Month: June 2013

The Charter School Capital team’s bags are packed and we are heading to DC for the 2013 National Charter Schools Conference. We’re proud to be sponsoring this year’s conference as an Operations Strand Sponsor and are looking forward to a lively panel discussion while there.
Screen Shot 2013-06-25 at 6.25.43 PM
On Monday, July 1st, we will share the stage with three charter school leaders in our breakout session, Building a Growth Strategy. Our panelists will map out the three stages of charter school growth from start-up and expansion to sustainability and efficiency. This in-depth discussion will include the challenges charter schools face at each stage, how these organizations overcame those challenges, and best practices to avoid pitfalls and achieve success.
Our distinguished panelists includes:

Following our breakout session Monday morning, we will be sharing the presentation on our blog. If you haven’t signed up for our blog yet, please be sure to do so here. We will also be sharing updates, photos, and other breakout session recaps.
For more information about the conference, please click here. If you are attending the conference and interested in checking out some of the local attractions, you can find more information at the DC Convention Center page dedicated to the National Charter School Conference.

 

Image courtesy of AZCentral.com
Image courtesy of AZCentral.com

Charter School Capital was excited to learn that San Tan Learning Center was presented the Large Business of the Year Award by the Gilbert Chamber of Commerce.
The San Tan Learning Center, founded by Kristopher and Rita Sippel, has experienced growth of more than 1200% since 2006; expanding from 45 students to 550 students. The charter school has also nearly doubled its budget, at $3.1M, and now serves pre-K through middle school students.
According to the Gilbert Chamber of Commerce, “San Tan Learning Center finds uniqueness in the system that allows their teachers to instruct each child as an individual at his or her own level of mastery. Parents are considered to be partners in education and regular communication and goal-setting are part of the school’s culture.”
Charter School Capital first began working with San Tan Learning Center in 2011 and has been impressed with their dedication to the advancement of their programs and focus on the student educational experience. Congratulations San Tan Learning Center!
View the original article in AZCentral.com.

The California Legislature has adopted a budget and passed it, along with the trailer bills, to the Governor for his signature.  The Governor won the fight over changing how schools are funded in California as a form of his Local Control Funding Formula was adopted but the education trailer bill created new accountability for charter schools.  This accountability also comes with removal of a charter schools ability to appeal certain revocations.  While the California State Board of Education will have to work out the process through regulations; California charter school policy has taken a step backwards as the language will allow charter school authorizers new ways to show their hostility to charters under their jurisdiction. Below is a short outline of the accountability measures that were adopted for charter schools, as you can see the consequences can be devastating.
A charter school petition will be required to include a description of the school’s annual goals for academic achievement for all students and each subgroup of students.  These goals will have to be updated each year by July 1st beginning in 2015 and will also have to identify specific actions that will be taken to meet these goals using a template created by the State Board of Education that will include:

  1. A review of the progress toward the goals included in the charter, an assessment of the effectiveness of the specific actions described in the charter toward achieving the goals and a description of changes to the actions that the charter school will make as a result of the review and assessment.
  2. A listing and description of the expenditures for the fiscal year implementing the specific actions included in the charter as a result of the reviews and assessment.

Charter schools will also be required to consult with teachers, principals, other staff, parents, and pupils in the annual update.  The State Board of Education is also authorized to revoke any charter, whether it is the authorizer or not, if it finds the charter school failed to improve pupil outcomes across multiple state and local priorities.
Additionally, there are interventions if a charter school fails to improve pupil outcomes for pupil subgroups in regards to more than one state or local priority in three out of four consecutive school years:

  1. The chartering authority shall provide technical assistance to the charter school, using the rubric created by the State Board of Education.
  2. The Superintendent of Public Instruction may assign, at the request of the chartering authority and approval of the State Board, newly created California Collaborative for Educational Excellence to provide technical assistance to the charter school.

The language also requires a chartering authority to consider the revocation of any charter school to which the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence has provided advice and assistance and has made either of following findings:
1.  The charter school has failed to implement, or is unable to implement their recommendations.
2.  The inadequate performance of the charter school is either so persistent or so acute as to require revocation.
A charter school is not allowed to appeal a revocation under this section of new law.
This creates terrible policy for California charter schools and their supporters.  You should call the Governor’s office and urge him to reject this language which is contained in Assembly Bill 97.  To view the entire bill go to www.leginfo.ca.gov and put in the bill number.  You can call the Governor’s office at (916) 445-2841.

In the mid-1980s, San Bernardino’s traditional public high schools were suffering a dropout rate of 40-50%. The system was failing. The community was in desperate need of help, and The Provisional Accelerated Learning (PAL) Center opened to provide a new path.
Understanding how critical a strong education is to success, The PAL Center began as a not-for-profit tutorial program in 1984 to help those students most at-risk.  As the program expanded, it evolved into a charter school that now serves approximately 700 students. The PAL Center welcomes students in grades 9–12 hoping to earn their diploma as well as 19–21 year olds seeking job skills training and career placement assistance.
“We’re all about giving young people a second start in life,” says Lawrence T. Hampton, chief financial officer for The PAL Center. “We have specialized in working with students who have been the hardest to serve.”  Though designed to focus on those students most in-need, Hampton notes an interesting trend that has occurred in recent years.
“We’re becoming more of a school of choice. When we first started, we strictly took those students that were headed toward dropout,” he explains.  But in the late 2000s, “we started seeing more incoming freshmen choosing to come to school here instead of being referred… So it’s been fun to watch that transition.”
The reasons The PAL Center has grown from a school of last resort to the first choice for so many are the non-traditional benefits it offers students.  The school operates from 7:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. four days a week, providing students with the open schedule many of them need to hold jobs or help with their families.  In addition, the school is located just outside of the city in a quiet area surrounded by mountains. This picturesque setting helps encourage calm and focus.  Finally, class sizes average around 21 students, helping teachers provide more personal attention than students would receive at other area high schools where class sizes are larger.
Despite the school’s successful track record, Hampton has had to manage challenges threatening The PAL Center’s existence, including charter school funding.  Deferrals of state payments in California forced the school to tap into its savings, which proved to be insufficient as the deferrals increased. The school also obtained a credit line, but it quickly ran out. School administrators – having made a promise to the students and families of San Bernardino – needed to find a more permanent solution.
The PAL Center’s accountant referred the school to Charter School Capital. Within a few weeks, the two organizations began a long-term relationship that at times has been a lifeline to the school.
“The relationship has allowed us to stay financially solvent, and I can honestly say without that we would’ve been out of the charter school business,” says Hampton. “This school would have folded.”
“They have taken a personal interest in seeing us survive, and that comes through quickly when you’re talking to them. It’s more than just business, and I’m grateful for them.”

Monday night, June 10th, the conference committee closed out the open items in the budget negotiations.  The legislature and the California Governor have reached agreement on a budget deal and while we are still waiting for the language to actually appear for the education trailer bill (and other issue area trailer bills), it is very important that we see the actual trailer bill language because that will be the language that fully implements this agreement but here is a summary of the deal.
Proposition 98 will be funded at levels similar to the Governor’s May Revision, with minor adjustments – $15 million less in the current year and $22 million higher in 2013–14. The compromise spends virtually the same on deferral buy down in the current year, but spends $650 million less than the Governor proposed for 2013-14.  There will also be $1.25 billion in the budget for the implementation of common core standards.  The federal sequestration cuts to special education are not going to be backfilled but the budget does spend $30 million for equalization.  Proposition 39 funds will be used for K-14 schools only.  The pending language should revolve around a poverty-weighted allotment of Prop 39 funds to each school district and community college district based on their average daily attendance (ADA). Charter schools should be included in these allotments.  You would be responsible for submitting applications for energy saving projects based on criteria established by the California Energy Commission and to have those applications approved before receiving funds.  A small amount of funds will be provided for the Workforce Investment Board ($3 Million) for Veterans and at-risk youth focused on energy related projects.  Additionally, the requirement that LEAs give charter schools first priority on sale or lease of surplus property will be extended until 2016.
The Governor also won on his effort to change the way that schools are funded in California.  Though he compromised with the legislature his Local Control Funding Formula will be implemented with changes to proposed funding levels and the supplemental and concentration grants.  There will be $2.1 billion to implement the plan, roughly $214 million more than the Governor proposed. The Administration says the compromise spends 84% of the funds on the Base Grant and 16% on the Supplemental and Concentration Grants.
Here are the highlights of the plan:

  • Increases target per-pupil Base Grant by $537 above the May Revision.
  • The portion of the overall formula that is devoted to Base Grants is 84% (May Revision was 80%).
  • The compromise provides additional funding for an “economic recovery payment” to ensure that virtually all districts get back to their 2007-08 state funding levels, adjusted for inflation. (Because of some anomalies, a small number of very small school districts would not get back to the 2007-08 levels.)
  • Districts and charter schools would receive an additional 20 percent of the Base Grant for low income and English learner students.
  • While the Supplement Grant rate is reduced from the May Revision level (35% of the base rate), the Supplemental Grant rate is calculated on the much higher Base Grant. Thus, there is very little difference between the lower Base Grant/higher Supplemental Grant approach vs. and higher Base Grant/lower Supplement approach.
  • Districts and charter schools would qualify for additional concentration funding if 55% of their students are low income and English learners. (May Revision threshold was 50 percent.)
  • The Concentration Grant rate would be at 50% of the Base Grant for each low income and English learner student above the 55 percent threshold.
  • Full implementation is estimated to take eight years.
  • There are also ‘hold harmless’ provisions so no district or charter school receives lower funding in the budget year than they currently do.

These are the highlights and what is available today.  We are all waiting for the actual language to be released so everyone can provide a better analysis and make sure the figures are accurate.