Funding Charter School Facilities: How the Federal Government Can Help
Editor’s note: This post was originally published here on March, 26, 2108 by The 74 and written by Christy Wolfe, a senior policy adviser for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Finding suitable buildings and financing charter school facilities have been ongoing challenges for charter schools across our country. This article takes a look at some ways the federal government can remove some of the barriers that are contributing to this issue.
We think it’s vital to keep tabs on the pulse of all things related to charter schools, including informational resources, and how to support charter school growth. We hope you find this—and any other article we curate—both interesting and valuable.
Opinion: Charter Schools Can’t Grow If They Can’t Afford Buildings for Their Students. Some Ways the Federal Government Can Help
Charter schooling is often described in terms of the charter bargain: increased accountability in exchange for high-level autonomy. Unfortunately, in most places around the country, that bargain doesn’t include a building or funding for building expenses. Although charter schools today account for 7 percent of K-12 public school enrollment nationwide — more than 3.2 million students in more than 7,000 charter schools — and in some localities, charters educate 50 percent of the students, districts generally have a monopoly over public school buildings. Meanwhile, charter school operators must rely on a patchwork of solutions to access space and cover their operating costs.
Consequently, school facilities are one of the biggest obstacles to expanding charter school options. Given that charter schools are public schools, and the federal government plays a key role in providing funds to startup charters, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has examined how federal programs and the public sector can assist charter schools with their funding and financing needs in a new paper, Strengthening Federal Investments in Charter School Facilities. Some key findings: Inequitable access: Charter schools face steeper challenges in acquiring facilities than do district schools, which typically own or control their facilities and can issue tax-exempt bonds to support new construction or renovations. Districts pay back these bonds with taxpayer funds out of their capital budgets, independent of their schools’ operating budgets. Some states also provide direct operating and construction financing to districts. And, districts usually maintain large inventories of school buildings that can be renovated to accommodate growing enrollments. Higher costs: Charter schools, despite being public schools, lack the options available to districts for accessing buildings and financing new ones. When a charter school wants to open or expand, it is generally on its own to find appropriate space. And once a charter school has a building, most states do not provide per-pupil funding to cover operating expenses. Charter schools may not raise taxes. They lack an inventory of buildings, and in many states and localities, districts refuse to allow them to purchase or lease existing school buildings even when they are vacant or underutilized. Depending on how well-established a school is and its geographic location, it may or may not be able access federal assistance to reduce the costs of acquiring capital.
Because of these two barriers, there is a shortage of facilities for charter schools, especially for those serving students in our nation’s poorest communities. Consequently, they must operate in any space they can find; frequently, these are expensive and suboptimal, such as storefronts and commercial buildings that lack libraries and outdoor space.
This deficiency in the public infrastructure for education is having a significant impact on the education choices for millions of parents and children. But the federal government can help to remove this significant barrier to school choice and charter school growth through two key strategies: ● Leverage federal funds to incentivize state support for charter school facilities and access public buildings. Policies assisting charters can be encouraged through an improved and better-funded State Facilities Incentive Grant Program. Other funds, such as new infrastructure spending, could be tied to state charter school facilities policies and equitable access to public buildings. ● Reduce the cost of acquiring capital to access charter school buildings. Existing federal initiatives, such as the Credit Enhancement for Charter Schools Facilities Program and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Community Facilities Grant Program, can be strengthened and better funded to meet the needs of more charter schools. Additionally, creation of new charter school-focused instruments could encourage private investment, similar to tax-credit bond programs or New Markets Tax Credits. Without intervention, the market will not respond to the needs of charter schools to make capital affordable.
A silver policy bullet that can fix charter school access to facilities doesn’t exist, especially at the federal level. Reforms like those above can equalize that access, enhancing what is already working well and creating new, efficient programs to ensure that all charter schools — including those that are higher-risk — are able to access financing to meet the demands of today’s and tomorrow’s students.
The Ultimate Guide to Charter School Facility Financing:
Thinking about a new facility for your charter school or enhancing your current one? This guide shares straightforward and actionable advice on facilities planning, financing options, getting approved, choosing a partner, and much more! Download it here.
At Charter School Capital, we believe in the power of charter schools and their leaders to deliver quality education to families across the country. And we’re proud to provide the reliability and stability charter leaders require as they walk their journey to better educate more students today—and in the future. We were honored to get some of our customers and partners to share with us the true impact of charter school capital funding on their students and schools in this short video.
We are the nation’s leading provider of charter school financing including working and growth capital as well as facilities financing. Over the last 10 years, we’ve put more than $1.7 billion to work for 600+ charter schools educating more than 800,000 students across the country. Not only do we provide funding for charter schools, we also provide strategic planning for growth, financial planning, legislative and state budget insights, charter school resources, and an ongoing commitment to charter schools. To learn how some our clients and partners have been impacted by working with us, take a look at the video. The transcript can be found below.
Intro Speaker 1: I think funding for education, in general, is difficult, but in charter schools, we have some additional problems. One example is the hold-back situation Intro Speaker 2: For every dollar we’re spending, we’re suddenly only getting sixty cents back during the current year with the promise that next year we’ll pay you back. I mean that was a serious problem for us. Intro Speaker 3: We’ve made commitments to students, parents, and teachers to provide a high level of education and, unfortunately with the state of the economy and the state of deferrals, we find ourselves having to find different options.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED…
NOT A BANK
Ricardo Mireles, Executive Director, Academia Avance (RM): Starting the relationship with charter school capital is different from what we have experienced with other financial institutions and that they’re very focusing on the viability of the school going forward relative to the charter.
Frank Stucki, Chairman of the Board, Paladin Academy (FS): They have educators on staff, they understand the process, understand what running the school means, so they were different than any other lender that we had talked to. That was refreshing and important. Dr. Bill Spira, Executive Director, Augsburg Fairview Academy (DBS): That’s something I think that is probably different with most banks, is that they really haven’t gotten the message that charter schools are a dynamic small business. Dr. John Biroc, Principal, Charter High School of the Arts (DJB): You know, banks, financial institutions, and that seems to me like an awful lot of work that an awful lot of effort. We have bigger fish to fry. We’re trying to educate kids. And Charter School Capital has always stated to us in one way or another, we believe in you. FS:Their commitment to the industry of charter schools is that I don’t. I don’t know anybody else out there doing that and that’s very, very important.
A RELIABLE OPTION
Becky Meyer, Executive Director, Academy for Science & Agriculture (BM): I never looked at selling receivables previously. Once I understood what it was and how we were going to guarantee our money, then it became a pretty easy process. Paul Okaiteye, Director of Business Services, New Design Charter Schools (PO): It’s helped us to stay afloat, to be able to stay in business for our teachers and all the employees to have the confidence that when I go to work I can give my all and know that by the end of the period when I’m supposed to get my check, they will come on time. DJB: They pay us the money up front and then we have the money to pay our teachers, to buy our textbooks, to keep the place clean, and to keep the whole school running. Sandro Lanni, Founder & President, Charter School Management Corp. (SL): And there isn’t all the legal compliance once a receivable is sold, it’s sold and that’s it. So, it’s just much simpler, cleaner process and a lot of the other options. Skip Hansen, Senior Vice President, Learn4Life (SH): Unless somebody is going to create vehicles in order for charter schools to really grow and have access to cash, then I’m going to open my arms up to any investors in any business that is going to make greater opportunities for kids to have more schools, have more books, hire teachers and all the things that we want to do. DBS: The amount of time you have to spend convincing a skittish banker that you are worth taking the risk, is time you don’t spend focusing on your real needs. And that to me is fundamentally one of the structural values of financing by the sale of receivables. That’s a wonderful model.
A STEADY RELATIONSHIP
Sabrina Bow, Executive Director, New City Public Schools (SB): I view them as a close partner. It’s never been a doubt for me that Charter School Capital is deeply concerned, deeply interested in the well-being of schools. RM: You’ve been working with charter school capital now for four years. They’ve been flexible, and they’ve been very professional, and they’ve allowed us to stay focused on our students. Joanna Koenig, Engagement Director, Clifton/Larsen/Allen (JK): The knowledge that it’s a partnership long-term was very, very important. I don’t know how you can run a school when you never know if next year I’ll get that funding or not. Xavier Reyes, Executive Director, Academia Moderna (XR): They want schools to be healthy financially and otherwise because at the end of the day, who they serve and who we serve are the same people. PO: They’re very professional. They want to get you what you need. BM: They spent a lot of time at our school. They got to know staff members. They got to know students and they worked with us. They seem to be proud of our accomplishments as any one of the members of our community would be. Eric Mahmoud, Founder/CEO, BEST Academy (EM): It was more than just writing us a check. We had a very good relationship during the years that we’ve been using Charter School Capital.
BUILDING ON SOLID GROUND
JK: If we weren’t able to find an organization like charter school capital who was willing and able to provide the funding that we needed, I can’t imagine we would have survived. PO: They have been a lifeline because they have come through for us at times when we needed it the most. And they have done things in the setting of timing that other institutions have not been able to do. DJB: We need them. We need them desperately. And I could see where any charter school under these conditions would need Charter School Capital to keep their school alive. EM: Now, I think it was a good business decision and as a result, we’ve been able to move our children where they need to be academically. XR: If it wasn’t for charter school capital, we would not be here today. We would not be serving those kids that need it really bad. SH: I think we’ve served another 2000 students in the last two years because of the availability of cashflow financing. Those are 2000 kids that could on to cure cancer or do something really great in our society. BM: I think they’re interested in making sure that charter schools are successful and that’s an important piece to me. EM: Based on all the options that were available to us, Charter school capital was the best option.
Sandro Lanni, Founder & President, Charter School Management Corp.: In the end, that is why we’re all here and the bottom line is if this option was not around, there’d be a lot of kids that would not be able to participate in their local charter school because their local charter school would not be open.
Charter School Capital is committed to the success of charter schools and has solely focused on charter school capital funding since the company’s inception in 2007. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to make a difference to students, schools, and communities across the country. Ask us how we can help your school.
On Tuesday, June 5th, Californians will go to the ballot to vote in our Primary Election. There are two major races in the California primary election that will affect the charter school and education reform communities:
• the race for Governor; and
• the race for Superintendent of Public Education.
The race for Governor has turned into a very expensive race that pits education reform groups against the traditional education establishment. The same dynamic is playing out in the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction. To date, education reform supporters have spent over $22 million on both races. The establishment is also spending heavy and I expect the cost for both of the races to exceed $30 when the Primary is over.
The Governor’s Race
The Governor’s race features Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, businessman John Cox, former Mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa, Assemblyman Travis Allen and former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin as the leading candidates. Cox and Allen are the Republicans while the others are Democrats. In all of the polls, Gavin has been the consistent leader while Cox and Villaraigosa have jockeyed for second place.
Under California law, the top two candidates advance to the November General Election. With this in mind, interest groups are going all out to support their respective candidate – and Newsom is the favorite candidate of the Teacher’s Union. Villaraigosa has been the recipient of a multi-million dollar television independent expenditure campaign paid for by the education reformers; Cox is self-funding his campaign but has been endorsed by President Trump. If Newsom prevails, the reformers believe he will crack down on charter schools while Villaraigosa is a strong supporter of charter schools.
If you believe in charter schools or education reform Villaraigosa is the candidate to support.
Ironically, Newsom does not have a long education reform record, but with the money that has been spent against him, he will probably be hostile to their interests if elected. Additionally, Newsom has called for a moratorium on charter schools until conflicts of interest and transparency laws are applied to them.
The race for Superintendent of Public Instruction
The race for Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) has the same dynamics as the Governor’s race but with only two major candidates running who are both Democrats. Again, it is the reformers vs. the education establishment. Marshall Tuck formerly ran Green Dot Public Charter Schools and Mayor Villaraigosa’s schools in Los Angeles. He has a strong education reform record and ran and lost a very close race against the current SPI, Tom Torlakson, in 2014.
The race has seen both sides spend millions in support of their respective candidate. Tony Thurmond is a two-term Assemblyman from the Oakland/Berkley/Richmond area. He currently serves on the Assembly Education Committee and is a strong supporter of the education establishment. If elected he would pursue efforts that would make it harder for charter schools to operate in California.
As with the Governor’s race if you believe in charter schools or education reform Tuck is the candidate to support.
Please remember to get out and vote at the California Primary Election on June 5th.
Elements of Successful Charter School Authorizing
Editor’s note: This post on charter school authorizing was originally published on February 27, 2108, by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and written by Kevin Hesla, the Director of Research and Evaluation at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. In an earlier CHARTER EDtalk with Darlene Chambers Sr. Vice President for Programs and Services, National Charter Schools Institute, we discussed the importance of balance as it pertains to the authorizer/charter school relationship. This is another interesting look at the role of authorizers as examined in the newest NACSA study, Elements of Successful Charter School Authorizing. It not only highlights the essential qualities of successful authorizing as shared in this post but also the essential practices – in four key areas – of successful charter school authorizing.
We think it’s vital to keep tabs on the pulse of all things related to charter schools, including informational resources, and how to support charter school growth. We hope you find this—and any other article we curate—both interesting and valuable.
Strong, thoughtful, and visionary authorizers and authorizing practices are absolutely essential to the continued growth and health of the charter school movement – a movement which aims to provide expanded opportunities to millions of students while also positively reshaping the larger public education landscape. Based on recent national surveys, 16 to 17 percent of parents would choose a charter school for their child if location and capacity were not an issue – indicating that the potential number of charter school students in the U.S. is between 8 and 8.5 million. While parent demand for charter schools remains strong, supply growth has increasing been constrained by several factors, including: facilities access, the talent pipeline (including founding groups, school leaders, and teachers), overall funding and funding equity, authorizer capacity, union and political opposition, and limitations in state laws (including caps on charter growth).
Amidst this environment, the National Alliance, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), and various stakeholders at the national, state, and local levels, are committed to working together to remove these barriers to growth. That is what makes NACSA’s new report on the successful elements of charter school authorizing so important and timely. The best authorizers view their role as supporting school success and not as that of “compliance cop.” As charter school demand continues to exceed supply – the role of strong and visionary authorizers in providing systemic leadership, setting expectations, supporting schools, and helping developing groups overcome obstacles – is more important than ever.
Over the past several years, NACSA convened a panel of researchers and advisors to collaboratively investigate the perspectives and practices of high-performing authorizers compared with a sample of authorizers achieving moderate outcomes. As a result of this research, NACSA identified a list of “practices and [qualities] that appear similar and different across these two groups of authorizers.” These qualities and practices are highly correlated with success; however, the report notes that “additional research is needed to establish casual relationships between authorizer practices and outcomes.”
NACSA found that “while successful authorizers are grounded [in] smart systems and tools, they are [also] empowered to make the best decisions for children through great leadership, institutional commitment, and strong professional judgment.”
Essential Qualities:
Great Leadership: “Great authorizers are dedicated to a mission of giving more children access to better schools through the proactive creation and replication of high-quality charter schools and the closure of academically low-performing ones.” Institutional Commitment: “Great authorizers reflect their institution’s commitment to quality authorizing. Authorizing is visible, championed, and adequately resourced, rather than buried in a bureaucracy. The people responsible for day-to-day authorizing functions have influence over decision making.” Professional Judgement: “Great authorizers make decisions based on what will drive student outcomes, not based on checking boxes or personal beliefs.”
Along with these three essential qualities, NACSA also looked at essential practices among four key areas: culture, staff development, and norms; the application and pre-opening process; monitoring and intervention; and charter school renewal, expansion, and closure. Among these four topic areas, NACSA found a number of practices that differentiate strong authorizers from average authorizers.
“our nation’s strongest authorizers create environments where charter schools thrive [and they] help charter schools live up to their fullest potential.”
Essential Practices:
Culture, Staff Development, and Norms.
High-performing authorizers developed a culture and staff competencies that were grounded in their mission of providing expanded educational opportunities to students and families. They used data as a tool to help drive decision making, but they also applied their professional judgement in interpreting the data and understanding its limitations. They created a culture where staff felt empowered to make decisions and were not “bound by protocols, templates, or other authorizing tools that limit decision making.” High-performing authorizers built strong and supportive relationships with their schools while also drawing a “very clear line between providing support and direction.” They frequently sought out new and best practices from other authorizers (and at times other sectors) and modified them to fit their organizational context. They created an environment with structured and regular opportunities for “staff reflection and self-critique on practices and systems.” They had a “history of long-tenured senior leadership, including multiple long-tenured executive directors.” And they spent a great deal of time developing their staff, including cross-training on other authorizing functions and developing “explicit strategies to ensure a shared understanding of, and expertise in, quality authorizing.” Application and Pre-Opening Process.
High-performing authorizers were transparent in their decision-making process, they often encouraged denied applicants to reapply, and they supported schools in the pre-opening process. They provided applicants and the public with “detailed information about the application process including timelines, evaluation criteria, [and] previously submitted and reviewed applications.” They looked at the application holistically while also ensuring that “all parts of the application [were] internally coherent and reinforcing.” They assessed geographic and community need while being careful not to “specify a preference for specific types of schools.” They used the approved application as a detailed blueprint for the opening and operation of the school. Unlike in other areas of the authorizing practice, high-performing authorizers were “very hands on (sometimes quite intensively) in the pre-opening process” and they used the pre-opening process to “build relationships, set expectations, and provide technical assistance to schools.” In addition, they reviewed their application process after each cycle to improve its efficiency and validity. Monitoring and Intervention.
High-performing authorizers conducted ongoing monitoring that was clearly aligned with the expectations laid out in the charter contract, they did not ask for data that they could easily obtain from public sources, and they used professional judgement in determining if interventions were necessary. High-performing authorizers provided formal and informal feedback to schools so that there was consistency and clarity about where schools stood relative to their expectations. They used “formal site visits to collect information about schools [and] facilitate difficult conversations with schools when needed.” They used a transparent, regular, and predictable system to collect data from schools and they did not ask schools for data that they could easily obtain from public sources. In addition, they used their professional judgement to determine if interventions were necessary and, if so, the specific nature of the intervention. Renewal, Expansion, and Closure.
High-performing authorizers provided clear information about whether or not schools were meeting expectations, they provided incentives for replication and expansion, and they took an active role when a school was closed. High-performing authorizers regularly communicated with schools and alerted them to any potential underperformance or concerns long before formal decision were made about renewal, expansion, or closure. They did not approve replication and expansion plans automatically but they did provide incentives for replication and/or expansion by, for example, reducing per-student oversight fees, expediting the application process, and providing access to facilities. In addition, they took an active role when a school was closed by finding a replacement operator and/or ensuring that students had access to other schools.
The report notes that “authorizing is, ultimately, an intensely human endeavor. Like all bureaucratic functions, authorizing certainly must be grounded in good laws and policies, sound principles and standards, and—day-to-day—smart processes, rubrics, and benchmarks.” But NACSA points out that the best authorizers take a much more proactive approach to their work, specifically “our nation’s strongest authorizers create environments where charter schools thrive [and they] help charter schools live up to their fullest potential.”
We’d love to hear your thoughts and comments on this topic. Please leave them below.
Charter School Capital is committed to the success of charter schools and has solely focused on funding charter schools since the company’s inception in 2007. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.6 billion in support of 600 charter schools that educate 800,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can help your charter school, contact us!
At Charter School Capital, we believe in the power of charter schools and their leaders to deliver quality education to families across the country. And we’re proud to provide the reliability and stability charter leaders require as they walk their journey to better educate more students today—and in the future.
MISSION DRIVEN
Charter School Capital is 100% dedicated to the charter school space and we measure our success by the number of students we serve. Our ultimate goal is to help the charter school movement grow and flourish, and be able to serve more students. We take pride in the social impact that we’re supporting by helping charter schools succeed.
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
We find innovative solutions to your financing challenges and pride ourselves on having the ability to be as creative, flexible, and innovative as possible to meet your specific needs – when you need the support. We take on all the administrative pieces of your financing, so you can focus on your mission—educating students.
DEDICATED & RESPONSIBLE PARTNER
Our in-depth process and procedures ensure that we finance charter schools ethically and responsibly. And, our near-zero percent default rate is a testament to our fiscal responsibility. Our knowledgeable, dedicated team of finance professionals will work together with you to find sustainable solutions to ensure that your school succeeds now—and as you grow.
YOUR SUCCESS IS OUR SUCCESS
When you no longer need Charter School Capital, that means we’ve done our job and your school has become financially stable, successful, and set up for future growth. We want your school to be healthy and your operations sustainable so you can continue to serve more and more students.
Want to see what some of our school partners have to say about working with us? Watch this short video.
To download the Why Partner with Us PDF, click here.
Charter School Capital is committed to the success of charter schools and has solely focused on funding charter schools since the company’s inception in 2007. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.6 billion in support of 600 charter schools that educate 800,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, please contact us. We’d love to work with you! CONTACT US
CHARTER EDtalk: California Charter School Facilities
In this CHARTER EDtalk, Janet Johnson, CMO at Charter School Capital, sits down with Branché Jones, Lobbyist with the Branché Jones Lobbying Firm and Charter School Capital’s Co-Founder, President and CEO, Stuart Ellis, to discuss California charter school facilities. More specifically, they discuss the effects of Proposition 39 and SB740 on how charter schools are able to access funds for their facilities as well as how state-driven programs or laws contribute to the dynamics between the authorizers and the schools. See the video and the transcript below.
Transcript:
Janet Johnson (JJ): Hello and welcome to this edition of CHARTER EDtalk. Today we are speaking with Branché Jones, who is a California lobbyists and consultant who served for seven years as VP of Governmental Affairs for the California Charter School Association. And, we are speaking with Stewart Ellis, CEO of Charter School Capital. We’re going to be talking a little bit about facilities today and board governance. Stuart Ellis (SE): Branché, given all of your expertise and the experience you’ve had impacting charter schools and education in California, tell us a little about – from your perspective – what an authorizer in that role has to do with charter schools and their facilities. Branché Jones (BJ): In California, we have a unique situation where charter schools are actually authorized by their competition because the charter school is going to try to educate and work with the same students that the school district serves, so it’s a unique model that we have in the state. Under Proposition 39, the authorizer is obligated to provide facilities to the charter school for kids that would otherwise go to the school, the traditional school, so there’s a burden to authorize the school, but also the tension that develops because you have to provide facilities for those kids who actually left your traditional schools to go through a charter school. So, it’s a unique situation that creates a lot of tension between the authorizer and charter school. SE: How does that tension reveal itself between authorizing and overseeing a charter versus providing or supporting the school for their facilities? What kind of problems arise between the district and the charter school? BJ: Well, in a different time and place, I was actually a lobbyist for San Francisco Unified School district, and I worked for a superintendent. In that capacity, one of the things the district does is create a facility master plan. So, they look at all the buildings they have, facilities they have, where they are, which ones they need close, which ones they need to renovate, which ones that you have to spend dollars to maintain. So, they’ve got a whole list of things they do. The charter school comes and basically opens up in a part of town—there may be a closed school there—it may impact the district in another way. It’s hard for the district to figure out where the charter school fits in because they haven’t prepared for it in their facility master plan.
Additionally, one of the things that districts do – that we find problematic – is they will provide the charter school multiple sites. So, they’ll give you 60 seats over here, the room for 100 students three blocks away, and another building a mile away. Under that scenario, they have met their Prop 39 obligation, but it becomes impossible or nearly impossible for the charter school to utilize all those facilities. Although some of our folks are very, very creative and they find a way to utilize the facilities. But those are some of the issues that arise between the authorizer and the charter school facilities. SE: You mention Proposition 39 and how it impacts the way the districts and charters work together. Talk a little bit about how SB740 or other state-driven programs or laws contribute to those dynamics either between the authorizer and the school and how that fits into the picture. BJ: Specifically, on SB740, that actually assists the district and assists the charter school because it provides money for facilities. So, the charter school doesn’t have to go to the district. They can rent or lease somewhere else. And actually, if they meet the requirements of SB740, they receive funding for their students. The flip side of SB740, which no one talks about—it was a two-pronged approach. One side was to provide facilities for charter schools in low-income neighborhoods. That’s where it started. But the other side was actually to create regulations around non-classroom-based charter schools. So that side of SB740 has non-classroom-based charter schools filing funding determinations with the state and the state will determine how long they’re funding. It can be up to five years and what percentage they’re funded at. And so, the best thing you’d come out with is five-year funding termination with a hundred percent funding. So that’s a problem with SB740 because no one likes that side. The state doesn’t like to go through the process and charters hate going through this process because there are different bars and percentages you have to make. It becomes pretty complicated.
But you know, when, when we started out, I want to say maybe 15 years ago, maybe 17 years ago, SB740 was $7.7 million for the whole state for charter school facilities. My good friend, former superintended Jack O’Connell, was part of putting that together and helping us get facility money. Be we grew it to nine and then we worked with the speaker of the assembly at the time, president of the state Senate to grow the pot to out a $120 million. So now it’s an excess of $100 million to provide money for charters school facilities. So that actually helps, takes a burden off the district and it allows a charter school to actually be able to plan, enter into a long-term lease, figure out how these costs are going to be met from a school site level. SE: How much money is available to charters on a per-student basis? How does that translate down at the level of the individual school that qualifies for SB740? BJ:To be honest with you, I don’t have the number right now. I don’t remember what it is per student. It was $750 per student, they’ve changed the formula. We’re going through a budget process right now and they’re changing the formula. And the governor wants to get it up to $1,100, and I think the legislature wants to be around $900. So, I’m assuming that it’ll be somewhere around $900 this year. SE: And the funding determination that you mentioned for a non-site-based charter learning models or whatever, do they have access to the same kind of dollar figure and dollar amount if maxed out? BJ:They don’t because they’re non-classroom based, so they don’t have facility costs that the traditional classroom-based charter school has. SE: So those other aspects of the laws don’t give them access to the same money. It just creates limitations on the per-student funding level they have. BJ: It can create limitations. It doesn’t give them access to the SB740 pot. It can create limitations if they don’t spend, I think it’s 80 percent of their money on instructional materials and 40 percent of their money on certificated employees. So, there’s a whole process that the department of education staff goes through examining what you’ve spent, what your budget looks like. You can’t have a lot of money in reserve.
A long time ago, in some faraway place, there were charters that were doing things (not everybody, but some schools) that were questionable with their reserves and how they spent their money. This was the state’s answer to address that. I think it was the incorrect answer, but oftentimes when the state faces a problem, they always impose the incorrect answer. You just have to live under them. So that’s kind of where we are. And the reality is that most charters have now mastered that system. They understand how the process works so they can meet all the requirements that the state puts before you and they’re coming out – in four or five years – with a hundred percent of their funding. SE: You mentioned some things about constraints of resources and the infrastructure that a district has allocating pieces per Prop 39 to schools – whether intended to be helpful or not – given that they’re supervising and authorizing their competition. How has the state or the district and/or charter schools, as you think about it, invest in the infrastructure necessary to support students going forward? Where’s that funding coming from? Or what kind of challenges are there to districts? BJ: And you’re talking about it in terms of school bonds? SE: You’ve got, across the state, existing schools that may, by law be required to be offered to charters, but often those schools are mothballed or broken down or, or really very old facilities that need significant investment to bring them up to a place where they can really serve the student population. What kind of challenges exist there and how is that being addressed? BJ: I’ll say overall, I don’t believe the state is addressing their facility needs when it comes to K through 12 education. On top of that, you apply the pressure of transitional kindergarten programs that the state would like everyone to have. My good friends in Sacramento, at Universal Preschool, there’s a whole number of things they want, the LEAs traditional schools and school districts to do that they don’t have facilities for.
Typically, you have local bonds. The state does every other year, every four years ago, about a $9 billion K through 12 bond. When you think about the school system that has over 6 million kids, that’s not enough. It just can’t keep up with what we’re doing. Excuse me. Not what we’re doing—but [can’t keep up] with the students we’re educating.
But also, you would like to see more bonds. You’d like to see more local bonds, more state bonds, but you have to start thinking about local debt and what’s that doing the taxpayers. Maybe a decade or 15 years ago, we actually reduced the threshold to pass bonds. Local bonds used to be 66.7% or two-thirds and now we’ve reduced it to %. So, you have bonds flying everywhere because you (US political folks) can figure out how to get that 51%. That’s not hard.
But the question is what is that doing to your tax base? And, and on top of that, when you’re a district as large as Los Angeles, how do you equitably set that so all students benefit? When you’re in San Francisco when you are landlocked and there’s no buildings to buy, right? There was like nowhere to buy. You can’t build a new school. So basically, your money is for renovation. The state, when they do the K through 12 school bonds—I think Assemblyman O’Donnell has the bond bill this year for $9 billion—part of that will be for new construction, modernization … you know, you’ve got all these different pots … a charter school pot, etc. so $9 billion isn’t a lot when you’re cutting it four or five ways – so you’re not really meeting your needs.
It’s kind of like infrastructure. We never meet our infrastructure needs in the state and we pay gas tax. I really don’t know where it goes but I’m still having a fifth wheel alignment in my car. Right? Because it’s bumpy. So, I don’t have an answer but we’re not addressing our needs and we need to figure that out. SE: You got any questions for me today? BJ: I do have one question for you. When we talk about school facilities and the tension providing facilities for the charter causes the district, how can Charter School Capital step in there and help them ease that tension or help with growth with the charter school as they prepare to move forward. How can you be helpful with that? SE: I think you mentioned some of the constraints and the lack of resources available when we go through taxpayers and support from the government agencies out there that are supposed to do that. And I think one of the things that Charter School Capital has been able to do over the past decade-plus that we’ve been funding charter schools, (starting here in California) is to bring private capital from outside the government and outside the taxpayer base to support the building and creation of that infrastructure necessary for schools to flourish. And, to be able to deliver that in a way that is more efficient perhaps than the way a government money is provided and customized for the solutions that the schools need to create to serve their underlying families and student populations.
So, we’ve been able to bring that to bear, particularly in California, and although it may not be enough to support all of public education, the $1.6 billion-plus that we’ve now invested in charter schools in our history is actually quite significant when combined with government funding. That allows schools to both support their long-term facilities needs and do so in a way where it’s customized. It’s not scattered across campuses. They can’t get kicked out of the facility after two or three years or see their rent or debt service rise drastically. But they also have access through us to the operational capital and growth capital they need to hire and invest in the programs, teachers, technology and things to really make their program work within whatever facility they have.
And so they have access to the funds in a reliable way. And then the expertise that comes also from our organization – outside of the money – we funded now over 600 schools supporting more than 800,000 students. That expertise really allows us to help charter school leaders utilize the money in the most efficient and effective way to deliver the best quality programs to the students and families that they serve or have picked their programs as the best thing that public education can offer in California. BJ: We really need to figure out how to make that fact known. I think that the number of students served is an incredible number and that’s something that you should be yelling from rooftops. Making sure people are aware of that. And also, on the facilities side, we should work hard to find a way to partner with districts and say, hey, we have a solution to your Prop 39 problem. I think those are two takeaways we can have. SE: It may be that frankly, because the capital we have available for schools to take advantage of, I think working with the districts to either pay for or acquire [facilities] so that the district can actually have more funds going in. Then we can take advantage of or acquire the underlying facilities to serve the charters and then invest money that the district or local agencies don’t have to put to work. And we can actually turn some of these aging facilities into properties and educational facilities that charter schools can leverage to really deliver customized solutions for the underlying families and where they have an investor willing to add to and enhance the underlying property. SE: People don’t get to see you very often. You are behind the scenes working on these things, but I just want to say, having worked with you for years, and seeing the impact you’ve had on education in California, I don’t think people really appreciate the impact that you’ve personally had on the growth of charter school movement in California and across the country. And it’s always been a privilege to work with you. BJ: I appreciate that. Appreciate those kind words. And you know, I love working with Charter School Capital. And I think that everything we can do to promote what’d you’ve done for students and the schools you’ve helped stay open when we’re going through deficits and deferrals in the state, the impact you had. I think sometimes folks don’t understand that, but it was huge, and I think a lot of charter school people who’ve worked with you and then you’ve actually helped out—they get it. But we’d always need to remember that. So, thank you. SE: A pleasure. JJ: And, with that, thank you, Branché, for coming in and speaking with us today and thank you, Stuart, for your time. And thank you for listening in on this latest CHARTER EDtalk.
Charter School Capital is committed to the success of charter schools and has solely focused on funding charter schools since the company’s inception in 2007. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.6 billion in support of 600 charter schools that educate 800,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, contact us!
Fulfilling the Charter School Promise: Accountability Matters; So Do Freedom, Fair Funding, and Strong Operators
Editor’s note: This post was originally published here by The74 and written by Andrew Lewis, an education and political consultant and the former longtime executive vice president of the Georgia Charter Schools Association. Charter schools operate within a framework of flexibility for accountability. At first glance, this may seem like a simple equation, but in fact, is quite a complex formula that involves the schools, the authorizers, the state, the boards of directors, the districts and communities in which charter schools operate, etc. This article is an enlightening look at the players involved in fulfilling the public charter school promise. It examines the need for more balance as it relates to regulation of charter schools—with too much regulation threatening the flexibility promise of those schools. We discussed the need for balance between the authorizers, governing board, and resources in this CHARTER EDtalk with Darlene Chambers. This post is similar but highlights the consequences of over-regulation by state policymakers, as well as the responsibilities of authorizers and school boards, and then touches on the accountability of the schools to live up to their end of the contract. We think it’s vital to keep tabs on the pulse of all things related to charter schools, including informational resources, and how to support charter school growth. We hope you find this—and any other article we curate—both interesting and valuable.
Public charter schools, at the concept’s simplest, can be thought of in mathematical terms: flexibility under state education law + autonomy of decision-making by the governing body of the school + the highest accountability in public K-12 education = increased student achievement.
The equation is simple, but the reality of the equation is brutally complicated. The difficulties for those attempting quality reforms through chartering are made more challenging by district leaders and state policymakers, as well as many charter schools that sign up for the charter promise and then want to look the other way when accountability comes into play.
Nationally, the above charter-sector equation too often comes up short. The inability to make this 1+1+1=3 formula work leaves charters mired in an unfulfilled promise with, in practically every state, inequitable student funding. This scenario creates an environment for academic and operational failure. For state policymakers and local boards of education, these sets of circumstances are either unintentional, and therefore irresponsible, or intentional, and therefore immoral.
The 2017 University of Arkansas study “Charter School Funding: Inequity in the City” compared charter school funding with that of traditional public schools in 14 major metropolitan areas across the United States. The study notes that “public charter schools receive an average of $5,721 less per-pupil than traditional public schools, which represents a funding gap of 29 percent.”
State policymakers are fortunate that they rarely have to explain to parents of charter school students that their child is worth, on average, 70 cents on the dollar.
The first part of the charter school promise is intended to free up charter schools from bureaucracies that often thwart innovation in the classroom or at the school level. The broad flexibility that is supposed to be afforded is far too often a mirage. State and local policies, rules, and guidance continue to undermine the flexibility to innovate, making many charter schools across the country nothing more than a charter school in name only. Providing “flexibility” under state law and then passing laws, rules, and guidance that strip away that very same flexibility goes counter to the charter promise and is bad policymaking.
Benjamin J. Lindquist, a venture philanthropist and grantmaker who spent 22 years as an Arkansas charter school operator, warns, “If overregulation isn’t fixed, it won’t just stifle the charter sector’s growth. It will erode the performance and sustainability of existing schools because they’ll gradually lose the capacity to perform in a flexible, responsive fashion.”
Lindquist highlights his state’s tendency to over-regulate by subjecting charter schools to monitoring from 13 different divisions of four separate state agencies, each with its own unique set of requirements. These burdens are on top of other layers of bureaucratic mandates.
Unfortunately, similar creep continues to spread across the nation, keeping charter schools from their promise — to ultimately be responsible for outcomes (student achievement) as opposed to unnecessary and overbearing inputs.
“America’s charter schools resemble an artist who is expected to paint masterpieces while forced to wear thick mittens.”
Chester Finn, president emeritus at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, noted in the 2010 study “Charter School Autonomy: A Half-Broken Promise,” “America’s charter schools resemble an artist who is expected to paint masterpieces while forced to wear thick mittens. Our policymakers and school authorizers, by and large, have not fulfilled their part of the grand ‘bargain’ that undergirds the charter school concept: that these new and independent schools will deliver solid academic results for needy kids in return for the freedom to do it their own way. There’s been plenty of attention in recent years to the results side of that bargain, but precious little to the freedom side.”
The role of a charter school authorizer, whether a local board of education or a dedicated state authorizer, is to provide quality oversight, ensuring the charter school is meeting the obligations set in its charter contract. It is then up to the governing board of the charter school to make decisions on mission, vision, and other determinations the board deems is in the school community’s best interest.
This is an area that requires far more out of local districts and state policymakers. Authorizers are often quick to meddle in the decision-making of a charter school board, influencing decisions through various means.
Georgia, where I have worked in the charter sector for 15 years, is an example of the broken promise to charters. In recent years, my state has:
mandated how charters are to assess their teachers and leaders
dictated goals in charter contracts that are not charter-specific
undermined state law allowing high-achieving charter schools to receive a 10-year renewal by adopting a State Board of Education rule capping all renewals to five years (who knew a rule is stronger than the law?)
Georgia, like so many other chartering states, continues down a path of adding layer upon layer of bureaucracy in charter contracts, in law and in rule, causing charter schools to resemble traditional public schools rather than the laboratories of innovation they are supposed to be.
And what is a charter school board to do if it finds such meddling erroneous? It is a rare occasion when a charter school board takes its authorizer or the state to task, fearing retribution down the line. Call it human nature or what you will, there is a reluctance to challenge the very entity that holds your life in its hands.
At the same time, boards of charter schools in too many cases have also failed their constituents on the charter promise. Too many charter school boards do not provide a level of quality governance and oversight necessary for the charter school to operate satisfactorily. Unwieldy, incestuous and unreliable charter school boards are too common across the country. Charter schools must do a better job of instilling strong governance through committed community members with varying backgrounds if the charter is to fulfill its promise. Where you find a strong charter school, I will show you good governance and committed leaders who understand their roles and responsibilities.
The last part of the charter equation we all must better understand is accountability. If a charter school is not living up to its obligations, it runs the risk of closure, the highest accountability in public K-12 education. But authorizer accountability needs to be consistent and fact-based, something that is lacking across the nation.
Authorizers must do their due diligence to make sure any closure or reprimand of a charter school is done as part of a transparent and thorough process. It is unfair to any charter school and the parents and students the charter serves to reprimand or close the school without providing the charter with opportunities to first understand and then remedy the issues at hand.
To increase standards across the United States, we must start holding charter authorizers accountable. Policies must hold charter authorizers accountable similar to how we hold an individual charter school accountable. If an authorizer, which is receiving funding from the very charter schools it oversees, is unable to perform its duties for its charters, shouldn’t the authorizer lose the ability to authorize altogether? States need to look at the example set by Minnesota, which has shut down 40 of its 70 charter school authorizers in recent years.
For charter schools not meeting their obligations academically and/or operationally to their various constituencies — do not complain about the very accountability you signed up for in your charter contract. Accountability matters. Failing to recognize appropriate accountability in the charter sector makes the sector hypocritical toward the standards we say we live by.
So the next time we read about a charter school closure, we must consider how policymakers, charter school authorizers, and charter schools themselves have all played a role in an unfulfilled promise to children and families. The promise is a good one.
Now everyone needs to uphold their end of the bargain.
We’d love to hear your thoughts on this complex issue. Please post them below.
Since the company’s inception in 2007, Charter School Capital has been committed to the success of charter schools. We provide growth capital and facilities financing to charter schools nationwide. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.6 billion in support of 600 charter schools that educate 800,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can support your charter school, contact us. We’d love to work with you!
On Friday the Governor released his 2018-2019 California budget May Revision. Below are some highlights compiled by our partners at Capitol Advisors.
Overall, the 2018-2019 California budget May Revision contains positive news for California’s economy, General Fund revenues, and Proposition 98 funding. We have known for several months that tax revenues are higher than what was projected in the January budget proposal, but several variables related to the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee formulas indicated that recent increases in tax receipts would not result in significant additional 2018-19 funding for schools. That view is confirmed in the May Revision – however, the fairly strong growth in the Proposition 98 guarantee projected in the January budget proposal is retained in the May Revision. The minimum guarantee for K-14 schools is slightly higher ($68 million) in the May Revision compared to the January proposal, which is good news given recent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) analyses suggesting that the Proposition 98 guarantee might actually end up lower than January estimates.
Highlights of the 2018-19 California Budget May Revision
• $142 billion General Fund resources available
• $137.6 billion General Fund spending (including transfers)
• $17 billion total state budget reserves
• $78.4 billion Proposition 98 Guarantee
• $3.3 billion increase for LCFF (over 2017-18)
• “Full implementation” includes 2.71% COLA
• Proposes an additional $166 million increase to base grants
• $2 billion one-time, discretionary funding (roughly $344 per ADA)
• Retains recognition and funding for county office support role
• No major K-12 policy/funding changes from January
Governor Brown’s Press Conference
Governor Jerry Brown appeared in a good mood as he seemed to ad lib his way through a stack of familiar charts indicating that good budget years are always followed by bad budget years. Governor Brown reminded the audience of Sir Isaac Newton’s observation that “what goes up, must come down,” and with regard to fiscal prudence and the budget surplus he intends to leave his successor, he added, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: let’s not blow it now.”
Consistent with the last several budget proposals from this Administration, Governor Brown focused on the importance of maintaining a large reserve in anticipation of the next recession; significant one-time investments ($2 billion) for state infrastructure; a mixture of ongoing and one-time expenditures for public schools; addressing poverty (including homelessness, health care, child care, etc.); and combatting climate change.
Early comments from leaders in the Legislature are supportive of the Governor’s fiscal approach and are also mostly supportive of his various program and funding proposals.
Revenues, General Fund and Budget Reserves
Compared to January, and after accounting for transfers (which include both required (Proposition 2) and discretionary budget reserve and debt payments), the May Revision forecasts General Fund revenues to be higher by almost $2.6 billion in 2017-18 and more than $3.7 billion higher in 2018-19. Most of that increase is from higher personal income tax revenues related mainly to stock market gains through the end of 2017, although a fair amount also comes from higher corporate tax revenues related to new incentives (repatriation of foreign earnings) from federal tax reforms.
Including the prior year balance, the May Revision identifies $142 billion in total resources available for 2018-19, proposes $137.6 billion of spending (including reserve and debt transfers) with an ending fund balance of $4.4 billion.
The Proposition 2 automatic transfers amount to $3.5 billion, with half going to repay state debt and the other half going to the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA or Rainy Day budget reserve). The May Revision retains the January proposal to make a discretionary transfer to fully fund the BSA at 10% of General Fund revenues, which equates to a BSA fund of about $13.8 billion by the end of 2018-19. An additional $3.2 billion proposed for the discretionary reserve for economic uncertainties would leave the state with about $17 billion in General Fund reserves.
Proposition 98 and LCFF Funding
The May Revision calculates the 2018-19 Proposition 98 guarantee to be $78.4 billion, which includes a very small $68 million increase over the January proposal. For those of you following the LAO reports and our prior updates on variables impacting the Proposition 98 guarantee, the slight 2018-19 increase is largely dependent on an assumption of an attendance growth of about 600 students in 2017-18. This has the effect of resetting a Proposition 98 provision providing a one-year delay in accounting for the attendance decrease of about 16,000 students projected for 2018-19 (in other words, the 2018-19 guarantee is not adjusted downward for this loss of attendance – that adjustment will likely be made next year). Additional variables include a shift from Test 3 to Test 2, payment of the remaining maintenance factor and changes in per-capita income growth. We’ll cover all these issues in detail at our May Revision Workshops.
The Proposition 98 guarantees for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are also shifted upwards in the May Revision, resulting in about $660 million of additional funding. The increases of about $730 million over the three-year budget period allow the Governor to provide additional ongoing and one-time resources for K-14 education, including for LCFF and one-time discretionary funding.
The Governor achieves “full implementation” of LCFF as planned in his January proposal, with a few minor adjustments. In the January proposal, LCFF was increased by just over $2.9 billion. A COLA of 2.71% instead of 2.51% requires additional funding of over $150 million, and the Governor proposes a $166 million increase to base funding as well. It is not clear whether the additional base funding is a partial response to the Senate proposal to increase LCFF funding by $1.2 billion, or whether it is simply to achieve the round number of a 3% increase to the formula. In any case, compared to the 2017 Budget Act, LCFF funding is increased by roughly $3.3 billion, so a little more than what was proposed in the January proposal.
As you know, many supporters of public education are reminding the Governor, the Legislature and the public of the severely insufficient level of per-pupil funding in California. While achieving full implementation of the LCFF is a positive outcome, much work needs to be done to ensure our students are provided the educational resources necessary to compete on an equal footing with their peers in other states with respect to entering the workforce or advancing to higher education.
One-Time Discretionary Funding
Consistent with his fiscally conservative approach over the last several budget cycles, the Governor avoids any significant ongoing expenditures other than for LCFF, and again proposes a large one-time funding expediture. The May Revision adds $286 million to the January proposal of $1.8 billion, bringing one-time discretionary funding to just over $2 billion. This comes out to about $344 per ADA for 2018-19, and a total of almost $8 billion in one-time funding over a five year period, a trend that is not likely to continue at this level for much longer. These funds continue to count as an offset to any outstanding mandated costs reimbursement claims by local education agencies (LEAs).
Other Programs and Issues
Fiscal Transparency
The 2018-2019 California funding May Revision expands upon the January proposal for a budget summary aligning school district expenditures to LCAP strategies. The updated proposal specifies that this information be displayed in a parent-friendly format that includes graphics (when possible) and additional information that explains how supplemental and concentration funds are being used to increase and improve services for eligible students.
County Offices of Education (COEs) and Accountability
The January proposal recognized the important role of COEs in the state’s new accountability system and proposed $55 million in ongoing funds to support their work to provide assistance to school districts under the LCFF/LCAP structure. The January proposal also included a $4 million competitive grant program for eight individual COEs to act as resource and training centers for other COEs.
The May Revision does not propose any changes to the COE funding provided in January, and this funding appears to have support in the Legislature, so we expect this funding to be included in the final budget. There are some minor changes related to funding for the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) and for the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT).
Proposition 98 and LCFF Technical Adjustments
The Governor also makes a technical proposal related to future funding of the LCFF COLA, and two additional technical proposals related to the Proposition 98 Guarantee, which could result in future impacts on funding for K-12 education. First, the Governor proposes to put the annual cost of living adjustment applied to LCFF base grants on auto-pilot (making them part of the “continuous appropriation”), meaning that there would not have to be a separate action in the annual budget act to fund the LCFF COLA.
The Governor also proposes to move the responsibility for making the final calculation (called “certification”) of the Proposition 98 Guarantee for any given fiscal year to the Department of Finance (DOF), while current law creates a joint responsibility between the Director of DOF and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Finally, the Governor proposes to rebench (or recalculate) the Guarantee to include child care expenditures that were used by the state to meet the Guarantee in 2015-16. If expenditures on programs that were previously funded outside of Proposition 98 are counted toward meeting the Guarantee, then the Proposition 98 Guarantee should be expanded to provide for those expenditures. This was not done when funding for full-day State Preschool wraparound services provided by LEAs was brought under Proposition 98 in 2015-16. The Governor’s proposal would resolve this issue.
Career Technical Education (CTE)
As we mentioned in our review of the January budget proposal, the future of CTE funding and support is an ongoing topic of discussion between the Governor and the Legislature. We are currently in the last year of the CTE Incentive Grant Program, which provided $900 million over the past three years to encourage the creation and expansion of high-quality CTE programs. Members of the Legislature have proposed extending and expanding this program, while the Governor in January countered with a $200 million program to establish a K-12 specific component of the Strong Workforce Program administered by the Community College system.
As expected, since no one thought that the Governor would start negotiating with himself, the Governor maintains his proposal to provide $200 million for K-12 CTE through the Strong Workforce Program. He also makes no change to the $12 million in funding for technical assistance.
The 2018-2019 California budget May Revision continues to advance the Governor’s position that the LCFF 9-12 grade-span adjustment (2.6% of the LCFF 9-12 base grant) accounts for the higher cost of delivering CTE at the high school level, and that a separate CTE program is not necessary. CTE advocates and members of the Legislature continue to object to this revised view of how CTE programs have been, and should be, funded.
The Administration does partially respond to some of the criticisms of the January CTE proposal, clarifying:
• Grant decisions for the K-12 component will be made exclusively by the K-12 Selection Committee.
• Requirements that apply to the new K-12 component of the Strong Workforce Program.
• A role for the Technical Assistance Providers established under the California Career Pathways Trust Program, and further clarifying roles and responsibilities of the Workforce Pathway Coordinators.
• Additional resources are available to the consortia for administering the regional grant process, including resources to support the K-12 Selection Committee duties.
Again, as expected, this will be an item of negotiation between the Governor and the Legislature. Most Legislative Members are holding their position that K-12 CTE funding should be administered by the CDE, and flow through to K-12 entities directly without community college intervention. The feeling in the Legislature is that providing that funding through the CTE Incentive Grant is the common-sense way to proceed. The good news remains that the Governor continues to propose the $200 million in ongoing funding for K-12 CTE, rather than eliminating state funding altogether at the conclusion of the current three-year program.
Community Engagement and Improving School Climate
The Administration proposes to $13.3 million in one-time Prop 98 funds to create a Community Engagement Initiative to “help communities and school districts engage more effectively when developing LCAPs.” They also propose $15 million in one-time Prop 98 funds to the Butte and Orange County Offices of Education to be used to contract with a California institution of higher learning to expand the state’s Multi-Tiered System of Support framework to foster positive school climate in both academic and behavioral areas, including but not limited to, positive behavior interventions and support, restorative justice, bullying prevention, social and emotional learning, trauma-informed practice, and cultural competency.
Miscellaneous
While special education, the educator shortage, early learning and child care, and other programs and issues continue to receive a lot of attention in the Legislature and among advocates, the Governor’s May Revision does not include any major new initiatives related to these programs and issues.
Your Ultimate Digital Marketing for Charter Schools Guide is here!
Scratching your head as to how to go about implementing digital marketing for your charter school? You’re not alone!
You probably already know that having a digital marketing strategy is important for raising awareness, fundraising, meeting your enrollment targets, and creating a network of champions that will nurture your school over the long term. The goal of digital marketing is to get the right message in front of the right person at the right time—and in a meaningful way. It sounds simple, but it takes a surprising amount of strategy.
Because we understand that it can feel like a daunting task in your already-busy schedule, we wanted to help take the guesswork out of digital marketing and support you with the tools you need for success! In this power-packed, 57-page workbook, you’ll get the ins and outs of refining your school’s message, setting strategic marketing goals, and achieving them through a variety of digital marketing programs.
We truly set out to make it as straightforward as possible for you build and follow through on a simple digital marketing strategy that will help your school achieve its goals.
In it we cover:
Setting your marketing goals
Determining your audience
Understanding your differentiators
Messaging and positioning
Marketing tactics
Managing and optimizing your school’s website
Paid media
Social media
Email marketing
Handy worksheets
… and much, much, more!
Digital Marketing for Charter Schools: An Actionable Workbook to Help You Achieve Your School’s Goals!
This, our most recent guide will be your go-to guide for all of your school’s digital marketing needs! This manual will help you get your marketing plans started, guide you as you define your audience, differentiators, pick your tactics, and start to build your campaigns.
Charter schools help create educational choice. That’s why Charter School Capital only works with charter schools – we believe in the power of charter schools and their leaders to deliver quality education. We wanted to celebrate the achievements of exceptional charter schools across the country, so we’ve launched our Charter School Capital Honor Roll 2018 and started our inaugural year by honoring some of the exceptional charter schools in the beautiful state of Arizona! Learn more about Arizona charter schools here.
ABOUT THE HONOR ROLL
The Charter School Honor Roll is a celebration of charter schools with high growth, student achievement, or community service. Honor Roll schools are awarded a special gift, free admission for one to the Southwest Charter Convention, and will be honored at an exclusive dinner at the September event.
We’re very excited to share the incredible schools that have been selected for the 2018 Arizona Honor Roll. Did you make the list? Curious who did? Would you like to nominate a school for 2019?
Charter School Capital is committed to the success of charter schools and has solely focused on funding charter schools since the company’s inception in 2007. Our depth of experience working with charter school leaders and our knowledge of how to address charter school financial and operational needs have allowed us to provide over $1.6 billion in support of 600 charter schools that educate 800,000 students across the country. For more information on how we can help support your charter school, contact us!
