................................... 121 

Exhibit O-1: Roles and Responsibilities of Charter School Authorizers, as Reported by 

States ...................................................................................................................... 122

Appendix P: STATE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SUPPORTING CHARTER SCHOOLS.................. 123 
73 

CHAPTER 1 APPENDICES 
74 
75 

Appendix A 

OVERVIEW OF STATE CHARTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY

• In Exhibit A-1, an overview of selected characteristics of each state with charter school 

legislation is presented. It includes the year when each stateís first charter law was passed, 

the number of charters granted in each state as of September 30, 1999, and the number of 

schools opened as of that date. The total number of charter schools opened as of September 

30, 1999, was 1,692 (see Exhibit 1-3 in the introduction). Exhibit A-1 also summarizes the 

types of entity permitted to award charters, the types of charter school permitted (e.g., newly 

created, public conversion), and the number of charters granted by type of school. The last 

column of the exhibit displays the years the state has received PCSP grants from the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

• In addition to growing rapidly, the charter school movement takes different forms in different 

states. There is also variation within states. Exhibit A-1 reflects some of this variation, 

especially in the footnotes. For example, the number of charters granted frequently reflects 

charters that have been revoked or altered in some other way. If a state has not received a 

PCSP grant (e.g., Mississippi), that fact is indicated in the PCSP column. Some of the 

information in this exhibit is discussed and analyzed in more detail in other sections of the 

report (the PCSP, for example, and the types of agencies that grant charters). 
76 

Exhibit A-1 

OVERVIEW OF STATE CHARTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY 

State 

Law 

Passed 

Charters 

Granted in 

State 

(as of 9/30/99) 

Charter Schools 

Opened in 

State 

(as of 9/30/99) 

Category of 

Entity Eligible 

to Award 

Charters1

Types of Charter 

School Permitted/ 

Number of Charters 

Granted, by Type 

Years of 

PCSP 

Funding 

Alaska 1995 202 18 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created (19) 

Public conversions (1)3

1996-1998 

1999-2001 

Arizona 1994 273 2734 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created 

Public conversions 

Private conversions5

1995-1997 

Arkansas 1995 0 0 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created 

Public conversions 

1999-2001 

California 1992 255 238 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created (170) 

Public conversions (85) 

1995-1997 

1998-2000 

Colorado 1993 70 68 Locals Newly created (70)6 1995-1997 

1998-2000 

Connecticut 1996 18 16 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created (18) 

Public conversions 

1996-1998 

1999-2001 

Delaware 1995 17 5 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created (17) 

Public conversions 

1997-1999 

District of 

Columbia 

1996 297 27 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created (22) 

Public conversions 

Private conversions (5) 

1996-1998 

1999-2001 

Florida 1996 125 110 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created (123) 

Public conversions (2)8

1996-1998 

1999-2001 

Georgia 1993 369 32 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created (9) 

Public conversions (27) 

1996-1998 

1999-2001 

Hawaii 1994 2 2 State Public conversions (2) 1999-2001 

Idaho 1998 8 8 Locals Newly created (8) 

Public conversions 

 

1999-2001 

Illinois 1996 18 17 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created (18) 

Public conversions 

1996-1998 

1999-2001 

Kansas 1994 15 15 Locals Newly created (10) 

Public conversions (5) 10

1996-1998 

Louisiana 1995 24 17 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created (22) 

Public conversions (2) 

1995-1997 

1998-2000 

Massachusetts 1993 43 39 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created (37) 

Public conversions (6) 

1995-1997 

1998-2000 

Michigan 1993 177 175 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created (177)11 1995-1997 

1998-2000 

Minnesota 1991 61 54 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created (55) 

Public conversions (2) 

Private conversions 

Other (4) 

1995-1997 

1998-2000 
77 

Exhibit A-1 

OVERVIEW OF STATE CHARTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY (continued) 

State 

Law 

Passed 

Charters 

Granted in 

State 

(as of 9/30/99) 

Charter Schools 

Opened in 

State 

(as of 9/30/99) 

Category of 

Entity Eligible 

to Award 

Charters1

Types of Charter 

School Permitted/ 

Number of Charters 

Granted, by Type 

Years of 

PCSP 

Funding 

Mississippi 1997 1 1 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Public conversions (1) No state 

grant 

Missouri 1998 16 15 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created (10) 

Public conversions (1)12

Private conversions (5) 

1998-2000 

Nevada 1997 5 5 Locals Newly created (5) 

Public conversions 

Private conversions 

No state 

grant 

New Hampshire 1995 5 0 State Newly created (5) 

Public conversions 

No state 

grant 

New Jersey 1996 47 47 State Newly created (47) 

Public conversions 

1996-1998 

1999-2001 

New Mexico 1993 6 3 Locals Newly created (1) 

Public conversions (4) 

Private conversions (1) 

No state 

grant 

New York 1998 5 5 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created (3) 

Public conversions (2) 

1999-2001 

North Carolina 1996 96 82 Multiple entities 

with 

interdependence 

Newly created (80) 

Public conversions (1) 

Private conversions (15) 

1996-1998 

1999-2001 

Ohio 1997 69 57 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created (68) 

Public conversions (1) 

1998-2000 

Oklahoma 1999 0 0 Locals Newly created 

Public conversions 

1999-2001 

Oregon 1999 013 0 Locals Newly created 

Public conversions 

Alternative education 

program conversions 

1995-1997 

1999-2001 

Pennsylvania 1997 52 4614 Locals Newly created (46) 

Public conversions (0) 

Private conversions (3) 

Other ñ preexisting 

educational 

organizations (3)15

1997-1999 

Puerto Rico 1993 79 7916 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Public conversions (79) 1996-1998 

1999-2001 

Rhode Island 1995 4 2 State Newly created (3) 

Public conversions (1) 

1998-2000 

South Carolina 1996 1217 9 Locals Newly created (10) 

Public conversions 

Other (2) 

1997-1999 

Texas 1996 19318 173 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created (144) 

Public conversions (7) 

Private conversions (42) 

1995-1997 

1998-2000 

Utah 1998 8 6 State Newly created (6) 

Public conversions (1)19

Other (1)20

1999-2001 
78 

Exhibit A-1 

OVERVIEW OF STATE CHARTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY (concluded) 

State 

Law 

Passed 

Charters 

Granted in 

State 

(as of 9/30/99) 

Charter Schools 

Opened in 

State 

(as of 9/30/99) 

Category of 

Entity Eligible 

to Award 

Charters1

Types of Charter 

School Permitted/ 

Number of Charters 

Granted, by Type 

Years of 

PCSP 

Funding 

Virginia 1998 0 0 Locals Newly created 

Public conversions 

1999-2001 

Wisconsin 1993 48 48 Multiple entities, 

independent of 

each other 

Newly created (45) 

Public conversions (3) 

1996-1998 

1999-2001 

Wyoming 1995 0 0 Local Newly created 

Public conversions 

No state 

grant 

Total 1,837 1,692 

Sources: Information in table compiled from SRI data collection and legislative analyses; consultation with Eric Hirsch of the 

National Conference of State Legislatures; the US Charter Schools Web site (http://www.uscharterschools.org/); and the Committee 

for Education Reformís Charter School Legislation: State-by-State Analyses. 

Footnotes: 

1

See Appendix N for further detail on charter school authorizers. 

2

Includes one charter that never opened and one that has been closed for lack of enrollment 

3

Types of school permitted not specified in law. 

4

Arizona reported that 334 schools were open as of 9/30/99, although many of these are multiple school sites operating under single 

charters. 

5

Numbers of each type of charter school not provided by survey respondent, as figures havenít incorporated into database. 

6

Colorado law technically has no provision for conversions, so schools had to close and reopen as ìnewly createdî charter schools. 

Two of these were formerly public schools, and one was formerly a private school. 

7

Two of these charters were later revoked, so respondent did not provide data on them 

8

Although no private conversions are allowed in Florida, some former private schools have dissolved and ìenrobedî as public 

schools. 

9

One stayed as a school but is no longer a charter. This charter school was a public conversion. 

10Types of school permitted not specified in law. 11Under Michigan law, all charter schools become ìnew.î Twenty-three of these charter schools in the state are former private 

schools that became chartered. 

12Law stipulates that a maximum of 5% of school buildings currently in use may be converted (does not apply to vacant buildings or 

buildings not used for instructional purposes). 

13Twenty-two schools opened under a prior school reform law; many of these schools received PCSP funds. Under the 1999 

charter law, no charter schools have yet been opened. 

14One charter school in Pennsylvania closed pending a court order at time of interview. The school in question was not counted in 

the number of charter schools open, but was counted in the number of charters granted in the state. 

15Although the state respondent provided information on the number of conversions from private schools and other pre-existing 

educational organizations, Pennsylvania's charter law provides only for the creation of new schools and public conversions. 

16Respondent answered 81, reflecting that 2 additional schools would be opened a week after the survey was conducted. 17This includes ìfullî charters granted, not those granted ìconditionalî charters that didnít later become full charters. 18Estimated; SEA was not directly involved in collecting this information. 19Conversion is part of an existing public school. 20Tribally operated alternative school. 
79 

Appendix B 

FUTURE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This appendix presents information on data collection activities scheduled for future rounds of 

SRI Internationalís evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program. Exhibit B-1 shows the 

remaining data collection activities and other sources of information for the SRI evaluation. It 

also shows a basic timeline for these activities. Below the exhibit, the remaining data sources are 

described in full. Sampling for future data collection activities is described in the second section. 

The appendix concludes with an table that shows where each research question was addressed in 

the Year 1 report and how future data collection activities will address them. 

Exhibit B-1 

REMAINING DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES 

Data 

Source 

Data Collection 

in 1999-2000 

In 2000 OMB 

Submission 

Data Collection 

in 2000-2001 

Data Collection 

in 2001-2002 

Telephone 

survey of state 

coordinators X X X 

Telephone 

survey of charter 

school 

authorizers 

X X X X 

Telephone 

survey of nonstate PCSP 

grantees 

X X X 

Telephone 

survey of charter 

schools X X 

Site visits X 

(Fall-Winter 

2000) X X X 

Parent survey X X X 

Federal file 

extraction X X X 

Federal 

interviews X X X 

RPP data Requested in 1999-2000; will be analyzed for Year 2 report 

SASS data Administered by NCES in 1999-2000; will be analyzed for Year 2 report 
80 

Data Sources 

Telephone Survey of State Charter School Coordinators. The charter coordinators (or 

equivalent) of all 36 states with charter school legislation (plus the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico) were surveyed by phone in the summer and fall of 1999. What is likely to be a 

larger number of charter school coordinators will be surveyed again in the winter of 2002. As 

with the original administration, the survey instrument will consist of a combination of open- and 

closed-ended items on charter school-related operations, requirements, and flexibility, and the 

stateís PCSP grant. Members of the SRI team will administer the survey to all states with charter 

school legislation as of the end of 2001. 

Telephone Survey of Charter School Authorizers. A revised version of the Year 1 survey 

instrument will be administered to a representative sample of 150 charter school authorizers in 

the winter and spring of 2001. A version of the same survey will also be administered in winter 

2002. 

The revised survey is similar to the exploratory survey administered in Year 1, with several 

adjustments. First, the number of items specifically focused on PCSP have been reduced to 

reflect the year 1 finding that charter school authorizers are not involved with the program except 

in minimal ways (e.g., fiscal agents). Second, because this instrument will be administered to a 

larger sample in years 2 and 3 than the sample surveyed in year 1, SRI International will use a 

telephone survey subcontractor (using a computer-assisted telephone interview system) for the 

administration of this survey. The Year 1 telephone survey was administered by SRI 

researchers. This change compels the SRI team to reduce the number of open-ended items. 

Third, in many cases, the closed-ended items in the revised survey were shaped by the responses 

to open-ended questions on the Year 1 survey. 

Telephone Survey of Charter Schools. One of the key sources of data for the remainder of this 

evaluation is the telephone survey of charter schools, which will be conducted in the winter and 

spring of 2001. Based on SRIís review and update of RPPís list of charter schools (current as of 

September 30, 1999), a representative sample of 600 charter schools will be drawn for this 

survey. A telephone survey subcontractor will conduct the data collection. The survey 

instrument will consist mostly of closed-ended items. 

The charter school survey will include items on all the school-level research questions for this 

evaluation and will document the basic characteristics of charter schools nationwide as of the 

2000-2001 school year. The survey will also gather information about the use of PCSP funds at 

the school level, charter school experiences with flexibility and accountability, charter schoolsí 

relationships with their charter authorizers and states, and the ways charter schools assess student 

performance and other school outcomes. 

Site Visits. One round of exploratory site visits will be conducted in fall and winter 2000. Two 

additional rounds are currently planned for the second and third rounds of data collection (Spring 

2001 and the 2001-2002 school year). Data collection will focus on student performance in 

charter schools and the accountability relationships between charter schools, parents, charter 

school authorizers, states, and other audiences. Members of the study team are currently 

responding to requests from ED to add a large-scale analysis of student performance in some or 
81 

all of the six states selected for the charter school site visits. These analyses will include 

comparisons between charter schools and noncharter schools that serve similar populations. 

Parent Surveys. Written surveys will be administered to parents in conjunction with the Year 2 

and Year 3 site visits. 

Extraction of Information from Federal PCSP Files and State Charter Laws. SRIís access 

to the federal files on PCSP applicants and grantees and its review of state charter laws were 

very helpful activities for orienting team members to the charter operations, policies, and PCSP 

details in individual states and charter schools that received PCSP grants directly from ED. It 

also reduced the data collection burden imposed by this evaluation on telephone survey 

respondents and federal interviewees. Because the team will not be collecting data directly from 

PCSP grantees until the winter of 2002, the annual review of federal files and continued review 

of state laws will keep members of the study team up-to-date with the activities in their assigned 

states. 

In theory, the grantee files could be used to create an ongoing database to which queries could be 

addressed at any time. The evaluation team has been asked to create this database, which could 

then be transferred to ED for continued updating and maintenance. However, SRI's review of 

the files in 1998-99 found considerable inconsistency among them in terms of the material 

included. In the remaining years of the evaluation, team members will work with the PCSP staff 

to identify the most important and consistently available data fields for inclusion in a database 

that is likely to focus on very basic information, such as grantee contact information, annual 

grant amounts, dates and sources of correspondence, and presence or absence of grant 

applications and annual performance reports. 

Federal Interviews. Interviews with PCSP and Planning and Evaluation Service (PES) staff 

members at ED, and with congressional staff, will continue as needed. 

Charter School Data from RPP International and SASS. The SRI evaluation team has been 

granted access to data from the RPP study (based on four rounds of telephone surveys with the 

universe of charter schools). SRI will use these data to address the PCSP evaluationís research 

questions. ED is also committed to having descriptive data from the universe of charter schools 

in every year of the evaluation while simultaneously minimizing the data collection burden faced 

by these schools. Hence, between RPPís data collection in the 1995-1996 through 1998-1999 

school years, the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) in 1999-2000, and SRIís survey of charter 

schools in 2000-2001, the goal of annual school-level data collection will be met by coordinating 

federal data collection efforts and not unduly burdening charter schools with these requests. 

 

Mapping Research Questions To The Year 1 Report And Future Activities 

 Exhibit B-2 displays a summary table of where each of the studyís research questions is 

addressed in the Year 1 report and notes that indicate how they will be addressed by future data 

collection activities. 
82 

Exhibit B-2 

MAPPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO REPORT 

Research Questions Where Addressed 

How does the PCSP encourage the development of charter schools? 

How the PCSP awards grants. Chapter 2 

Proportion of charter schools receiving PCSP grantsónationally and by state. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• RPP Data 

Reasons for differences in the proportion of funded charter schools among 

funded states. 

Chapter 2 

Accessibility, usefulness, and timeliness of federal technical assistance to 

states, schools, planners. 

Chapter 2 

Impact of the PCSP on state policies. Chapter 2 

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

schools? 

How states define ìstart-upî in establishing funding eligibility. Chapter 2 

Number of states that allow planning grants; number of schools opened as a 

result. 

Chapter 2 

How states award subgrants. Chapter 2 

State requirements for use of federal funds. Chapter 2 

Accommodations by charter school authorizers for low-income community 

charter applications. 

Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• Follow-up charter school 

authorizer survey 

Accommodations of states for low-income community charter applications for 

federal assistance. 

Chapter 2 

Extent to which differences in subgrant amount between and within states 

reflect differences in start-up needs. 

Chapter 2 

Sustaining charters after federal funding expires. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• Follow-up state coordinator 

survey 

Linkage with policies to intervene in failing schools. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• Follow-up state coordinator 

survey 

Accessibility, usefulness, and timeliness of state technical assistance to 

schools and school planners. 

Chapter 2 

• SRI School Survey 

• RPP Data 

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

Average and range of federal subgrant awardsónationally and by state. Chapter 2 

Proportion of start-up costs accounted for with the federal grant. Chapter 2 

Kinds of planning and implementation activities supported by federal subgrants; 

extent activities are dictated by state authorizing legislation. 

Chapter 2 

Start-up barriers overcome by federal funds. Chapter 2 

Importance of access to federal grant money in obtaining or pursuing charter. Chapter 2 

Differences between charter schools that receive PCSP grants and those that 

do not. 

Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• RPP Data 

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

Grade levels and student population served. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• RPP Data 

Educational approaches implemented. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• RPP Data 
83 

Research Questions Where Addressed 

Background and demographic characteristics of instructional and administrative 

staff. 

Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• RPP Data 

• SASS 

Newly created vs. public or private school conversions. Chapter 1

Selection criteria for admission and the frequency/extent of waiting lists. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• Student Performance 

Substudy 

Demographic composition of charter schools, compared with the traditional 

public schools in their surrounding areas. 

Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• RPP Data 

Targeting and accommodation of special populations. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• RPP Data 

Professional development opportunities available for teachers. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• Site Visits 

• SASS 

What flexibility provisions are charter schools granted? 

Extent to which flexibility provisions granted by state and local laws are realized 

in practice. 

Chapter 3 

Factors associated with successful and unsuccessful implementation of 

flexibility provisions. 

Chapter 3 

Most critical flexibility provisions. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

Parent involvement activities and parent requirements. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• SRI Parent Survey 

How do charter schools measure student performance, and are charter school students making progress 

on these and other measures?

Measures of accountability. Chapter 4 

• Student Performance 

Substudy 

• SRI School Survey 

Measures of student performance for which charter schools are accountable 

and how assessed. 

Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI School Survey 

• Student Performance 

Substudy 

• Site Visits 

Extent to which students meet student performance goals. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• Student Performance 

Substudy 

• Site Visits 

Range and frequency of corrective action for charter schools that do not meet 

the student performance terms of their charters. 

Chapter 4 

Students meeting or exceeding the state performance standards, if applicable. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• Student Performance 

Substudy 

Comparability of student achievement gains to those of their traditional public 

school counterparts. 

Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• Student Performance 

Substudy 

• Site Visits 

Conditions under which charter schools improve student achievement. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• Site Visits 

Parent beliefs about charter schools and other schools. Not addressed in Year 1 Report 

• SRI Parent Survey 

Note: Future data collection and analysis activities are marked with bullets. 
84 
85 

CHAPTER 2 APPENDICES 
86 
87 

Appendix C 

PCSP FUNDING AND FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR CHARTER 

SCHOOLS 

• Exhibit C-1 represents a state-by-state breakdown of PCSP funds for FY1995-FY1999. For 

each year that a state was provided PCSP funds, two figures are displayed in the chart. The 

first figure represents the annual total per state for the fiscal year, including supplemental 

funding. 

• The second figure (in parentheses) represents the amount of funding per year available for 

subgrants. For many states, the amount reserved for subgrants was the total funding amount 

minus the allowable state set-aside of 5%; however, other states reported that they reserved 

smaller amounts for use at the state level. 

• In addition to providing information on the amount of funding available for subgrants and 

administration on a state-by-state basis, Exhibit C-1 provides evidence of the programís 

overall growth since 1995 ñ both in terms of the total funding allocation and the increase in 

the number of states funded. 
88 

Exhibit C-1 

TOTAL PCSP FUNDING/TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS* 

BY YEAR AND BY STATE 

 Amount of PCSP State Grant/Amount of PCSP State Grant Available for Charter Schools ($) 

State 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

AK No state grant 656,642 

(623,810) 

1,516,500 

(1,440,675) 

887,229 

(842,868) 

526,316 

(500,000) 

AZ 750,000 

(712,500) 

1,150,000 

(1,092,500) 

3,221,226 

(3,060,165) 

No state grant 

(direct grants from ED 

to charter schools) 

No state grant 

(direct grants from 

ED to charter 

schools) 

AR No state grant No state grant No state grant No state grant 

(direct grants from ED 

to charter schools) 

368,421 

(350,000) 

CA 727,413 

(691, 042) 

1,250,000 

(1,187,500) 

3,446,719 

(3,274,383) 

8,746,636 

(8,370,531) 

12,631,579 

(12,000,000) 

CO 728,522 

(692,096) 

1,025,736 

(974,449) 

2,000,000 

(1,900,000) 

3,000,000 

(2,850,000) 

3,850,000 

(3,657,500) 

CT No state law 1,000,000 

(950,000) 

1,292,770 

(1,228,132) 

2,045,233 

(1,942,971) 

1,208,007 

(1,147,607) 

DE No state grant No state grant 343,057 

(325,904) 

541,302 

(514,237) 

600,000 

(570,000) 

DC No state law 1,000,000 

(950,000) 

2,500,000 

(2,375,000) 

4,500,000 

(4,288,500) 

1,736,842 

(1,650,000) 

FL No state law 2,223,626 

(2,112,445) 

5,066,026 

(4,812,725) 

5,985,000 

(5,685,750) 

7,276,500 

(6,912,675) 

GA 600,000 

(570,000) 

947,910 

(900,515) 

1,469,380 

(1,395,911) 

2,421,053 

(2,300,000) 

2,421,053 

(2,300,000) 

HI No state grant No state grant No state grant 

(direct grants from ED 

to charter schools) 

No state grant 

(direct grants from ED 

to charter schools) 

2,631,579 

(2,500,000) 

ID No state law No state law No state law No state grant 842,105 

(800,000) 

IL No state law 794,577 

(754,848) 

782,850 

(743,708) 

1,215,000 

(1,154,250) 

1,147,368 

(1,090,000) 

KS No state grant 850,000 

(807,500) 

914,345 

(868,628) 

1,263,158 

(1,200,000) 

No state grant 

LA 336,000 

(319,200) 

446,250 

(423,938) 

373,711 

(355,025) 

665,968 

(639,329) 

1,006,452 

(956,129) 

MA 589,451 

(559,978) 

1,599,437 

(1,519,465) 

4,028,888 

(3,827,444) 

3,996,192 

(3,916, 268) 

3,756,432 

(3,568,610) 

MI 361,047 

(342,995) 

1,907,986 

(1,812,587) 

3,843,420 

(3,651,249) 

5,000,000 

(4,900,000) 

6,000,000 

(5,700,000) 

MN 500,000 

(475,000) 

749,730 

(712,244) 

450,000 

(427,500) 

710,500 

(674,975) 

1,925,000 

(1,828,750) 

Note: Highest and lowest grants appear in bold. 

*Numbers in parentheses represent total funding available for charter schools. 
89 

Exhibit C-1 

TOTAL PCSP FUNDING/TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS* 

BY YEAR AND BY STATE 

(continued) 

 Amount of PCSP State Grant/Amount of PCSP State Grant Available for Charter Schools ($) 

State 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

MO No state law No state law No state law 853,334 

(810,667) 

1,706,677 

(1,621,343) 

NJ No state law 1,415,421 

(1,344,650) 

1,290,934 

(1,226,387) 

1,852,632 

(1,767,411) 

2,763,120 

(2,624,964) 

NY No state law No state law No state law No state grant 4,423,053 

(4,201,900) 

NC No state law 1,000,000 

(950,000) 

1,250,000 

(1,187,500) 

2,250,000 

(2,137,500) 

4,500,000 

(4,275,000) 

OH No state law No state law No state grant 1,578,947 

(1,500,000) 

3,157,895 

(3,000,000) 

OK No state law No state law No state law No state law 800,000 

(781,579) 

OR 286,566 

(272,238) 

500,000 

(475,000) 

779,948 

(740,951) 

2,000,000 

(1,900,000) 

PA No state law No state law 2,300,000 

(2,231,000) 

3,300,000 

(3,234,000) 

2,333,333 

(2,263,333) 

PR No state grant 1,004,676 

(954,442) 

1,313,500 

(1,247,825) 

2,947,368 

(2,800,000) 

2,625,000 

(2,493,750) 

RI No state grant No state grant No state grant 789,474 

(757,895) 

1,009,524 

(959,048) 

SC No state law No state grant 1,447,900 

(1,382,745) 

1,447,461 

(1,389,563) 

1,447,297 

(1,393,747) 

TX 250,000 

(237,500) 

500,000 

(475,000) 

2,165,167 

(2,056,909) 

5,932,500 

(5,695,200) 

9,473,685 

(9,000,001) 

UT No state law No state law No state law No state grant 500,000 

(475,000) 

VA No state law No state law No state law No state grant 631,579 

(606,316) 

WI No state grant 1,325,000 

(1,258,750) 

1,956,548 

(1,858,721) 

3,150,000 

(2,992,500) 

4,000,000 

(3,800,000) 

TOTAL 5,128,999 21,346,991 43,752,991 65,078,987. 89,298,817 

(3,800,000) 

Note: Highest and lowest grants appear in bold. 

*Numbers in parentheses represent total funding available for charter schools. 
90 
91 

Appendix D 

USES OF STATE SET-ASIDE

• The PCSP legislation specifies that state grantees may reserve up to 5% of their total 

grant for administrative purposes at the state level. Most state coordinators indicated that 

they retain 5% of their stateís total funding, but some states take smaller amounts. 

• Respondents from the seventeen states displayed in Exhibit D-1 provided a breakdown of 

the state portion of their PCSP grant for 1998-99. The budgeting categories listed below 

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. 
Exhibit D-1 

USES OF 5% STATE SET-ASIDE, BY STATE (1998-1999) 

(n = 17)

STATE Personnel Fringe Travel Equipment Supplies Contract Construct Other Tot Direct Indirect S

AK 22802 7198 2000 500 500 11364 0 0 44364 0 CA 161893 67983 5000 2000 18285 60000 0 0 315161 66184 CO 82500 15123 5000 4000 500 22630 0 8192 137945 12,055 DC 97057 11571 2672 0 500 700 0 0 112500 97500 GA 0 0 1000 2500 2000 5000 0 0 10500 0 KS 24658 0 2500 0 0 13000 0 21500 61658 0 LA 0 0 8000 0 0 20000 0 0 28000 0 MI 0 0 60000 0 0 0 0 40000 100000 0 MO 27000 8100 4000 0 0 3567 0 0 42667 0 NJ 49692 11475 0 0 1950 0 0 22525 85642 0 NC 78690 18741 3,758 11502 958 0 0 4959 118608 0 OH 7411 0 0 66458 5079 0 0 0 78948 0 PA 40000 0 0 0 26000 0 0 0 66000 0 RI 31993 0 0 6600 0 0 0 15407 54000 0 SC 0 0 4400 0 1000 49000 0 500 54900 2361 TX 24538 16908 31442 9492 24917 15128 0 0 122425 114200 WI 121000 25,700 4000 7000 0 0 0 0 157700 0 MEAN 45249 10753 7869 6474 4805 11788 0 6652 93589 17194 MEDIAN 27000 7198 3758 500 500 3567 0 0 78948 0 

Not applicable: AZ, AR, DE, HI, ID, MS, NV, NH, NM, OK, OR, VA, WY Missing: CT, FL, IL, MA, MN, NY, PR, UT Figures in bold indicate the range in that column.

92 
93

Appendix E 

PCSP FUNDS RECEIVED BY CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS 

This appendix summarizes data on what roles charter school authorizers played in the flow of 

PCSP funds from the state to charter schools (see Exhibit E-1). 

• Unless the charter school authorizers were state bodies, they had very little involvement in 

decisions about PCSP funds and did not receive PCSP funds for their own activities. 

• Charter school authorizers often functioned as the flow-through agencies or fiscal agents for 

disbursing PCSP funds, but this relationship rarely entailed other types of involvement or 

withholding. In fact, only two school districts reported receiving a share of a subgrant.

• Six of the seven respondents stating that they have received PCSP state grant funds were 

state educational agencies.

Exhibit E-1 

PCSP FUNDS RECEIVED BY CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS 

Charter School Authorizer Relationship 

To PCSP Funds 

Percent of 

Authorizers (n=32) 

This agency has received funds from the 

stateís PCSP grant (n = 7) 22% 

This agency has received a share of funds 

from PCSP subgrants or direct grants from 

ED that were designated for specific 

charter schools (n = 2) 

6% 

No funds received (n = 23 ) 72% 
94
95

Appendix F 

HOW SUBGRANTS ARE AWARDED 

This Appendix displays state-by-state information on the basic processes used to distribute PCSP 

subgrants (see Exhibit F-1). 

• States have primarily taken two approaches to distributing PCSP 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 and (2) a calculation that 

distributes the available PCSP funds for subgrants to all eligible charter schools or planners 

in the state. These approaches to awarding subgrants are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Exhibit F-1 

HOW SUBGRANTS ARE AWARDED

Process for 

Distribution of 

PCSP Funds 

Percent of 

States Using 

Process 

Number of 

States 

States 

(n=30) 

Competitive 

proposal process 67% 20 

AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, 

FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, LA, 

MI, MO, NJ, OH, OR, 

PR, SC, VA, WI 

Awards made to 

all eligible 

applicants 

43% 13 

AZ, CT, DE, DC, KS, 

LA, MA, MN, NC, PA, 

RI, TX, VA 
96
97

Appendix G 

FACTORS GIVEN PRIORITY IN THE PCSP SUBGRANTING PROCESS 

• Some states establish priority factors for targeting some or all of the funding when awarding 

PCSP subgrants. For example, some respondents answered that their states gave priority to 

applicants from schools that do or will serve special student populations; other states target 

schools located in low-income communities (see Exhibit G-1). 

• Respondents were asked to identify all categories that applied in their state. Therefore, 

percentages do not total 100. 

Exhibit G-1 

FACTORS GIVEN PRIORITY IN THE PCSP SUBGRANTING PROCESS 

(n=28 States) 

Priority Factors 

Percent of 

States 

Charter school is located in low-income community(ies) 14% 

Charter school serves a special student population (e.g., 

English language learners, special education students) 

36% 

Charter school uses particular instructional strategies 4% 

Charter school implements a specific curriculum 0% 

Priority for planning grants 0% 

No priority areas 39% 
98
99

Appendix H 

CRITERIA FOR FUNDING DECISIONS 

Exhibit H-1 shows the criteria used by states to make PCSP funding decisions. State respondents 

were given the option of distinguishing between different types of subgrant when considering 

each criterion. The ìnonspecific subgrantsî column includes data from states that did not make a 

distinction between subgrant types when answering this question. 

• Whether a state has set priorities or not, most states apply some criteria in making subgrant 

awards and determining funding levels. The state coordinator survey offered respondents a 

list of possible factors that might have been used in making funding decisions. 

• As in most analyses concerning charter schools, there was clearly no consensus among PCSP 

grantee states about how to select subgrantees and determine funding levels, especially when 

broken out by type of award. 

Exhibit H-1 

CRITERIA FOR FUNDING DECISIONS 

(n=30 States) 

Criterion 

Planning 

Subgrants 

Implementation 

Subgrants 

Dissemination 

Subgrants 

Nonspecific 

Subgrants 

Quality of subgrant proposal 20% 20% 7% 30% 

Funding level requested 20% 23% 10% 30% 

State ceiling on subgrant 

award level 17% 20% 0% 37% 

Justification for funds 

requested 20% 23% 10% 30% 

Start-up needs greater than in 

other charter schools 13% 20% 10% 10% 

Negotiation of funding level 

with subgrantee 13% 13% 3% 10% 

Student enrollment or 

projected student enrollment 7% 17% 7% 7% 

Number or percentage of 

educationally disadvantaged 

students 3% 3% 3% 13% 

Funds available for subgrants 

divided by the number of 

eligible charter school 

applications 27% 23% 13% 20% 

Recommendations of peer 

reviewers/field reviewers 13% 17% 3% 27% 
100
101

Appendix I 

RECIPIENTS OF PCSP SUBGRANTS 

Exhibit I-1 shows the entities that received PSCP subgrants, as reported by states. State 

respondents were given the option of distinguishing between different types of subgrant when 

considering each entity. The ìnonspecific subgrantsî column includes data from states that did 

not make a distinction between subgrant types when answering this question. 

• State grantees define the entities eligible to receive PCSP subgrants. While the intent of 

federal legislation is to have PCSP funds devolve from the state to the charter school level, 

legitimate questions may be asked about the role of intermediaries along the way. 

• In general, PCSP subgrants flow from states to founders groups and charter schools. Charter 

school authorizers that have received PCSP funds are nearly all state entities that both charter 

schools and are entitled to the 5 percent set-aside for managing and monitoring PCSP 

activities. 

Exhibit I-1 

RECIPIENTS OF PCSP SUBGRANTS 

(n = 26) 

Entity 

Nonspecific 

Subgrants 

Planning 

Subgrants 

Implementation 

Subgrants 

Dissemination 

Subgrants 

Founders groups/charter 

school planners 2 states 8 states 0 states 0 states 

Charter schools (i.e., charter 

schools receive grants 

directly from the state) 4 states 8 states 15 states 4 states 

Charter school authorizers 4 states 4 states 4 states 2 states 

Organizations or consortia 

that provide technical 

assistance to charter 

schools and charter school 

planners 0 states 0 states 0 states 1 state 
102
103

Appendix J 

PCSP-SUPPORTED RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION, AND 

EVALUATION ACTIVITIES 

Exhibit J-1 summarizes the research, demonstration, and evaluation projects that have been 

supported with PCSP national funds from 1995 through 1999. All of the following projects are 

funded through contracts with ED. In addition to the projects listed below, the Office of Special 

Education Programs funded Project SEARCH (Special Education as Requirements in Charter 

Schools), awarding a field-initiated grant to the National Association of State Directors of 

Special Education. 

Exhibit J-1 

PCSP-SUPPORTED RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION, AND 

EVALUATION ACTIVITIES 

Project Title Contract or Grant Recipient 

Research projects 

National Study of Charter Schools RPP International 

Research on Charter School Accountability University of Washington 

Charter Schools and Students with Disabilities Westat, Inc., and SRI International 

Schools and Staffing Survey American Institutes for Research 

Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program SRI International 

Study of Growth in Student Achievement Humphrey Institute 

Charter School Finance Study American Federation of Teachers 

Study of Competing Strategies for Education Reform Michigan State University 

Demonstration and other projects 

Cross Fertilization of Ideas and Practices (Project #1) SRI International and the National Education 

Association 

Cross Fertilization of Ideas and Practices (Project #2) City on a Hill Charter School (Boston) 

Project Connect North Carolina Public School Forum 

Leadership Training (Project #1) South Eastern Regional Vision for Education, 

Inc. 

Leadership Training (Project #2) Northwest Regional Education Laboratory 

The Employer-Linked Charter School Project Public Policy Associates 

Charter School Teacher Fellowship Program Council for Basic Education 
104
105

Appendix K 

NEED FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PREPARING APPLICATIONS 

AND REPORTS 

• The evaluation team asked state charter school coordinators and leaders of charter schools 

that received PCSP money directly from ED about the availability and quality of the 

technical assistance they had received from the federal program offices and other sources. 

Exhibit K-1 summarizes survey responses on the need for technical assistance in both 

applying for PCSP grant and preparing an annual performance report. State grantees are 

referred to as ìSEAî in the exhibit, and charter school PCSP recipients are labeled ìNonSEA.î 

• As the data show, over half of state applicants reported that they need and received technical 

assistance with proposal preparation; fewer than half of the 14 charter school respondents 

indicated that they needed and received technical assistance in preparing their proposals. 

• At the reporting stage, there was greater similarity in between the responses of the two 

populations: only about one-third of all responding PCSP recipients reported the need for 

technical assistance at this juncture, and nearly all recipients who needed help received it. 

However, one-third of the state grantees either did not know whether assistance with 

reporting had occurred because respondents were new to the state coordinator position, or 

had not yet prepared their first annual report. 

Exhibit K-1 

NEED FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PREPARING APPLICATIONS 

AND REPORTS 

Application Reporting 

Need for Technical Assistance 

SEA 

(n=38) 

Non-SEA 

(n=14) 

SEA 

(n=36) 

Non-SEA 

(n=14) 

Yes, we needed and received this assistance 61% 43% 34% 36% 

Yes, we needed this assistance but did not 

receive it 0% 0% 3% 0% 

No, we did not need nor receive this 

assistance 32% 50% 31% 57% 

Note: Percentages do not total 100 because some grantees answered "don't know" or had not yet prepared an annual report. 
106
107

CHAPTER 3 APPENDICES 
108
109

Appendix L 

COMPLEXITY IN CHARTERING AUTHORITY 

Although local school entities and states play an important role in the charter school movement 

in each state, the specifics of charter granting vary greatly from state to state. For example, in 

California and Texas, two states in which local boards and the state board of education are 

assigned roles in chartering, the exact relationships between the state and locality are very 

different. In California, local boards charter and send on their charter for an official ìnumberî 

from the state, which is essentially the stateís stamp of approval. The state takes on the role of 

chartering only in the case of an appeal and for the three charter districts in the state. Contrast 

this approach with Texas, where local boards can charter ìcampusî (or district conversion) 

charter schools independent of the state. However, the State Board of Education can also 

charteróand specifically charters open-enrollment or start-upóschools. The two entities 

operating independently can sometimes lead to confusion about relationships or overlapping 

interests, since the state board may charter a school within the boundaries of Houston 

Independent School District, for example, right alongside a charter that has been authorized by 

the district itself. 

These examples illustrate the challenges in grouping state approaches to chartering into simple 

categories that do not reflect the true diversity and complexity inherent in the chartering 

infrastructure. Exhibit L-1 represents an effort to sort states according to relevant ways of 

viewing the state policy contexts and environments in which charter schools develop. In 

describing the various state approaches to structuring the authorizing system, there are several 

categories under which states can fall: 

• Single entity authority (local and state). There are 15 states where the chartering authority 

is the purview of one type of agency only: local school boards or districts or a state entity. 

Ten of these states provide local school boards or districts with the authority to charter in the 

state. In two of these cases (ID, OR) the state board can also grant charters, but only when 

the local decision to deny the charter is appealed. In five other states, a state entity is the 

only authorizing agency. For the most part, this means that the state board of education 

authorizes the charter, but the SEA is often intimately involved in the review of applications 

and in many cases makes recommendations to the board. In one case (NJ), the State 

Commissioner is the sole authorizing agency. 

• Multiple-entity authority (with independence or interdependence). In the remaining 23 

states, more than one type of entity is permitted to charter. Relationships between the entities 

permitted to charter come in many forms. The first set of multiple-entity chartering states 

allow for each of the stated entities to charter independently of each other. In other words, in 

Arizona, one of three states with an independent entity created for chartering (a fourth is in 

Pennsylvania, but is meant only for appeals), the State Board of Education charters 

independently from either the State Board for Charter Schools or the local boards. 
110

The second set of multiple-entity chartering states often have complex, interdependent

relationships between the entities that charter. For example, in Minnesota, charter school 

authorizers include the State Board of Education (which became defunct around the time of the 

1999 telephone survey), local boards, intermediate school districts, universities and community 

colleges, and the chief state school officer. However, in the past, all the Minnesota entities that 

were not the state board submitted their granted charters to the state for ratification. It is not 

clear who might play this ratification role now that the state board has been dismantled. In 

another example of this type, New Yorkís charter school authorizers include the state board of 

education (Board of Regents), the local boards, and the State University of New Yorkís 

(SUNYís) Board of Trustees. In this state, public school conversions must go through their local 

boards; moreover, local boards must pass all approved charters on to the state board for final 

approval. Charter schools approved by SUNY, on the other hand, must submit their charter to 

the state board, but the comments of the state board are not legally binding, so in some ways 

SUNY has more authority over the chartering process. 
111

Exhibit L-1 

LOCAL, STATE, MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT AND INTERDEPENDENT ENTITIES, 

BY STATE 

State Entities Permitted to Charter 

Single Entity - Locals 

CO L 

KS L 

NM L 

NV L 

OK L, VTSD 

SC L 

VA L 

WY L 

ID L + SB on appeal 

OR L + SB on appeal 

PA L + IB1 on appeal 

Single Entity - State 

HI SB 

NH SB 

NJ CSSO 

RI SB 

UT SB 

Multiple Entities, Chartering Independent of Each Other 

FL L, U/C/C2

MI L, ISD, and U/C/C3

WI L, U/C/C4

, M4

CT SB, L 

DE SB, L 

LA SB, L + SB on appeal 

OH SB, L, C, U/C/C, M 

TX SB, L5

AZ SB, IB6

, and L 

DC SB, IB7

PR IB8

Multiple Entities, With Interdependence 

AK L with SB approval 

CA L, C, with SB approval + SB on appeal and SB for charter districts 

IL L with SB approval + SB on appeal 

MO L, U/C/C with SB approval + SB on appeal 

NC SB, L and U/C/C with SB approval 

MN SB, L, U/C/C, CSSO, ISD + SB on appeal 

NY SB, L with SB approval, U/C/C9

AR SB (L approve conversions before sent to SB) 

GA SB (L monitors, renews, and approves charters, and is liable) 

MS SB (L approve before sent to SB) 

MA SB (L and teacherís union approve local charters before sent to SB) 

1

 Charter Schools Appeals Board 

2

 State universities with laboratory schools 

3

 Only public colleges and universities 

4

 Only applies to these entities in Milwaukee 

5

 Including ìhome ruleî districts 

6

 State Board for Charter Schools 

7

 DC Public Charter Schools Board 

8

 Educational Reform Institute 

9

 SUNY Board of Trustees

Key: 

L = local boards and/or districts 

SB = state board of education 

IB = independent board 

ISD = intermediate school district 

C = counties 

M = municipal governments 

VTSD = vocational-technical school district 

CSSO = chief state school officer 

U/C/C = universities/colleges/community colleges 
112
113

Appendix M 

STATE LEGISLATIVE CAPS AND NUMBERS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 

As Exhibit M-1 illustrates, state caps can be grouped into three main categories: no cap at all, 

statewide caps, and some other form of cap that is not a statewide one. 

• No caps. These states did not have an annual or overall cap at the state, authorizer or school 

level. 

• Total Statewide Caps. The statewide cap category includes caps on (a) total number/percent 

of charter schools/charter school students in the state and/or on (b) total number/percent of 

charter schools/charter school students within a given region/district. These are seen as 

related since, in many cases, a total statewide cap can be calculated on the basis of regional 

or district caps. 

• Other Caps. The remaining states have either an annual or overall cap by type of authorizer 

or type of school. Caps on types of schools were geared primarily toward limiting the number 

of start-ups, although New Mexicoís cap also includes conversions (five per year) as well. 

It is significant that 12 states (32%) had no cap whatsoever. Two of the states with no caps had 

some restrictions on chartering in the state, though they did not fall into particular forms of caps. 

The Missouri legislation effectively limits charter schools to the geographic areas of Kansas City 

and St. Louis. Oklahoma legislation stipulates that certain smaller districts are not eligible to 

charter. 

Sixteen states (42% of our sample) currently report a total statewide cap of some kind. Twothirds of these states have 50 or fewer charter schools in operation. In some cases, state 

legislation explicitly outlines a cap on the total number of charter schools based on the district or 

regional caps. For example, in Illinois, the law outlines a cap of 45 statewide, with 15 in 

Chicago, 15 in the Chicago suburbs, and 15 in the remaining regions in the state. In other cases, 

states reported a calculated effective cap based on the regional or district caps (e.g., Florida 

calculated an effective statewide cap to be 950, based on restrictions on the numbers of charters 

vis-‡-vis the size of the district). Total statewide caps ranged anywhere from 6 to 950 charter 

schools. 

Ten states (26%) had other kinds of caps. Four states reported annual caps: Arizona, the District 

of Columbia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Of these, however, at least one is being 

automatically repealed in 2000 (New Hampshire). Ohio has a cap on the number of charter 

schools that can be chartered by the State Board of Education (75), though this will be raised to 

125 in 2001. 
114

Exhibit M-1 

TYPES OF CAPS ACROSS STATES 

TYPE OF CAP STATE 

No Cap (n = 12) CO, CT, DE, GA, MN, MO, OK, PA, PR, SC, WI, WY 

Cap on total number 

of schools or total 

number of students in 

state 

CA ñ 250 + additional 100 per year 

HI ñ 25 

ID ñ 60 (12 per year for first 5 years) 

KS ñ 15 

LA ñ 42 

MA ñ 50 

NJ ñ 135* 

RI ñ 20 (10 directed at at-risk youth); maximum of 6% 

of school-age population 

UT ñ 8 

Total Statewide 

Cap (n = 16) 

Regional/District cap 

(implicitly or explicitly 

creates an effective 

statewide cap) 

AK ñ 30 statewide, based on regional caps of 10 in 

Anchorage, 5 in Fairbanks, 3 in Matanuska-Susitna 

Borough, 3 in Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2 in 

City/Borough of Juneau, and 7 in rest of state 

FL ñ district caps based on student enrollment (effective 

statewide cap of approx. 950) 

IL ñ 45 cap statewide, based on regional caps of 15 in 

Chicago, 15 in Chicago suburbs, 15 in rest of state 

MS ñ 6 statewide (preference of one in each of 5 

congressional districts + one in the delta region) 

NV ñ caps by size of county (effective cap of 21 

statewide) 

OR ñ total number of students in charter schools shall 

not be more than 10% of the district enrollment 

VA ñ 2 per division (as of 7/2000, charter schools shall 

not exceed 10% of total number of schools or 2, 

whichever is greater) 

Annual cap by type of 

authorizer or school 

AZ ñ 25 per year for State Board of Ed; 25 per year for 

State Charter Schools Board (no cap on districts) 

DC ñ 20 per year (10 per year for each of the 2 charter 

school authorizers) 

NH ñ 10 per year* 

NC - 100 per year statewide, 5 per year per district 

Cap on type of school 

AR ñ 12 start-ups total (3 per congressional district) 

NM ñ 15 start-ups, 5 conversions per year 

NY ñ 100 start-ups (50 by SUNY Board of Trustees, 50 

by other charter school authorizers) 

TX ñ 120 open-enrollment schools (start-ups) for State 

Board of Ed (open-enrollment schools with 75% at-risk 

do not count against cap) 

Other Caps (n = 10) 

Other 

OH ñ 75 per State Board of Ed 

MI ñ 150 for universities; no single university may 

exceed 50% of 150. 

* Repealed automatically in 2000. 

Sources: Year 1 state coordinator survey; legislative analyses (Hirsch, 2000); SRI legislative analyses. 
115

CHAPTER 4 APPENDICES 
116
117

Appendix N 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE OF STATE LEGISLATION AND 

CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER VARIABLES 

Although the charter movement overall is still quite young, the number of states joining the 

movement since the first law was passed in Minnesota (1991) has grown steadily in the past 

decade. As Exhibit N-1 below demonstrates, almost 40% of states (14 states and DC) got 

involved in the charter school movement in the middle of the last decade (1995 and 1996), with 

the total number of states involved in charter schools steadily increasing every year. As of 

September 1999, 36 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had charter school 

legislation in place. 

Exhibit N-1 

AGE OF CHARTER LEGISLATION 

Early 

1991 ñ 1994 (n=12) 

Middle 

1995 ñ 1996 (n=15) 

Recent 

1997 ñ 1999 (n=11) 

Minnesota (1991) 

California (1992) 

Colorado (1993) 

Georgia (1993) 

Massachusetts (1993) 

Michigan (1993) 

New Mexico (1993) 

Puerto Rico (1993) 

Wisconsin (1993) 

Arizona (1994) 

Hawaii (1994) 

Kansas (1994 )

Alaska (1995) 

Arkansas (1995) 

Delaware (1995) 

Louisiana (1995) 

New Hampshire (1995) 

Rhode Island (1995) 

Wyoming (1995) 

Connecticut (1996) 

Washington, DC (1996) 

Florida (1996) 

Illinois (1996 ) 

New Jersey (1996) 

North Carolina (1996) 

South Carolina (1996) 

Texas (1996)

Mississippi (1997) 

Nevada (1997) 

Ohio (1997) 

Pennsylvania (1997) 

Idaho (1998) 

Missouri (1998) 

New York (1998) 

Utah (1998) 

Virginia (1998) 

Oklahoma (1999) 

Oregon (1999)

Legislative Timing 

Exhibit N-2 illustrates the relationship between the age of charter legislation and the types of 

entities permitted to charter schools, their roles and responsibilities, and the types of reporting 

requirements that are expected of charter school authorizers. Several findings are interesting 

here. First, although states identify multiple entities for chartering schools regardless of when 

legislation was passed, the distribution across states differs depending on the year passed. For 

example, in early states, the proportions allowing local school districts, school boards, and state 

boards of education to charter were comparable to one another. By contrast, states with recent 

legislation are much more variable, and local school boards, state boards of education, and 

universities have become more commonly included in charter legislation. This trend is 

consistent with both federal legislation and the thinking of charter school proponents, who argue 

for the value of different types of charter school authorizer. 
118

In the domain of roles and responsibilities, although virtually all states require review of the 

charter document and student achievement, there appears to be a trend over time that fewer states 

expect that charter school authorizers will administer budgets or personnel, or provide services to 

charter schools. Although these are only a small portion of the charter school accountability 

picture, this finding seems to reflect a trend toward less control being given to charter school 

authorizers over time and, presumably, more freedom to charter schools in these specific areas of 

responsibility. Third, with regard to reporting requirements, an interestingóalthough not 

linearópattern emerges over time. For example, fewer states with recent legislation require 

charter school authorizers and schools to report educational programs or financial record 

keeping, whereas large majorities of those from the mid-1990s require reporting in virtually all 

areas from educational programs, to compliance, and student enrollment. In sum, viewing the 

charter school movement against the backdrop of state legislation yields quite a dynamic picture 

that is changing the contexts in which charters operate over time. 

Exhibit N-2 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE OF CHARTER LEGISLATION AND CHARTER 

SCHOOL AUTHORIZER VARIABLES 

 1991-94 

(n=12) 

1995-96 

(n=15) 

1997-99 

(n=11) 

Charter school authorizer Type 

Local school boards 50% 67% 82% 

Local school districts 42% 20% 27% 

State board of education 50% 73% 64% 

Universities and colleges 25% 13% 27% 

Community colleges 25% 0% 9% 

Roles/Responsibilities (% of states reporting that no charter school authorizers have these responsibilities)

Administer the budget 45% 64% 78% 

Administer personnel and benefits 45% 64% 60% 

Provide facilities for charter school(s) 27% 57% 60% 

Provide services 27% 38% 36% 

Reporting Requirements (% of states requiring charter school authorizers to report on these areas)

Educational program 80% 67% 27% 

Financial record keeping 60% 92% 36% 

Compliance with federal regulations 40% 91% 44% 

Compliance with state regulations 44% 90% 27% 

Student enrollment and demographics 80% 92% 36% 

Student achievement 90% 86% 64% 

Other student performance indicators 67% 82% 40% 

Governance/decision-making 44% 64% 10% 
119

 

Types of Charter School Authorizers Allowed 

As described earlier, the legislative decision establishing which entities may charter schools and 

the roles and responsibilities of such entities can have an important impact on the way the charter 

school movement develops in an individual state. Exhibit N-3 below shows variation in roles 

and responsibilities and reporting requirements in light of the four categories of states in terms of 

charter school authorizer type. In the area of roles and responsibilities beyond review of charter 

documents and student achievement, states that allow local entities only and those that allow 

multiple independent entities appear to be less likely than other states to require charter school 

authorizers to perform functions related to budget, personnel, or services. Similarly, states that 

allow only local entities to charter appear to be generally less likely to require reporting in most 

of the reporting categories. Thus, it would seem to be consistent that states that legislate greater 

local control of chartering also are less likely to require specific responsibilities or reporting 

burden. This pattern may reflect the belief that this type of decision is best accomplished in the 

direct relationship between the authorizer and the individual school. 

Exhibit N-3 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TYPES OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER 

ALLOWED AND OTHER CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER VARIABLES 

 Single Type 

of Entity ñ 

Local 

(n=9) 

Single Type 

of Entity - 

State 

(n=6) 

Multiple 

Entities - 

Independent 

(n=11) 

Multiple 

Entities - 

Interdependent 

(n=10) 

Roles/Responsibilities (% none) 

Administer the budget 43% 80% 46% 78% 

Administer personnel and benefits 57% 80% 37% 67% 

Provide facilities for charter school(s) 38% 80% 36% 44% 

Provide services 33% 75% 27% 11% 

Reporting Requirements (% yes) 

Educational program 33% 60% 64% 75% 

Financial record keeping 38% 50% 30% 67% 

Compliance with federal regulations 43% 75% 67% 57% 

Compliance with state regulations 38% 67% 63% 50% 

Student enrollment and demographics 38% 80% 83% 75% 

Student achievement 67% 100% 83% 78% 

Other student performance indicators 25% 75% 90% 63% 

Governance/decision-making 13% 33% 42% 71% 
120
121

Appendix O 

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHARTER SCHOOL 

AUTHORIZERS, 

AS REPORTED BY STATES

Exhibit 4-4 in Chapter 4 illustrates the frequency with which states reported the following roles 

of charter school authorizers: 

• Charter review and negotiation. However varied charter school authorizers may be in type 

and other responsibilities, it is a logical and an unequivocal finding that virtually all charter 

school authorizers in nearly all states have a role in reviewing and monitoring charter 

documents. This responsibility presumably applies across initial application, charter award, 

ongoing monitoring and oversight, and renewal. 

• Student achievement. Concern about and the need for improved academic achievement are 

driving forces behind the charter school movement. Indeed, the notion of a contract to free 

schools from regulation in exchange for results in student learning is one of the charter 

movementís most powerful messages. Not surprisingly, charter school authorizers are 

required in most states (84%) to monitor student achievement (see Exhibit O-1). The 

implementation of this monitoring function is probably quite variable, since improvement in 

achievement can be considered from a multitude of perspectives (e.g., comparisons to state 

averages or nearby non-charter schools). 

• Budget and personnel. Most charter school proponents and operators would argue that 

budget and personnel functions are two of the most crucial areas over which a school should 

have flexibility. Because of the centralization of state financing systems, however, these may 

be the functions that are most difficult to disentangle from the existing system. More than 

half of the states reported that no charter school authorizers were responsible for the 

administration of budget (60%) and personnel and benefits (56%). In certain states, this 

might be because different agencies are considered responsible; in others, it might be a point 

of negotiation. 

• Facilities. One of the most challenging start-up obstacles for many charter schools is 

locating appropriate facilities (Berman, et. al., 1998). However, providing facilities at free or 

reduced rent was not a requirement or high expectation of charter school authorizers in most 

states. In fact, approximately half of the states with smaller to medium-sized charter 

populations reported that no charter school authorizer was required to take on this 

responsibility. In the states with larger charter populations, assigning the responsibility to 

charter school authorizers was more likely, with over two-thirds of states reporting that some 

charter school authorizers were responsible for providing these options. Those reporting that 

responsibility for providing facilities varied indicated that, for the most part, this point was 

negotiated between the charter school authorizer and the charter school. 

• Provide services. States were asked whether charter school authorizers were responsible for 

providing services such as special education. The provision of services, particularly for 

special education students, has been complicated and sometimes contentious issue for charter 
122

schools (Ahearn, 1999). Lack of clarity about educational and financial responsibilities for 

students with disabilities has created difficulties for charter school authorizers and schools 

alike. The primary issue here relates to the higher cost of educating these students and the 

lack of resources on the part of many charter schools to serve them, despite their obligation 

under federal law to do so. Similar situations apply to assessment and transportation 

services. Statesí reported expectations for the provision of services such as special education 

were quite variable. None of the states with larger numbers of charter schools reported that 

all of their charter school authorizers were responsible for providing these services; most of 

these states reported that some were responsible and others were not, depending on the 

circumstances. Ten states reported that no charter school authorizers were responsible for 

providing these services. The basic point that states made was that, in the case of special 

education services, the picture of who is responsible is perfectly unclear. 

In some states, state coordinators responded that ìnoî charter school authorizers were 

responsible for functions like special education services or providing facilities because the issue 

was not addressed directly in the law, so official responsibility was unclear in that state. More 

often, however, if a state did not assign the responsibility to any of its charter school authorizers, 

it would mean that another entity was responsible for those activities. More likely than not, the 

responsible entity would be the charter school itself or, in some cases, the local educational 

agency (where it is not the charter school authorizer). 

Exhibit O-1 

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS, 

AS REPORTED BY STATES

Role/Responsibility 

All 

Charter 

School 

Authorizers 

Some 

Charter 

School 

Authorizers 

No 

Charter 

School 

Authorizers 

Review, negotiate, and monitor the terms of the 

charter document (n=38) 97% 0% 3% 

Review and monitor student performance in the 

charter school(s) (n=38) 84% 8% 8% 

Administer the budget of the charter school(s) 

(n=34) 15% 24% 62% 

Administer personnel and benefits functions for the 

charter school(s) (n=35) 9% 34% 57% 

Provide facilities for charter school(s) at free or 

reduced rent (n=35) 9% 43% 49% 

Provide services (e.g., special education) (n=35) 20% 46% 34% 
123

Appendix P 

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SUPPORTING CHARTER SCHOOLS 

The individuals whom the evaluation team interviewed for the charter school state coordinator 

survey were almost exclusively those identified by the federal Public Charter Schools Program 

as the key charter school contact in a state. They were, indeed, the most knowledgeable 

individuals available for the questions that we had. However, there was considerable variability 

among them in the degree to which they were engaged with information about the charter school 

movement, the charter schools in their state, the work of charter school authorizers, and the 

status of charter school legislation. In some cases, the individuals were brand new to their 

positions or in an ìactingî position until a charter school person could be hired. At many state 

educational agencies, however, the "charter school hat" is a very small one. The human 

resources that a state can or will devote to charter school affairs will, in the long run, expand or 

circumscribe the state role in development of the charter school movement. 

SEAs allocated anywhere from a very small percentage of one personís time to six full-time staff 

to charter school work. In some cases, but particularly in states with larger numbers of charter 

schools, multiple divisions of the SEA had became involved with charter schools at various 

points and to various degrees. Respondents spoke of cross-discipline teams reviewing 

applications or dealing with various questions from planners or operators. A few states call on 

other state governmental agencies far afield from education to provide technical assistance and 

workshops on a wide array of topics, such as building codes and the state auditing procedures, 

for charter school planners. 

Size of the charter school population in the state seems to have an impact on how many staff are 

allocated to support charter schools at the state level. States with larger numbers of charter 

schools tended to have multiple staff, and often a full program, addressing charter school issues. 

Only one of the states with more than 50 charter schools had fewer than two full-time-equivalent 

(FTE) staff (1.5). The average number of staff was over 3 FTE among these states (excluding 

the one state in the group with almost four staff overseeing multiple school choice-related issues, 

of which charter schools was only one). 

The number of charter school staff in states with between 10 and 50 charter schools ranged from 

a small portion of each of three peopleís time to a portion of six staff peopleís time. The average 

for these states with medium-sized charter school populations, excluding those states with shared 

responsibilities across multiple programs (and no assigned FTE, per se) was approximately 2 

FTE. 

Finally, states with very small charter school populations (fewer than 10) tended to have very 

few staff. Of the 16 states in this category, 5 had between 1 and 2 FTE staff. However, in 

Virginia (which has no charter schools yet), an Office of Policy and Public Affairs employs 

seven staff, all of whom are supposed to be knowledgeable about charter school issues as well as 

a range of other educational issues. In fact, many of the states with small numbers of charters are 

states where the charter legislation has just recently passed. It was harder for these states to 
124

estimate an FTE because they were still determining how and in what ways they would be 

supporting charter schools. 

States with single-agency chartering authority (either the state agency or local agencies) tended 

to have smaller staff at the state level working on charter schools. By and large, in states with 

local entities as the only type of charter school authorizer, 1.5 FTE staff or fewer worked on 

charter schools; in states with only the state as the charter authorizer, 1 FTE staff or fewer 

worked on charter schools. In three states (VA, PA, NJ), staff shared the responsibility of charter 

schools across multiple staff within an office that covered multiple issues besides charters (e.g., 

an Office of School Choice). 

On the other hand, states with multiple entities permitted to charter tended to have much larger 

numbers of staff working on charter schools. For example, states with multiple entities 

chartering independent of each other had the largest average of any of the groups of states, with 

all having more than 1 FTE staff member working on charter schools. In these states, the range 

of staff assigned to charters ranged from 1.75 to 6 FTE. The number of staff in states with 

multiple entities chartering with interdependence ranged from fewer than 1 to 5 FTE. Three 

states in this category (MO, NY, MS), did not estimate a percentage of time, but maintained that 

multiple persons and divisions were involved at any one point. One implication of the size of a 

stateís charter school staff and the degree to which their jobs are dedicated to charter issues is the 

role that the SEAs may or may not play in holding charter schools and/or charter school 

authorizers accountable for maintaining their respective sides of the charter school bargain.