Author: Grow Schools, formerly Charter School Capital
JOIN US AT THE 2018 NATIONAL CHARTER SCHOOLS CONFERENCE
We are excited for you to join us in Austin, Texas, for the National Charter Schools Conference (NCSC18), June 17-20! Did you know they’re expecting nearly 4,500 attendees? There will also be over 260 exhibitors on site who provide the resources and support that help charter schools succeed.
You’ll find all of the vendors in the Exhibit Hall. Please be sure to stop by and visit with us at the Charter School Capital booth (#1307).
Share the charter school love to receive a special prize! It’s as easy as 1-2-3:
Grab the We Love Charter Schools fan (find it in your registration bag)
Take a photo with it using the hashtag #welovecharterschools
Then share on Twitter for a chance to win a special prize!
Also in the Exhibit Hall, you’ll find a Charter Talks stage, including TED Talk-style presentations from school leaders and advocacy thought-leaders, live music, and book chats and signings. They will also be hosting a coffee bar and providing boxed lunches to keep us all fully charged throughout these busy days.
Ready to network? Come to the Happy Hour on Sunday night, 6-8 p.m.! We’ll be there and are looking forward to meeting other fellow charter movement enthusiasts!
We’re honored to be presenting two brand new sessions at this year’s National Charter Schools Conference:
Top Five Financial Mistakes Charter Schools Make … And How to Avoid Them
Whether your school is growing student enrollment, expanding facilities, or implementing new educational programs, we can all agree that a school’s financial wellness is one of the most important aspects of running a successful charter organization. Without sound financial wellness, schools close, regardless of how successful they were at educating students. Get armed with the right knowledge, techniques, and materials to ensure financial success and learn how to avoid the pitfalls that may cause trouble.
Charter School Budgeting Best Practices: Don’t Just Survive—Thrive!
Since the opening of Charter School Capital 10 years ago, we’ve reviewed thousands of charter school budgets. Year after year, we see common mistakes many charter schools make when budgeting for their academic year. Hear from charter school finance experts as they give you a breakdown of budgeting best practices to help you have a financially successful academic year. Don’t just survive — thrive!
To learn more about the sessions, set up a 1:1 time to meet with us, or add them to your calendar, click here. And don’t worry, if you can’t be there in person, we’ll be live streaming the sessions on our Facebook page. Be sure to follow us so you don’t miss a thing!
Get the most out of your time at a conference with these handy tips
Before the conference:
Build relationships! If you know of people you want to reconnect with or get to know better who will be attending—clients, vendors, friends-of-friends—reach out a few weeks before the conference to set up a time to meet for coffee or a meal while you’re at the event.
Plan your sessions – Try to attend a range of topics, skill-building sessions, and social events, but make sure to allow for downtime. It’s all about making the most of your time there.
Know which conference social activities you plan on attending ahead of time so you can set up some great networking opportunities!
At the conference:
Connect with the speakers of all the sessions you attend.
Use Google docs to collaborate and share session notes with your team. If time is short, list the “immediate actions” you gathered from your sessions–even just the three key takeaways and any notes on follow-ups you’d like to do on the topic or with the speakers.
Keep a list of vendors you spoke to on the exhibit floor for solutions to future needs. And, so they don’t get lost at the bottom of your swag bag, bring an empty business card case to keep those cards handy for later!
After the conference:
Within a week of returning from the event, send a personal follow-up to everyone you met to let them know you enjoyed meeting them
If you met anyone you specifically want to do business or build a relationship with, set up a phone call or face-to-face meeting.
Not everyone is able to attend conferences in person. Be generous with your new information, inspiration, and contacts you made at the conference by sharing them with your fellow co-workers, colleagues, and friends!
WE HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE!
Charter School Resource: Toolkit for New School Development
Editor’s Note: The start-up stage includes the very first tasks required to form a charter school: hiring, launching, and running until 10 – 25% of your target enrollment has been achieved. Without a doubt, this is the most challenging and stressful stage for charter school leaders. If you’re at this stage now and you’re feeling overwhelmed, you’re not alone. We found this charter school resource and hope that the toolkit we share provides helpful tips for you and your team to develop a strong charter, build culture and community support, and supports your growth.
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.
New School Development: A Toolkit for Charter Support Organizations and Charter School Founders
Opening & Expanding, Operations & Compliance, Leadership, Facilities
TOOLKITS|THE NATIONAL CHARTER SCHOOL RESOURCE CENTER|10 APR, 2018 Planning & Designing, Starting a Charter School, Communications, State Reports, Educators, Charter School Family and Community, Recruitment & Retention, Opening & Expanding, Operations & Compliance, Leadership DOWNLOAD TOOLKIT HERE
The National Charter School Resource Center (NCSRC) released a new toolkit to help Charter Support Organizations (CSOs) and charter school founders find key resources on opening a new charter school. The number of new charter schools opening each year is down in many states. Founding groups report a variety of challenges that make it more difficult to open new schools, including securing affordable and appropriate facilities and estimating enrollment or recruiting students, among many others.
In response to these challenges, the NCSRC has designed a navigational toolkit that provides a wide array of publicly available New School Design (NSD) resources from across the country. These NSD resources focus primarily on supporting founding groups during the planning and start-up phases of a charter school’s life cycle. Founding groups can use this toolkit to research CSO NSD services, find advice from charter school founders, and explore NSD resources to strengthen their understanding of what it takes to open a new charter school. This toolkit was developed with four main sources of data:
Interviews with experts at state-wide CSOs that support NSD
Questionnaire responses from charter school founders
Reports from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Research on NSD resources
You can download the Excel spreadsheet referenced in the toolkit here.
The Charter School Growth Manual
Although charter schools are champions of educational diversity, they typically face similar sets of challenges and encounter the same potential pitfalls, regardless of their focus, location, or population.
For this charter school resource guide, we turned to our wide network of charter school experts for best practices and strategies for success at every stage of maturity. All of the advice in this book comes from experienced charter school leaders who have been where you are now—they understand what you’re facing and the pitfalls to avoid.
Whether you’re just beginning the process of starting up a charter school, looking to expand, or trying to prioritize your next steps, download this guide to get expert tips and pitfalls to avoid as you grow.
San Tan Learning Center Grows with Charter School Capital Financing
In this school spotlight, we’re so proud to share how Charter School Capital financing helped San Tan Learning Center, an Arizona charter school, fund their growth and provide the stability they needed so they could stand alone.
San Tan Learning Center began its third year partnering with Charter School Capital to manage the school’s incredible growth since the school was formed in 2006. In that time, the school has grown from 250 students housed in a single 20,000 square foot campus to more than 650 students on two campuses totaling more than 60,000 square feet. That type of “whirlwind growth,” as Dr. Kris Sippel, Principal of San Tan Learning Center, refers to it, means that the school has increased their need for ongoing access to growth capital for more desks, computers, and space to house the students.
A few years ago, a lapse in funding by the State of Arizona combined with the school’s rapid growth meant the staff at San Tan Learning Center, based in Gilbert, Arizona, found themselves wondering where the money was going to come from to meet their changing needs. “I remember sitting in my office thinking ‘how am I going to get that $200,000 that I need’?” recalls. Sippel. “I was going through the mail and came across a postcard from Charter School Capital so I put in a call and a staff member called me back right away to talk about our needs. Their team got me comfortable with the process, pulled the documents together and presented to our Board of Directors.”
“It is a big relief to know that, with Charter School Capital, our organization can stand alone.”
~Dr. Kris Sippel, Principal
Dr. Sippel recognizes that at first, his board was hesitant. “They were worried about fees and paying back a loan with interest,” says Dr. Sippel. However, once the board understood that the funds provided by Charter School Capital were not a loan, the solution was embraced. “This doesn’t have all the rigmarole of a loan.” Dr. Sippel explains, “when I need funds, I get an email from Charter School Capital, process the paperwork, and provide the documents to get the funding –it’s so streamlined, it’s beautiful.”“It is a big relief to know that, with Charter School Capital financing, our organization can stand alone.”Dr. Kris SippelPrincipal
Growth and success for San Tan Learning Center means that they are able to provide quality middle and K-6 education to local students in their community.Dr. Sippelknows that what the school has to offer is unique,“we are a very family-oriented community; it just feels different at San Tan.” And he recognizes that Charter School Capital offered the school an equally unique experience, “Charter School Capital has done such a good job making us feel a part of something –that’s rewarding. You don’t get that feeling at a bank –the relationship piece just isn’t there.”
Dr. Sippel concludes with some advice for other charter schools experiencing rapid growth and facing financial concerns, “Ask yourself, ‘who’s going to sign a bank’s personal guarantee?’ Because it is a big deal; at least it was for me.” But Charter School Capital financing changes all of that. When describing the process, Dr. Sippel refers to something he calls the “3 F’s”: “Finding. Funding. Fast. That’s what they did the first time and that’s what they continue to do.” “It is a big relief to know that, with Charter School Capital, our organization can stand alone.”
CHARTER EDtalk: Board Governance- Episode 2, Featuring Darlene Chambers
Board Governance – Episode 2 transcript: Janet Johnson (JJ): Good morning everyone and welcome to CHARTER EDtalk. We are here with our fabulous guest, Darlene Chambers, who is the Senior Vice President for the National Institute for Charter Schools, did I get that right? Darlene Chambers (DC): Yes, you did. It’s a mouthful. But good morning. [all laugh] JJ: … and Stewart Ellis, who is the CEO of Charter School Capital. Welcome. Stuart Ellis (SE): It’s wonderful to be here, Janet. JJ: Thank you. And in our CHARTER EDtalk, what we’re doing is speaking with in industry luminaries to get their perspectives on things that are facing charter school leaders. And, for this session, we are going to be talking about board governance. So, Stuart, if you’d like to kind of talk through some questions that you’ve prepared for Darlene, we’re going to talk through how boards should behave in support of their charter schools. SE: Sounds great. Thanks. DC: What a pleasure to be with your whole team. I want to thank you for what you do nationally to provide both facilities and finance for the charter sector. There are many that think charter schools are a risk. Perhaps they are sometimes, but you believe in them and you make sure they have the resources. So, thank you for what you do and it’s a pleasure to be with your whole team. SE: Thank you. It’s a privilege for all of us to be working with you. As you tour the country and think about—really as an authorizer, as an educator, as a leader now in the movement nationwide—and you’ve probably looked at more schools than most people have had an opportunity to be associated with in the industry—I wonder if you could share a little bit about the recent Fordham report and analysis and thoughts that came from that (your own) about what makes, or what drives the success of one charter school versus another—and issues around board management, board governance, and leadership. DC: Thank you. I want to give the context of what I can contribute to this talk. I think it’s optimum that we’re starting with board governance. If I had to pick an area of greatest confusion, it is who the charter is with and who the various players are. And charter school boards are the base. They are very important. They hold the charter.
As I go around the country, the institute is in 28 different states and we have 45 states that have charter school law and there’s one common denominator that can be the success or potentially the failure of a charter school and that is the base foundation—the charter school board. I am thrilled that one of my favorite entities, Fordham, is a great think tank in both Washington and they do have an office in Ohio, so I got to know them when I worked in Ohio.
It’s the first report of its kind that tries to quantify board governance. What part of board governance makes a difference in the success of the school? What helps make a high performing school, what type of board, what type of attributes? This particular study, Charter School Boards in the Nation’s Capital, just got released, and it particularly focuses on the DC Charter School Board and as it looks at it, it can take its facts and findings and take it across the country because what they found – the highlights for me –was when you have a successful charter school, you have a board that is trained, that takes a look at facts and data, meets, and is engaged and involved. And then we look at each other and go, well, we already knew that, but there’s actually data that goes with it. They contracted with the Bellwether Group to do a survey and they scientifically looked at the data to develop the report. So, thank you to Fordham. I hope there are those that read it. We already felt and knew what they said about board training is important. Engagement is incredibly number one, and that you have to get together, and you have to know what boards need to do to connect to the school and help us with its performance. SE: When you think about coming out of the analysis by Fordham – but also your own experience – when you think about the things that boards can be or should be trained on, what are the kind of high- level subjects that a board member needs to know to be excellent at guiding the school to success? DC: I’m not sure, Stuart, that people know that you’ve been a board member yourself. Of not one school, but I think two schools at least. And I’ve been a founding board member myself and I think one of your board assignments was as a founding board member? You’ve got to smile when you’re a founding board member because you have all the enthusiasm. Mine was a feeder school for performing arts and it just goes straight to my heart – because I believe in performing arts for children – and you start out and you’re so excited! You’re going to just slay the world and your school is going to be the very best and then you at each other and you go, what did I sign up for? And doesn’t the money just sort of fall out of the sky and we get together? SE: Yes, it does. [all laugh] DC: No, it doesn’t. Very quickly you learn that charter school boards are different and the same of a district traditional school board. First of all, charter school board members aren’t elected. I’m not sure why, but we volunteered … we volunteered for it. But you have some of the same duties: a duty of loyalty, duty of understanding public trust, and then you start to realize the seriousness of this is taxpayer money, that the parents are trusting that you will govern the school, you will take care of their most precious commodity (that any one of us has—their kids) and that you have an enterprise that takes understanding finance. Again, a lot of people don’t even understand that it is not academics that closes schools, whether it’s traditional district or charter, it is finance. The number one reason.
So, go figure. As a board member, I was in charge of the finance committee and had to work with the auditor once a year. And that’s one of the toughest committees and task force. So as a board member, and talking about charter school boards, I think it’s really important for us to know the difference and should be very wary of people that say “those charter schools, they’re private, they’re not public.” And I don’t understand that because we are public. We’re a 501c3 as a board of a charter school. We report to public agencies, we use public money where every bit is public, and it takes good governance to watch over all that. SE: As you think about the tools available to board members and to some of these schools as a public entity, what are some of the things, from an analytical standpoint around the school, either the specifics of their finances or the strengths and weaknesses of any particular school – that you think board members should be focused on or, or helping the leadership of this school drive? DC: I think there’s a linear order of how boards should approach their work. I think number one is you come on a board, you need to know your bylaws, you need to understand what governs you, you need to understand your roles and responsibilities. And, I think what’s key in those roles and responsibilities, Stewart, is where you can get good resources, good data, and good assistance. So, the data can come in from strategic planning, setting key performance indicators, and making sure you have good metrics coming in on that data.
Do we ever get to do, do-overs? If I could do a do-over on my time in board governance, I would want to have a do-over in being more focused, not trying to just do a flurry of activity at every board meeting but having good data reports—whether it is my financials, whether it is academic measurements in the school – very important in operations. How’s the physical plan?
We had a great school leader. I just enjoyed hearing her every time she spoke, but it was always a rosy picture. It was always a story and here’s another does over. I never asked for the data that made her feel and think the way she was portraying to the board on the health of the school, the health of the operations, the health of the finance, the health of the academics, and more important—let’s go back to why charter schools are called charter schools, the health of the promise in the contract. And that’s really important data to have at your fingertips as well. SE: What do you think drives the difference between those schools that are extremely successful, versus those that survive, versus those that fail? When I think about charter schools, whether they have the money or the capital that they need to survive and thrive. While that may be a driver of why schools often close as they run out or don’t have the money. I think about schools in these three categories: those that don’t make it at all, those that kind of get along and barely bubble up above the surface but really aren’t able to flourish. And those that really are changing the face of public education by delivering superior quality education to their communities, students, and families. What do you think drives the difference between charter schools that really flourish, those that survive, and those that just fail? DC: Besides being a board member? I’m a recovering authorizer [all laugh] and I say that lovingly. I was very blessed to be an authorizer, which is an overseeing entity in all the states that have charter schools. It’s another common denominator that you have a public entity that holds that contract. And so, Stewart, I had to make a decision with my team. There was no, “I” at our operation as authorizers. We, I called them the magnificent seven. I had an amazing team of individuals, but we would get petitions, or we would get applications.
Can you imagine that you would have these excited people across from you and they would have great ideas? And, in this very short time period here in California (authorizers have 60 days to decide) and you get a petition –when you don’t know these people, you hear their stories and you have to make a decision whether these people are going to be successful or not. Because what I’m not okay with, and what good authorizers are not okay with are “pop-up campers” where you throw open the school door and you close it.
Because you said something very important in your question. Families and students—should we never forget that it takes a village to raise a child and that our schools are not detached from our communities. So, let’s go back to your question. So, you get the unsuccessful, barely above water’s, going down for the count. And then your very successful schools. The ones that are unsuccessful, typically are not focused, they don’t have the resources lined up, and a bit of a deer-in-the-headlights look. “I’ve got this idea. It’s going to work,” but they can’t tell you and they can’t, more importantly, tell themselves how it’s going to work.
This is my 48th year in education. And as I, as I look over those many years, I kind of smile because I would say three-fourths of those many years have been in the traditional district framework. That framework has been alive and existing for hundreds-plus years. And then charter schools are going to start out, and how are we going to have the framework to make it successful? So those are the unsuccessful ones. Great idea, no plan, no understanding of the resources.
The middle ground is they’ve got some backing, they have some resources. Typically, they may not have even asked the community if they would like their model. Typically, they could be anywhere USA and start this school, but they didn’t engage in the community, they didn’t do their market research. I make people nervous with my business background, but I think if you’re going to be in the charter sector, it’s important to have a business background because charter schools are a business as well as an educational entity.
Those middle ground folks. I’ve noticed the common thread in my experience is a detachment from the community, not understanding a connecting to their mission and vision—kind of losing their way. Also, the middle ground could be a great initial first school that should have stayed a great initial first school, but they expanded too fast, blurred the vision.
So, let me go to the successful ones in just my opinion—laser-sharp focus. Is the team connected to the community? Know their kids? Have a board that’s bought in, and shows up, and attends, and is part of the livelihood of the school? Keeping in mind their governance is different than running it, but you have engagement from the board share all the way. And, I love going to some of the high performing schools because typically you won’t find Darlene with the school leader. You’ll find Darlene with the janitor. You’ll find me on the playground. I’ll be with the lunchroom help. And, the reason why I travel everywhere when I go to a school—because no matter who I mentioned, they can tell you the mission. They’re proud of their school. They love showing up every day. Those are the successful ones. JJ: That’s great. And with that, I think we’ve inspired some charter leaders around the country and we’d like to do this again. So with that, we’re going to end our first discussion with Darlene and Stuart and we’re going to have another one to follow. Thanks, everybody. SE: Thank you. DC: Thank you. What a pleasure.
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!
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.
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!
JOIN US AT THE 2018 NATIONAL CHARTER SCHOOLS CONFERENCE
Share the charter school love to receive a special prize! It’s as easy as 1-2-3:
Charter School Budgeting Best Practices: Don’t Just Survive—Thrive!
