There are about 1.2 million school-age children of military-connected families, and the majority of students attend public and private schools located off military bases. In addition to these off-base options, several school options are available on military bases for military-connected children, including traditional public schools, DOD-operated schools, and, more recently, public charter schools. These options are described below.  Traditional public schools: Approximately 160 traditional public schools operated by local school districts are located on military bases in the United States. According to DOD, 94 percent of students attending public schools on military bases are military-connected children. Traditional public schools are generally open to all students in the geographic area they serve.  DOD-operated schools: Although the majority of DOD schools are located overseas, 64 DOD schools currently operate on military bases in the United States, and these domestic DOD schools enroll about 28,000 students. DOD schools—open only to eligible dependents of active duty military and DOD civilians who reside on military installations—constitute a separate school system administered by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). Domestic DOD schools were established to educate military children in communities where the local schools were deemed unable to provide a suitable education, among other reasons. DOD school systems depend almost entirely on federal funds, unlike public schools, which are funded primarily with local and state taxes and for which federal funding constitutes a small portion of total resources. As we noted in an earlier study, questions have been raised periodically concerning the continuing need for DOD schools. DOD has commissioned various studies since the 1980s exploring the possibility of transferring DOD schools to local school districts, and over the years, DOD has transferred some DOD schools to local public school districts.  Charter schools: Charter schools are a relatively new option for students. These schools are public schools created to achieve a number of goals, including encouraging innovation in public education, providing an alternative to poor performing schools, and giving families an additional educational option to traditional public schools. Charter schools operate with more autonomy than traditional public schools in exchange for agreeing to improve student achievement, an agreement that is formalized in a contract or charter with the school’s authorizing body. A school’s charter defines the specific academic goals and outlines school finances and other aspects of operation. Charter schools provide students and parents with increased educational options. However, research has found considerable variability in charter school performance on student achievement. Enrollment and interest in charter schools has grown rapidly in the past few years. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of students enrolled in public charter schools more than quadrupled, from 0.3 million to 1.6 million students between school years 1999-2000 and 2009-2010, while the percentage of all public schools that were public charter schools increased from 2 to 5 percent. In the 2009- 2010 school year, about 5,000 charter schools operated in 40 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile parental interest in this public school option has also grown. According to a survey conducted by one national charter school organization, nearly two-thirds of charter schools across the nation reported having children on their waiting list, with an average waiting list totaling 228 students. The 2008 DOD report on military compensation recommended that military-connected parents be allowed to form charter schools on military bases. The 2008 DOD report indicated that offering a charter school option in areas with underperforming local public schools would give parents stationed in those locations another choice in addition to the private school or home schooling options that may currently exist. This recommendation was part of the report’s broader emphasis on the need to increase service members’ choices in order to enhance recruiting and retention efforts in the uniformed services and, ultimately, support military readiness. Charter schools are established according to individual state charter school laws, and these state laws determine how schools operate and are funded. Depending on the state, a range of groups and organizations can establish a charter school, including parents, educators, private nonprofit organizations, and universities. A significant portion of charter schools nationally are established or operated by private management organizations, such as charter management organizations (CMO). According to one research institute, in the 2010-2011 school year, 35 percent of all public charter schools were operated by such private management organizations, and these schools accounted for almost 42 percent of all students enrolled in charter schools. States also set requirements for how charter schools operate. For example, most state charter school laws generally require that charter schools be open to all students within a specified boundary (commonly referred to as “open enrollment” requirements). In addition, most state charter school laws generally require that charter schools that receive more student applications than have available classroom spaces must enroll students based upon a lottery or some other random selection process to ensure that enrollment to the school is fair and does not favor particular groups of students. States also specify which entities can authorize the establishment of a charter school, including state departments of education, state boards of education, school districts or local educational agencies (LEA), institutions of higher education, and municipal governments. Authorizers are responsible for monitoring school performance and have the authority to close schools or take other actions if academic goals and state financial requirements are not met. States also define how charter schools are structured. For example, unlike traditional public schools that are generally part of a larger LEA, some states establish charter schools as their own LEA while others allow schools to choose between being a distinct LEA or part of a larger LEA for certain purposes, such as special education. In general, schools that operate as separate LEAs may be able to directly obtain federal funds or apply for federal grants that would otherwise be distributed among schools in a larger LEA. It may, therefore, be financially advantageous for schools to be separate LEAs, although this advantage also comes with the added responsibility associated with LEAs. Finally, states determine how charter schools will be publicly funded. In most states, charter schools are largely funded according to the formula states use for traditional public schools, usually a per-pupil allocation based on student attendance. As public schools, charter schools are also eligible to receive formula funding from some federal programs, such as those authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. DOD and Education have had a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) since 2008 to collaborate on addressing the educational needs and unique challenges faced by children of military families, including serving as a resource for communities exploring alternative school options, such as charter schools. In addition, a number of federal resources are available that may be used to assist in starting and operating charter schools, some of which focus on schools serving military-connected students, among others: Impact Aid: Education and DOD administer Impact Aid programs that provide qualifying LEAs—encompassing both traditional public schools and charter schools—with funds to compensate LEAs for revenue losses resulting from federal activities and to help students connected with these federal activities—which may include military- connected students—meet state academic standards. Appropriations for Education’s Impact Aid program were almost $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2010, and Congress appropriated $40 million in additional funding for DOD Impact Aid in 2012. One type of Impact Aid grant is designed to support the construction and repair of school buildings and is awarded to LEAs on a competitive basis.  DOD provides discretionary grants—about $50 million in grants to 38 military-connected school districts for fiscal year 2012—for enhancing student learning opportunities, student achievement, and educator professional development at military-connected schools, as well as about $9 million for math, science, English, and foreign language programs affecting military-connected students.  DOD is authorized to provide up to $250 million to make grants, conclude cooperative agreements, or supplement other federal funds to construct, renovate, repair, or expand elementary and secondary public schools on military installations in order to address capacity or facility condition deficiencies at such schools. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, provided an additional $250 million for DOD to continue addressing capacity and condition issues of public schools on military installations.  Charter Schools Program resources: Education also provides supports and resources through its Charter Schools Program (CSP).  CSP provides funds—about $255 million in fiscal year 2012—to create high-quality charter schools, disseminate information about effective schools, and support the replication and expansion of successful schools, among other purposes. In applying for grants for state education agencies, state agencies must describe, among other things, how they will disseminate information about effective schools and how students in the community will be given an equal opportunity to attend the charter school. A 2011 White House report details an agency-wide effort to develop a coordinated approach to supporting military families. One specific administration commitment is for Education to make supporting military families one of its supplemental priorities for its discretionary grant programs. This priority, which has been implemented, favors grant applications to meet the needs of military-connected students.  CSP funds a number of organizations, including the National Charter School Resource Center and the National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance, which provide a diverse range of information on charter schools. While most schools located on military bases were traditional public schools or DOD schools, eight were charter schools at the time of our review. The military base charter schools differed among themselves in their academic focuses and in the number of military-connected children they served. In addition to the eight schools, most of which were located on Air Force bases or on joint Air Force/Navy bases, another charter school was being developed on the Fort Bragg Army base at the time of our review (see fig. 1). Most military base charter schools opened after 2008, following DOD’s Quadrennial Review that recommended parents be allowed to form charter schools on bases to provide another educational option for military children in geographic areas with underperforming public schools, in addition to private schools or home schooling options (see fig.2). Like many charter schools located in public school districts across the country, many of the eight schools on military bases offered a program with a particular academic focus (see table 1). For example, Sonoran Science Academy, the only charter school currently on a military base that serves children from grade 6 through grade 10, offers a college preparatory program with a focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects (STEM). In school year 2011-12, Sonoran Science Academy served 185 children in grades 6 through 10 and plans to expand through the 12th grade by adding a grade each year. Manzanita Public Charter School offered a program for children learning English in which classes are taught in both English and the children’s home language, known as a dual immersion language program. The program’s goal was to support bilingualism and bi-literacy. Located on Vandenberg Air Force Base, but outside the base’s security gate, Manzanita Public Charter School served 438 students in school year 2011-12. Sigsbee Charter School in Key West draws on the school’s location to offer an environmental education program with a focus on marine studies. The only one of the eight schools on a military base to offer a pre-kindergarten program, Sigsbee served 410 children through grade 7 in school year 2011-12. In Arkansas on the Little Rock Air Force Base, Flightline Upper Academy chose a curriculum in which the arts are used to teach all subjects. The school served 164 students in grades 5 through 8 in school year 2011-12. Both of these schools—Sigsbee and Flightline—are located behind the security gate on their respective military bases. Table 1 provides information on the characteristics of the eight charter schools. While the charter schools’ academic focuses differed considerably, most military base charter schools served predominantly children of military- connected families and some of these schools took various steps to attract these students. For example, the largest charter school operating on a base, the Belle Chasse Academy, serves more than 900 elementary and middle school children. To address the needs associated with high mobility and parental deployments that military-connected students experience, Belle Chasse Academy offers psychological and other counseling services, welcome clubs, and a buddy program to ease an incoming student’s transition to Belle Chasse Academy. With 90 percent of its students coming from military families, Belle Chase Academy has the largest percentage of military-connected children of the schools currently in operation. While the children of civilians can attend the school, which is located inside the security gate on the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, Belle Chase Academy officials told us they initially took several steps to attract children of military personnel. For example, they held multiple town meetings for military families, distributed flyers on the base, and posted notices on the school’s website encouraging military-connected families to enroll their children as soon as the service member receives his or her orders (see text box.) Belle Chasse Academy officials said the Academy is well-known now and they no longer have to conduct as much outreach. Belle Chasse Academy: Promoting Early Enrollment of Military- Connected Students The Belle Chasse Academy includes the following announcement on its website: … Active-duty personnel are enjoined to register their child(ren) to attend Belle Chasse Academy as soon as they are in receipt of orders. This enables the school to plan effectively and ensures that your student has a space in the appropriate grade and setting. BCA is space-limited, and we cannot ensure that every dependent of active-duty personnel has space unless you assist us in planning. We are an open-enrollment school, so unless we have reserved a spot for your student, we must admit students who apply if there is a vacancy. Thanks for your cooperation. Imagine Andrews and Sigsbee charter schools also considered educating the children of military-connected families an integral component of their mission. Sigsbee Charter School officials described the children of military-connected families as “central to the school’s mission” and said they offered services geared to the needs of this transient population. For example, the school has a military life counselor available to children with an active-duty parent, who holds small group sessions that address family stress, deployment, and issues related to moving. Sigsbee officials also told us they work closely with a professional organization that provides services to educators working with military-connected children and send the school’s staff to professional development sponsored by this organization. Imagine Andrews, where two-thirds of its students come from military-connected families, offers a range of services for these children: for example, according to the school’s website, Imagine Andrews staff receives in-depth professional development on how to recognize the warning signs of the stressors faced by students in military- connected families and how to help those students deal effectively with the challenges they encounter. While Sonoran Science Academy does not specifically state that serving the children of military-connected families is part of its mission, it enrolled a high percentage of these children and provided services geared to their needs. For example, the school provides a full-time counselor and offers a buddy program for military-connected students transferring into the school, a self-esteem program, and a support group for students with a recently-deployed parent. Located inside the gate on the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, Sonoran Science Academy has a student body that includes 76 percent military-connected students. (See fig. 3). In addition, three schools used enrollment preferences to ensure the children of military-connected families had a greater chance of securing a place in the school: Belle Chasse Academy, Imagine Andrews, and Sigsbee. These schools were among the five schools with the highest enrollment of students from military-connected families. While all of the charter schools on military bases serve a large percentage of military-connected students, they were started for various reasons, including family perceptions about the quality of education available for their children in local school districts and military officials’ need to attract and retain military families to bases. Moreover, in some instances the impetus for establishing a charter school on a military base originated with private housing developers on military bases and charter management organizations. At Imagine Andrews and other schools, school officials told us some parents expressed reservations about enrolling their child in local public schools due to the perception that those schools were of poor quality. As a result, many military families chose to live off-base, which allowed their children access to other districts they believed had higher quality schools. For example, one Belle Chasse Academy parent we interviewed said his concerns about the quality of schooling available in New Orleans led him to consider refusing assignment to the base. Belle Chasse Academy officials also said that some personnel accept assignment to the base, but leave their families behind in communities they believe provide better educational opportunities for their children. In these cases, leaving family behind often negatively impacted service members’ job readiness and happiness, Belle Chasse Academy officials and others noted. Navy officials who helped develop LEARN 6 in North Chicago said quality is important because parents want assurance that their children will “keep up” in the school in which they are currently enrolled and will at least be on grade level when they have to transfer to a new school. Additional parental concerns included children’s safety and the schools’ convenience or proximity to home, according to school officials and others. Military interests were also significant in the creation of some of the charter schools we reviewed. Officials at several schools said that base commanders recognized the important role of quality schools in attracting and retaining service members on base and that commanders’ support was critical to charter school development on base. For example, at Sonoran Science Academy and Imagine Andrews, school officials credited the base commander with being a driving force behind the vision of creating a charter school. Furthermore, the military Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process may contribute to growth in the number of military-connected families living on certain bases and heighten demand for more schooling options on bases, including charter schools. At LEARN 6 in North Chicago, military and state interests both contributed to the creation of the charter school. Partly in response to declines in the military population at Naval Station Great Lakes, the state board of education, which approved the charter school application, noted that the district stood to lose millions of dollars in federal Impact Aid if it did not take immediate action to attract and retain military families. The state board further noted that a charter school could help ensure the district’s continued eligibility for federal Impact Aid funds while offering another public school option for the district’s students. Housing developers and charter management organizations (CMO) also led moves to establish some charter schools on military bases, according to some school officials we interviewed. For example, housing developers at Joint Base Andrews that were hired by the military to privatize on-base housing believed that having a charter school on base would attract more families to on-base living. The housing developers worked with Imagine Schools, the CMO, to develop a charter school that would make living on base more attractive. In another case, the CMO Lighthouse Academies decided to open a new charter school campus—Flightline Upper Academy—when demand for spaces in its existing charter school exceeded capacity. Although the new charter school was ultimately located on a nearby military base, the CMO’s original plan was to provide more options for children in the community, not to target the children of military-connected families for enrollment in the school. At Manzanita Charter School, public school educators were the planners because they perceived a need for better educational options for the children of economically disadvantaged families and English language learners. The school’s planners told us they had not considered the children of military-connected families as a target population for enrollment. They said the decision to locate the school on a military base was one of necessity—it was the only facility the local authorizer offered the charter school organizers. While charter schools on military bases encountered some of the same challenges as other charter schools around the nation—such as acquiring facilities and startup funding—they also experienced challenges unique to starting up and operating a charter school on a military base. One of these challenges is maintaining slots for military students whose parents may move more frequently. Specifically, because the high turnover rate among military-connected students at military base charter schools could limit enrollment access of these students, three charter schools provided military-connected students with an enrollment preference (see table 2). Planners for Imagine Andrews wanted all of the slots at the school to be reserved for military families, according to a CMO representative. However, Maryland law requires charter schools to be open to all students. In 2010 the Maryland legislature revised the law to provide an exemption to the open enrollment requirement for military base charter schools, as long as students with parents who are not assigned to the base constitute at least 35 percent of enrollment. However, children of military parents who are assigned to the base, but live off the base, are grouped with civilians because Imagine Andrews also requires residency on the base for enrollment preference. Despite the school’s military student enrollment preference, an Imagine Andrews official said that the school would likely encounter concerns about enrollment from military- connected parents whose children are not able to enroll in the school due to limited slots. Similarly, a representative of Belle Chasse Academy said the school also explored how they could maintain slots for military- connected children. In addition to a stated mission to educate military- connected children and its efforts to encourage military-connected parents to register their children as soon as they are assigned to the base, the school uses a hierarchy of admission preferences, with the top six tiers for military-connected students, the seventh tier for the children of staff, and the final and eighth tier for civilian students (see table 3). According to the official, these preferences were allowed as an admission standard under an interpretation of the law by the state Attorney General’s office, which determined that it was acceptable as long as the mission, academics, and programs of the school were targeted to military- connected students. The preferences have enabled the school to maintain high military student enrollment—approximately 90 percent in SY 2011-12. The official said the school does not generally conduct a lottery because it could lead to higher levels of civilian enrollment and undermine the school’s mission to educate military-connected children. Sigsbee Charter School also encountered a challenge to ensuring enrollment slots for military-connected students. Created prior to recent changes in Florida state law that now permit charter schools to give enrollment preference to children of an active duty member of any branch of the United States Armed Forces, the school utilized a provision in state law that allows a charter school to give enrollment preference to children of workplace employees. A school official explained that the school considered the base a workplace but could not establish a formal business partnership with the base because the base does not provide the school with funds. As a result, school officials established a formal partnership with the base through a memorandum of understanding, which it considered a business partnership for the purposes of satisfying the state requirement for using the school’s enrollment preference. Two other schools that wanted to focus on enrolling military-connected students, including one school currently in development, did not plan to use an enrollment preference because officials said they either believed or were told by state education officials it was not allowable under state charter school law. For example, a Navy official involved with establishing LEARN 6 in North Chicago at Naval Station Great Lakes explained that, while planners for the school wanted to focus on enrolling military- connected students, Illinois state law required the school to be open to all students. According to the official, this requirement could pose a long- term challenge to maintaining enrollment access for military-connected families. He indicated that school stakeholders are currently working to propose changes to Illinois state law that would enable the school to use a preference for military-connected students at a minimum of one-third of the school’s enrollment. Similarly, Fort Bragg military officials involved with establishing a charter high school on the base said that school planners wanted an enrollment preference for military-connected students but were told by state education officials that North Carolina’s charter law does not allow for such a preference. One official indicated the CMO planned to challenge the state’s interpretation of the law. However, even without such a preference, base officials noted that the school’s prospective location on the base would ensure high military-connected student enrollment. Officials said that the school did not plan to include transportation in its budget. However, they said the school may consider offering fee-based busing to students living on base—but not to students living off base. Doing so could also result in higher military-connected student enrollment. Of the three schools currently using an enrollment preference for military- connected students, Sigsbee Charter School and Imagine Andrews received CSP subgrants from their state departments of education. As previously noted, both schools used lottery-based preferences to enroll military-connected students at higher rates than civilian students. The statute authorizing CSP grants requires charter schools, as a condition of receiving funding, to admit students on the basis of a lottery if more students apply than can be accommodated, and to provide a description of how students in the community will be given an equal opportunity to attend the charter school. Education, in its non-regulatory guidance, states that a charter school receiving CSP funds must hold one lottery that provides qualified students with an equal opportunity to attend the school, but also provides for certain exemptions to the lottery requirement. For example, the guidance allows certain categories of applicants to be exempted, such as the siblings of students, children of a charter school’s founders, and children of employees in a work-site charter school. However, the guidance does not specifically address whether schools may exempt military-connected students from a lottery. Further, the guidance also states that schools may use weighted lotteries, which are lotteries that give preference to one set of students over another, but only when they are necessary to comply with certain federal laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or applicable state laws. CSP officials told us that there were limits to how lottery preferences can be used. For example, a CSP official said that the practice of holding separate lotteries for enrolling civilian and military- connected students is not consistent with CSP requirements. The official also stated concern about enrollment preferences that would significantly limit civilian enrollment access to a school. However, another CSP official stated that they would not necessarily be aware of the specific enrollment practices of Sigsbee Charter School and Imagine Andrews at the time the awards were made, in part because both were subgrantees of state educational agency (SEA) grants and, under federal regulations, the SEA, not Education, is primarily responsible for monitoring subgrant activities and ensuring that subgrantees comply with applicable federal program requirements. However, the official said that CSP does not require SEAs to describe the enrollment preferences of school subgrantees in their grant applications. When charter schools are located on military bases, base security requirements can limit access for civilians. Of the eight charter schools, six are currently located inside a protected security perimeter, which generally requires that civilians pass a background check and carry a base pass to access the school. The background check for one base school, Imagine Andrews, consists mainly of checking the validity of the applicant’s driver’s license and reviewing any recorded criminal history. For this base, passes take about two days to process, are valid for one year, and applicants who are denied access can appeal the decision. At another charter school, Flightline Upper Academy, some civilian parents did not pass the background checks required for base access, according to a school official. When this happens, however, the official said that school staff can escort children to the school. Base security requirements can also limit community participation in school events and activities. For example, an Imagine Andrews official stated that the base restricts each civilian family to three passes, which can create a challenge for them during school events, such as an honors breakfast or awards ceremony. He noted that military-connected families on the base have no such restriction. Further, the official noted that the base does not permit civilian access to the school on weekends, which would prevent the school from holding extracurricular activities, such as morning tutorials or enrichment programs, during this time. The official also explained that the school conducted certain community outreach events, such as open houses, off-base to give off-base civilian families an opportunity to learn about the school without requiring access to the base. Similarly, an official with Sonoran Science Academy Davis-Monthan said that base restrictions on civilian access on weekends prevented them from holding community events on the school grounds. As a result, the school rented off-base facilities, such as a YMCA. According to the official, the base’s limitations on public access was the school’s most significant challenge because it limits the school’s ability to establish relationships with the community and inform the public about the school. Two base schools—Manzanita Public Charter School and LEARN 6 in North Chicago—were located outside the base security gate and therefore did not require base access for civilians. According to a military official who assisted with establishing LEARN 6 in North Chicago at Naval Station Great Lakes, school organizers and stakeholders considered the issue of civilian access to the school prior to its opening and were concerned about the possibility that parents of some civilian students given slots at the school through the lottery would not pass the background check and would not be allowed access to the school. As a result, the base command, the school’s charter management company, and the Illinois State Board of Education jointly agreed that the school should be located outside the base security perimeter in order for the school to operate on the base. Because the school was slated to occupy a former military hospital training facility inside the perimeter, the base command arranged to move a section of the perimeter so that the school would be located outside it and fully accessible to the public. Some schools, including Wheatland Charter Academy, Manzanita Public Charter School, and LEARN 6 in North Chicago, were located on bases that also hosted a traditional public school. While we did not examine these or other district-run public schools on bases, we believe civilian access to them may similarly be limited as a result of military base security requirements. Like charter schools generally, military base charter schools encountered difficulties obtaining facilities for school use, and they may face additional challenges because of their location on military bases (see table 4). As we previously found, securing adequate school facilities is one of the greatest challenges for new charter schools because they typically are not able to rely on the same resources for facility financing—such as local taxes and tax-exempt municipal bonds—as public schools that are operated by school districts. We also previously reported that charter schools’ access to other facility financing options, such as private lending, can also be limited. Charter schools are often considered credit risks because they may have limited credit histories, lack significant cash flows, and have short-term charters that can be revoked. As a result, private loans are not easily accessible to charter schools for facility financing, so they often rely on state or district per-pupil allocations to finance their facilities. Two schools we examined encountered challenges initially securing financing for the construction of new facilities. According to a Belle Chasse Academy official, the school struggled to find a bank that could underwrite a long-term loan to build a facility on Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans. School planners were eventually able to secure a loan after receiving a loan guarantee through the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development Community Facilities Guaranteed Loan Program. Similarly, construction of a school facility for Imagine Andrews was able to start on Joint Base Andrews after a loan for this work was secured by the Charter School Development Corporation (CSDC)—a non-profit group that helps finance charter schools. A representative for the CMO, Imagine Schools, indicated that CSDC secured the loan because the CMO had limited capacity to finance the construction. CSDC cosigned the loan with the CMO, and a private real estate developer guaranteed the loan. Securing financing to renovate facilities for charter schools on bases was another obstacle for some schools. For example, Sigsbee Charter School moved into a former public school facility on Naval Air Station Key West that required significant renovation. The local district provided funds to defray the renovation cost, but these did not fully cover the needed repairs. Because none of the grant funds the school received could be used to renovate its facility, the school relied extensively on local volunteers, including military personnel and parents of students who would attend the school, to make many of the essential repairs to the facility. According to a school official, there are no funds to complete the remaining renovation work. For Flightline Upper Academy on Little Rock Air Force Base, school planners converted a base facility previously used as a conference center and that was slated for demolition. Renovations included removing asbestos, replacing old pipes, and repairing the roof. The cost of the renovations was paid for primarily through donations from a private housing developer and foundations—with no financial contributions from the Air Force. A school official noted that the school was able to address its main financing needs for facility repair prior to opening. However, he stated that the school’s significant investment in renovating a building it leases from the base comes with risk because the Air Force could decide not to renew the 5-year lease and take back the building. Some school representatives said they also had to navigate complex facility and land lease arrangements. With Imagine Andrews, the non-profit CSDC will own the completed facility and lease it to Imagine Schools. The Air Force leased the property to a nonprofit joint venture between the Air Force and a private housing developer, which in turn leased it to CSDC. Imagine Andrews stakeholders also received assistance in structuring the facility financing and land-lease agreements from an agency that oversees the housing privatization program for the Air Force. A Navy official involved with establishing LEARN 6 in North Chicago stated that the real estate arrangements, such as the lease for the school site and facility, were complex and required the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including the CMO, the Navy, and the local municipality. In particular, the official said understanding the appropriate support role for the Navy was a significant challenge to acquiring the facility for the school. For example, the official said it was unclear whether the Navy could provide funds for the school site, such as paying for its utilities. He noted that guidance on developing a lease agreement for charter schools on military bases would be beneficial and could potentially have saved school planners significant resources during startup. Similarly, other military and school officials cited the need for federal guidance and information sharing on starting and operating a charter school on a military base. For example, base officials at Fort Bragg said that they unsuccessfully sought information from the Army that would have helped guide their efforts to establish a charter high school on the base, such as liability issues related to operating a charter school on federal property. North Carolina state education officials denied the school’s application because school planners revised it after the deadline in order to replace most of the founding members on the school’s governing board with new members. According to state education officials, school planners told them they removed these members because a military regulation made them ineligible to serve on the school’s board. As a result of the application denial, the school will not open in 2013 as planned. We also found that currently, little guidance and information sharing exist for guiding the development of military base charter schools and addressing their startup and operational challenges and the guidance that does exist is not DOD-wide. While the Air Force produced guidance to support community efforts to develop charter schools on its bases, it does not apply to other military service bases. Army officials said they are currently developing charter school guidance for bases, which they plan to distribute in January 2013. Further, while Education and DOD have taken initial steps to support information sharing on developing charter schools on military bases—such as Education conducting outreach efforts with school planners and stakeholders at Naval Station Great Lakes and DOD and Education providing online information—some school officials suggested more information sharing could be helpful. For example, according to an official at Sigsbee Charter School, which opened 2 years ago, school planners found the information Belle Chasse Academy representatives provided on establishing on school on a base to be valuable for their own efforts. The official noted that more information sharing in this area would be useful. Against the backdrop of a growing and diverse charter school landscape, charter schools on military bases have emerged as one additional option for military-connected parents. How rapidly charter schools will spread to other military bases is difficult to predict, but demand among military families and base communities for more military base charter schools will likely increase, especially in light of residential growth on bases affected by military Base Realignment and Closure. While the number of charter schools operating on military bases is currently small, they present a novel set of challenges for charter school founders and operators as well as an opportunity for Education and DOD to be in the forefront of emergent issues for these charter schools. One issue that the various stakeholders may well confront is the tension between preserving the public mission of charter schools of being open to all students and the desire in military base communities to ensure enrollment of military- connected students. This tension is already emerging as some charter schools use enrollment preferences to ensure continued enrollment access for highly mobile military-connected students. Using such enrollment preferences could have implications for whether or not a charter school is eligible for federal CSP grant funding. Although Education officials have expressed concern to us over some charter schools’ enrollment preferences and practices, CSP guidance does not specifically address the issue of enrollment preference for military- connected students. Moreover, in two cases, CSP subgrants were awarded by states to charter schools about which Education expressed concerns because of the nature of their enrollment preferences. However, Education does not require SEA applicants for CSP grants to indicate whether schools use enrollment preferences and, if so, to describe those preferences. Such a requirement would allow Education and the states to better determine if an applicant is eligible to receive CSP funds. Finally, as charter school planners, authorizers, and military base commands consider adding schools on bases, they could benefit from having information to help them better weigh the tradeoffs of locating charter schools on bases, including the need for community outreach and civilian access to schools. The 2008 MOU between DOD and Education was intended, in part, to facilitate this kind of information development. Such information would also help them address the types of challenges current schools have encountered. As existing charter schools have discovered, determining DOD requirements and allowable practices— such as the role of base command—was often difficult. Having guidance from DOD on appropriate ways to establish and operate charter schools on military bases may help mitigate these common challenges and smooth school startups and operations. Military base charter schools that have experienced some of these stumbling blocks could share useful information with planners of charter schools in other military base communities—such as information about making facilities and lease arrangements, and building effective working relationships between school administrators and base command. To ensure that Charter Schools Program grants are provided only to schools that meet eligibility criteria, we recommend that the Secretary of Education direct the Charter Schools Program office to revise the Charter Schools Program guidance to  Clarify CSP grant requirements regarding charter school enrollment preferences, including preferences for military-connected students, such as whether schools can hold separate lotteries for military- connected and civilian students and the extent to which schools can enroll military-connected students under work-site exemptions, and  Require applicants for CSP grants and subgrants to describe any enrollment preferences in their applications. To address the specific needs of military communities that charter schools on bases serve while preserving the public mission of charter schools, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense develop and set standards for operating charter schools on military bases and require the appropriate military services to create guidance based on those standards. The guidance should describe the requirements and allowable practices for establishing and operating charter schools on military bases. At a minimum, this guidance should address the following areas:  The appropriate role of military base command and other DOD offices and agencies in supporting the creation and operation of charter schools;  Reasonable base access and security arrangements for civilian children, parents, and others involved in a military base charter school; and  Military lease arrangements and other property-related issues for a charter school on a base. To serve as a resource for military base communities exploring educational options, as stated in their 2008 Memorandum of Understanding, we also recommend that the Secretaries of DOD and Education facilitate the sharing of information among interested parties— such as base commanders and school planners and officials—on how military base charter schools have addressed startup and operational challenges. We provided a draft copy of this report to DOD and Education for review and comment. DOD’s comments are reproduced in appendix III and Education’s comments are in appendix IV. The agencies generally agreed with our recommendations, and Education described its plans for implementing them. Specifically, in response to our recommendation to clarify CSP grant guidance, Education stated that it will review its current non-regulatory guidance to determine how it can clarify admissions and lottery requirements for military-base charter schools that receive CSP funds. With respect to the two charter schools noted in our report that had enrollment preferences but received CSP grants from their states, Education said that the schools’ receipt of these grants raises compliance questions. Education has asked the states to conduct reviews of these instances and report back to the Department. Education also agreed with our recommendation to require CSP applicants to describe enrollment preferences in their applications. Education said it intends to revise its CSP grant application notices to require descriptions of any enrollment preferences. Furthermore, Education plans to request that SEA grantees require CSP subgrant applicants to describe recruitment and admissions policies and practices, including any enrollment preferences they plan to employ. Education acknowledged the importance of working together with DOD to enhance awareness of the unique challenges involved in locating charter schools on bases and indicated steps they would take to continue this work. For example, Education stated that the Working Group established under the DOD and Education Memorandum of Understanding will continue to facilitate the sharing of information on challenges through shared newsletters, outreach, conference participation, panel discussions, and websites. The agencies also provided technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of DOD and Education, relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. Mission statement The mission of Belle Chasse Academy is to educate our military- dependent children, no matter what their background or previous school experience, to fully achieve their personal and academic potential through the acquisition of core knowledge and the skills of analysis, problem- solving, communication, and global responsibility. Military-connected student enrollment SY 11-12: 845 (90%) Mission statement Imagine Andrews Public Charter School (PCS) was established … to provide outstanding educational opportunities for military and community students. Our mission is to serve our nation by providing the students of the Andrews Community with a “world class” education, while meeting the needs of military families. Our vision is to create a school environment that prepares students for high school and beyond, develops their strong moral character, and provides them with the skills necessary to lead and advance our nation. on the military base. Mission statement We prepare our students for college through a rigorous arts-infused program. Military-connected student enrollment SY 11-12: 82 (50%) Mission statement To provide children with the academic foundation and ambition to earn a college degree. Free-reduced lunch eligible: 66% School Year 2011-12 student demographics School was not open in SY 2011- 12 . Mission statement We are dedicated to advancing academic excellence in Lompoc by providing students in kindergarten through sixth grade with the intellectual capacity to participate and work productively in a multi-cultural society. Military-connected student enrollment SY 11-12: 184 (42%) Mission statement The mission of Sonoran Schools is to provide a rigorous college prep, STEM-focused education through a challenging and comprehensive curriculum, continuous assessment, and dedicated teachers who inspire their students to become the leaders of tomorrow. Military-connected student enrollment SY 11-12: 140 (76%) Preference for military-connected: No Adequate Yearly Progress for SY 10-11: Met Free-reduced lunch eligible: 21% School Year 2011-12 student demographics White: 55% Asian/Pacific Islander: 1% American Indian/Alaskan: 1% Two or more races: 1% . Military-connected student enrollment SY 11-12: 74 (71%) Preference for military-connected: No Adequate Yearly Progress for SY 10-11: Did not meet Free-reduced lunch eligible: 38% School Year 2011-12 student demographics Did not receive complete demographic data, but school is predominantly White. In addition to the contact named above, Sherri K. Doughty, Assistant Director; Sandra L. Baxter; Edward F. Bodine; and Deborah A. Signer made significant contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Deborah Bland, Jessica A. Botsford, Ying Long, James M. Rebbe, Terry L. Richardson, Laura L. Talbott, and Kathleen L. van Gelder.

Summary: Many families struggle to balance their job demands with ensuring that their children have access to a high-quality education, and for military families this struggle can be exacerbated by the highly mobile nature of their service. Family concerns about education affect readiness and retention of military personnel, according to the Department of Defense (DOD). The majority of children of military families in the United States attend public schools. A 2008 DOD study recommended offering military families a public charter school option in areas with poorly-performing local schools. In response to a directive in a House Appropriations Committee report, GAO examined: (1) the characteristics and origins of charter schools on military installations, and (2) the challenges charter schools on military installations have faced in starting up and continuing their operations. To conduct this review, GAO interviewed officials in the eight charter schools on domestic military bases and one school being planned; visited two schools; interviewed Education and DOD officials; and reviewed relevant federal and state laws, federal regulations and guidance, and school, federal agency, and other documents. Eight charter schools were located on domestic military bases and one charter school was being developed on a base at the time of GAO's review. The military base charter schools differed in their academic focuses and served militaryconnected students to different degrees. For example, one school focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics while another used the arts to teach all subjects. Enrollment of military-connected students at these base charter schools ranged from 42 percent to 90 percent, and three schools used preferences to ensure a higher proportion of these students. For example, one charter school with a stated mission of educating military-connected children gave first preference to children of active-duty personnel, who represented the preponderance of enrolled students. The schools were established to address different interests, including family perceptions about the quality of education in local school districts and military officials' need to attract and retain military families to bases. In some instances the impetus for establishing a charter school on a military base originated with private entities. For example, a private developer hired to build housing on the base worked with a charter management organization to develop a charter school they thought would make living on the base more attractive to military families. Charter school officials cited several challenges to starting up and operating on military bases, such as using enrollment preferences for military-connected students, providing civilian access to schools, and obtaining facilities. Most states require schools to be open to all students, and when organizers of one school sought to enroll solely military-connected students, state law prohibited this because of the state's open enrollment requirements. Some states have changed or interpreted their charter school laws to enable schools to give enrollment preference to military-connected students. Furthermore, two charter schools that have enrollment preferences for military-connected students have received Department of Education (Education) Charter Schools Program (CSP) grants, which require charter schools to provide all students an equal opportunity to attend the school and admit students by lottery if there are more applicants than spaces available. Although these military base charter schools have received these grants, Education has expressed concern that the use of such enrollment preferences would violate CSP program requirements. Charter schools have also encountered operational challenges. For example, access for civilians can be difficult. Nearly all the military base charter schools were located behind the base's security gate, requiring civilians to complete a background check and show a pass. Several school officials reported difficulties conducting school activities such as open houses and sporting events because each base had a limit on the number of security passes for civilians. Like other charter schools, military base charter school officials also reported obstacles to obtaining facilities, such as financing. However, they also encountered unique challenges, such as complex military facility and land leases. Several school and military base officials said that having guidance and more information sharing could help with startup and operational challenges charter schools on military bases face. However, there is currently little guidance or information sharing about military base charter schools. GAO recommends that Education clarify whether military base charter schools that use enrollment preferences are eligible for charter school grants and that DOD and Education take actions to help address startup and operational challenges for these schools. In their responses, DOD and Education agreed with GAOs recommendations.