PLANNING AND EVALUATION SERVICE

Evaluation of the Public Charter

Schools Program: Year One

Evaluation Report

2000

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC #2001-06

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY
®

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.

i

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.
ii

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 schoollevel 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.
iii

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 of

School Year

Number of States

with Charter

School Laws

Number of States

with Charter

Schools

Number of

Charter

Schools Source

1992-1993 2 1 2

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

Nelson et al. (2000). (Note:

Data include Washington,

D.C., starting in 1996-

1997, but not Puerto Rico,

which authorized charter

schools in 1993.)

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: 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: 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.
iv

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: 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: 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: 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: 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
v

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: 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.
vi
vii

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
viii

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
1

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,

 

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.

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
2

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
3

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.

 

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 http://ed.gov/PDFDocs/4yrrpt.pdf.
4

Exhibit 1-1

NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOL STATES

Beginning of

School Year

Number of States

with Charter

School Laws

Number of States

with Charter

Schools

Number of

Charter

Schools Source

1992-1993 2 1 2

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

Nelson et al. (2000). (Note:

Data include Washington,

D.C., starting in 1996-

1997, but not Puerto Rico,

which authorized charter

schools in 1993.)

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 schoolrelated 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.)
5

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.
6

Exhibit 1-2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES

PCSP Evaluation: Telephone Surveys

Charter Schools

(Year 2-3)

Other

Surveys

PCSP Evaluation: Other

Data Collection

Federal File

Extraction

(Years 1-3)

State

Coordinators

(Years 1 & 3)

Charter

School

Authorizers

(Years 1-3)

PCSP

Charter

Schools

Non-PCSP

Charter

Schools RPP SASS

Federal

Interviews

(Years 1-3)

Site

Visits*

(Years 2-3)

How does the PCSP encourage the development of charter schools?

How the PCSP awards grants. x x x x

Proportion of charter schools receiving PCSP grants—

nationally and by state. x x x x x

Reasons for differences in the proportion of funded charter

schools among funded states. x x x x x

Accessibility, usefulness, and timeliness of federal technical

assistance to states, schools, planners. x x x x x x x

Impact of the PCSP on state policies. x x x x

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

How states define “start-up” in establishing funding

eligibility. x x x

Number of states that allow planning grants; number of

schools opened as a result. x x x

How states award subgrants. x x x x

State requirements for use of federal funds. x x X x

Accommodations by charter school authorizers for lowincome community charter applications. x x x x

Accommodations of states for low-income community

charter applications for federal assistance. x x

Extent to which differences in subgrant amounts between

and within states reflect differences in start-up needs. x x x X x x x

Sustaining charters after federal funding expires. x X x

Linkage with policies to intervene in failing schools. x x x

Accessibility, usefulness, and timeliness of state technical

assistance to schools and school planners. x X x x x
7

Exhibit 1-2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED)

PCSP Evaluation: Telephone Surveys

Charter Schools

(Year 2-3)

Other

Surveys

PCSP Evaluation: Other

Data Collection

Federal File

Extraction

(Years 1-3)

State

Coordinators

(Years 1 & 3)

Charter

School

Authorizers

(Years 1-3)

PCSP

Charter

Schools

Non-PCSP

Charter

Schools RPP SASS

Federal

Interviews

(Years 1-3)

Site

Visits*

(Years 2-3)

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

Average and range of federal subgrant awards—nationally

and by state. x x x x

Proportion of start-up costs accounted for with the federal

grant. x x x x

Kinds of planning and implementation activities supported

by federal subgrants; extent activities are dictated by state

authorizing legislation.

x x x x x

Start-up barriers overcome by federal funds. x x x x x

Importance of access to federal grant money in obtaining or

pursuing charter. x x x

Differences between charter schools that receive PCSP

grants and those that do not. x x x x x

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

Grade levels and student population served. x x x x x

Educational approaches implemented. x x x x x

Background and demographic characteristics of

instructional and administrative staff. x x x x

Newly created vs. public or private school conversions. x x x x x x x

Selection criteria for admission and the frequency/extent of

waiting lists. x x x x x

Demographic composition of charter schools, compared

with the traditional public schools in their surrounding

areas.

x x x x x x

Targeting and accommodation of special populations. x x x x x x x x

Professional development opportunities available for

teachers. x x x x x x
8

Exhibit 1-2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES (CONCLUDED)

PCSP Evaluation: Telephone Surveys

Charter Schools

(Year 2-3)

Other

Surveys

PCSP Evaluation: Other

Data Collection

Federal File

Extraction

(Years 1-3)

State

Coordinators

(Years 1 & 3)

Charter

School

Authorizers

(Years 1-3)

PCSP

Charter

Schools

Non-PCSP

Charter

Schools RPP SASS

Federal

Interviews

(Years 1-3)

Site

Visits*

(Years 2-3)

What flexibility provisions are charter schools granted?

Extent to which flexibility provisions granted by state and

local laws are realized in practice. x X x x x x x

Factors associated with successful and unsuccessful

implementation of flexibility provisions. x X x x x x

Most critical flexibility provisions. x x x

Parent involvement activities and parent requirements. x x x x x

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

Measures of accountability. x x X x x x x x

Measures of student performance for which charter schools

are accountable and how assessed. x x x x x x x x

Extent to which students meet student performance goals. x x x

Range and frequency of corrective action for charter

schools that do not meet the student performance terms of

their charters.

x x x x x

Students meeting or exceeding the state performance

standards, if applicable. x x

Comparability of student achievement gains to those of

their traditional public school counterparts. x x

Conditions under which charter schools improve student

achievement. x x x x x

Parent beliefs about charter schools and other schools. x x x x

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

Note: Italicized research questions were added by the SRI evaluation team
9

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 of Charter School Authorizer n Collapsed Category n

Local school board 13

Local school district 19

County board or office of education 2

Local educational entity 34

State board of education 5

Chief state school officer 1

State educational agency 1

Multiple state entities 1

State entity 8

University or college 3

Community college 0

Institution of higher

education

3

Independent or special charter

school board

2

Municipal government 1

Other entity 3

Total sample 48 48
10

Exhibit 1-4

MEAN NUMBER OF SCHOOLS CHARTERED, BY TYPE OF CHARTER SCHOOL

AUTHORIZER

Type

of

Authorizer*

Number of Schools

Chartered

(mean)

Number of

Authorizers in

Year 1 Sample

Percent of

Year 1 Sample

(n=48)

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 PCSPrelated 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

 

3Although 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.).
11

members also gathered information on

states from various other (principally Webbased) 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.
12

Exhibit 1-5

LOCATION AND TYPE OF FOCUS GROUPS

Type of Focus Group

Location

Charter School

Planners

Charter School

Operators

Charter School

Authorizers

Boston, MA 5 5

Denver, CO 5 5

Detroit, MI 5 5

Miami, FL 5 5

Minneapolis, MN 5 5

Oakland, CA 5 5

Philadelphia, PA 5 5

Phoenix, AZ 5 5

San Antonio, TX 5 5

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 parttime 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
13

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.
14

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.
15

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.
16
17

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.

Finding: Increasing numbers of new and

developing charter schools are receiving

support from federal funds through the

Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP).

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 Grantees Size of PCSP Appropriations

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
18

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.

 

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.
19

Exhibit 2-2

ANNUAL SUMMARY STATISTICS ON SIZE OF PCSP GRANTS

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Mean

Median
20

Exhibit 2-3

REPORTED SOURCES OF CHARTER SCHOOL START-UP FUNDS

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

PCSP only (n=14)

PCSP + state and/or charter

school authorizer + other (n=6)

PCSP + state and/or charter

school authorizer (n=10)

PCSP + other (n=5)

No PCSP state grant or no

charter law (n=17)

PCSP funds go directly to some

schools currently or in the past

PR

DC
21

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
22

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 startup 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).
23

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.

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: As allowed in the legislation,

states retain 5 percent or less of their

PCSP grants for administrative

purposes.

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 setasides were deducted from the total grant

amount.

Seventeen states provided a breakdown

of the state portion of their PCSP grant for

 

5On the state coordinator survey, nine states noted

that their applications for PCSP funds had been

denied one or more times.
24

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: As allowed in the legislation,

states have developed their own

procedures for awarding subgrants.

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.
25

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 lowincome 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.
26

Exhibit 2-5

 NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF STATES WITH SPECIFIC CRITERIA

FOR DETERMINING SUBGRANT FUNDING LEVELS

(n=30 States)

Selected Criterion

Number of

States

Percent 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 number of eligible

charter school applications

15 50%

Recommendations of peer reviewers/field reviewers 13 43%

Student enrollment or projected student enrollment 13 43%

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

Negotiation of funding level with subgrantee 9 30%

Number or percentage of educationally disadvantaged students 6 20%

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: States use different definitions

of “start-up,” differences that affect

eligibility for PCSP subgrants.

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
27

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: The use of PCSP subgrant

funds is largely unrestricted.

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

5

4

15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Number of States with Criterion

Preliminary charter

No charter yet

Chartered but not open
28

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.

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

 

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.

Finding: The PCSP takes a leadership

role within the Department of Education

in helping shape the national charter

school agenda.

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.
29

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
30

developers and operators, as well as

debriefing conferences with researchers.

Finding: PCSP staff have taken an active

approach to connecting charter school

operators, sponsors, and support

groups with each other and with other

resources.

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.

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.
31

Exhibit 2-7

SOURCES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PREPARING APPLICATIONS

PCSP contact at ED

ED charter school Web site

Charter school conference

Other ED staff 

Charter schools/agencies

Charter school resource center

State grantees (n=23)

Local grantees (n=6)

Exhibit 2-8

SOURCES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PREPARING REPORTS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of Grantees Responding

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of Grantees Reporting

PCSP contact at ED

ED charter school Web site

Annual charter school

conference

Other ED staff 

Charter schools/Charter

school authorizers

Charter school resource

center

State grantees (n=12)

Local grantees (n=5)
32
33

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.

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: State laws allow a diverse range

of agencies to award charters to

schools.

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
34

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

 

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).

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: 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.

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
35

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.

 

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).

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.
36

Exhibit 3-1

TYPES OF AGENCIES PERMITTED TO CHARTER

(n=38)

States Permitting Agency to

Charter

Type of Agency

Number of

States

Percent of

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, local unions) 4 10%

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

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.
37

*Oregon and Virginia are excluded because state caps have not been calculated or estimated at this point.

a-Nevada’s effective cap was calculated by the SRI team on the basis of legislation.

b-New Jersey’s statewide cap expired January 2000.

c-An additional 100 per year are permitted.

d-Florida’s effective cap was calculated by the state coordinator.

Exhibit 3-2

STATES WITH STATEWIDE CAPS AND NUMBER OF CHARTERS OPENED*

60

21

20

6

110

47

8

17

17

5

2

1

950

42

45

30

135

15

8

50

250

18

39

15

6

238

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Florida

California

New Jersey

Idaho

Massachusetts

Illinois

Louisiana

Alaska

Nevada

Rhode Island

Kansas

Utah

Mississippi

Number opened as

of 9/30/99

Statewide cap

a

b

d

c
38

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.

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.

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.
39

Exhibit 3-3

HOW STATE LAWS ARE WAIVED FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS

PR

Automatic waiver (n=19)

Requests granted or negotiated (n=14)

No waiver permitted (n=4)

Waiver provision not specified (n=1)

No charter legislation (n=14)

DC
40

Total Percentage of States Responding “Some” or “All” Charter Schools Granted Types of Freedom

*Seven states reported that collective bargaining was not an issue because they had no collective bargaining requirements.

Freedom from student assessments

Freedom from state budgeting and

audit requirements

Freedom from state teacher

certification and credentialing

requirements

Freedom from collective bargaining

requirements*

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.

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)

72%

60%

14%

14%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
41

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.
42

Exhibit 3-5

CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS’ REPORTS OF CHARTER SCHOOL CONTROL

(n=48)

Areas That Charter Schools Control

Total Percentage of Charter

School Authorizers Reporting

“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 benefits 85%

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: 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.

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 Control

Local

n=34

(mean response*)

Other Agency

n=14

(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 dismissal 2.41 3.00

Budgetary expenses other than salaries and benefits 2.50 2.93

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).
43

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.

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: 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.

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
44

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.)

 

9See Nelson et al. (2000), pp. 52-53, for information

on reports made by charter schools.

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: In the majority of states with

charter school legislation, charter

schools are accountable to multiple

agencies.

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.
45

Exhibit 4-1

STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS (n=33)

80%

70%

64%

63%

60%

53%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

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 localboard states, only the state agency was

mentioned as the responsible entity.

Although state charter laws and statelevel 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.

Student achievement

Student enrollment and demographics

Financial record keeping

Other student performance indicators

Compliance with federal regulations

Compliance with state regulations

Governance/decision-making
46

Exhibit 4-2

PROPORTION OF CHARTER SCHOOLS WITH MEASURABLE GOALS,

AS REPORTED BY CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS (n=45)

Percent of Charter School

Authorizers

Goal Area

All

Schools

Some

Schools

No

Schools Mean*

Academic achievement 84% 16% 0 2.84

Student behaviors 45% 31% 24% 2.21

Student attendance 64% 21% 14% 2.50

Student promotion or graduation 60% 23% 18% 2.43

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: 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.

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.
47

Exhibit 4-3

AGENCIES IDENTIFIED BY STATE COORDINATORS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING

ACCOUNTABILITY

State agencies only (n=10)

The charter school authorizer only (n=6)

Agencies at multiple levels responsible (n=22)

No charter legislation (n=14)

DC

PR
48

Administer the budget of the charter

school(s)

Administer personnel and benefits

functions for the charter school(s)

Provide facilities for charter school(s)

at free or reduced rent

Provide services (e.g., special

education)

Review and monitor student

performance in the charter school(s)

Review, negotiate, and monitor the

terms of the charter document

Exhibit 4-4

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS,

AS REPORTED BY STATES (n=38)

97%

92%

66%

51%

44%

38%

3%

8%

34%

49%

56%

62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No charter school authorizers

All or Some charter school

authorizers

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.

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.
49

Exhibit 4-5

IMPORTANCE OF PROGRAM ELEMENTS IN DECISION TO ISSUE A CHARTER,

AS REPORTED BY CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS (n=45)

Importance in Granting Charter

(percent of respondents)

Program

Element

Not at All

Important

Somewhat

Unimportant

Somewhat

Important

Very

Important Mean*

Curriculum 0% 2% 13% 84% 3.82

Instructional strategies 0% 5% 43% 52% 3.48

Assessment 0% 4% 22% 73% 3.69

Targeted population 9% 19% 44% 28% 2.91

Admission procedures and student

selection criteria

2% 5% 36% 57% 3.48

Finances 0% 0% 16% 84% 3.84

School facilities 5% 12% 56% 27% 3.05

Personnel policies or requirements 8% 23% 48% 23% 2.85

Governance structure 0% 11% 48% 41% 3.30

Health and safety issues 0% 5% 36% 60% 3.55

Student discipline policies 5% 22% 54% 20% 2.88

School management or leadership 4% 7% 38% 51% 3.36

Mission and goals of the school 0% 2% 22% 76% 3.73

Accountability provisions 0% 0% 18% 82% 3.82

*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.
50

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

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Curriculum

Finances

School management 

Governance structure

Accountability 

Instructional strategy

Assessment

Facilities

Mission/goals 

Admission procedures

Personnel policies 

Health/safety 

Targeted population

Student discipline 

Have required

changes to element

before granting

charter (n=45)

Have denied

applications because

of problems/concerns

(n=23)
51

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)

Percent of Charter School

Authorizers

All

Schools

Some

Schools

No

Schools Mean*

Instructional practices 53% 13% 34% 2.19

Financial record keeping 91% 2% 6% 2.85

Compliance with federal or state regulations 89% 4% 6% 2.83

Student achievement 96% 2% 2% 2.93

Other student performance indicators,

such as attendance rates

68% 13% 19% 2.49

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.
52

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 welldeveloped accountability policies,

processes, and procedures than local

charter school authorizers.

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
53

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.
54

Exhibit 4-8

EXISTENCE OF WRITTEN POLICIES, BY TYPE OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Application for charter

Granting charter

Monitoring progress

Revoking charter

Renewing

Sanctions/assistance

Resolution of disputes All authorizers (n=48)

Nonlocal (n=14)

Local (n=34)

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.
55

Exhibit 4-9

CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS WITH SEPARATE OFFICE AND/OR STAFF

DEDICATED TO CHARTER SCHOOLS, BY TYPE OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER

(n=46)

28%

86%

46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Exhibit 4-10

PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT ON CHARTER SCHOOLS, BY TYPE OF CHARTER

SCHOOL AUTHORIZER

19%

76%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Local

Agencies

Nonlocal

Agencies

All

Authorizers

Local

Agencies

Nonlocal

Agencies

All

Authorizers
56

Evaluation Theme 7: States and charter school authorizers have many corrective actions

at their disposal; most have been used in moderation.

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: 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.

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.
57

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: Charter school authorizers

echoed state reports concerning the

variety, frequency, and causes of

corrective actions involving charter

schools.

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,
58

the study team will be able to analyze in

greater depth the reasons why charter

school authorizers revoke charters.

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.

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

interdependent 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.
59

Year 1 Finding:

Increasing numbers of

new and developing

charter schools are

receiving support from

federal funds through

the Public Charter

Schools Program

(PCSP).

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 flexibilityaccountability 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,
60

Year 1 Finding:

States use

different

definitions of

“start-up,”

differences that

affect

eligibility for

PCSP subgrants.

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?
61

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/

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
62

Year 1 Finding:

In general, state

charter school

policies do not

exempt charter

schools from

state student

assessment or

budgeting/auditin

g requirements.

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?

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.
63

Year 1 Evaluation

Theme: States and

charter school

authorizers have

many corrective

actions at their

disposal; most

have been used in

moderation.

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?
64

Readers who would like more detail

about future data collection activities for this

evaluation are referred to Appendix B.
65

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: Firstyear report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research

and Improvement.