Impact of Charter Schools Presentation to Board of County - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Impact of Charter Schools

Presentation to Board of County Commissioners March 25, 2014

What is a Charter School Nationally?

• Publicly funded school governed by an organization under legislative

contract/charter with the state or other jurisdiction

• Exempt school from selected local and state rules and regulations
• Receives funding and autonomy in exchange for accountability
• Should be reviewed (typically every 3-5 years) by the charter

authorizer

• Charter in most cases, can be revoked if guidelines on curriculum and

management are not followed or if standards are not met upon periodic review

• From 2000 to 2010, the number of students enrolled in public charter

schools in the US increased from 0.3 million to 1.8 million

NC Charter Purpose

§ 115C-238.29A. Purpose of charter schools and establishment of North Carolina Charter Schools Advisory Board...

• 1. Improve student learning;
• 2. Increase learning opportunities for all students, with special emphasis on

expanded learning experiences for students who are identified as at risk of academic failure or academically gifted;

• 3. Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods;
• 4. Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunities to

be responsible for the learning program at the school site;

• 5. Provide parents and students with expanded choices in the types of educational
• pportunities that are available within the public school system; and
• 6. Hold the schools established under this Part accountable for meeting measurable

student achievement results, and provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems.

Charter Flexibility Exceeds Districts’

Rapid Proliferation of Charters

• Charter legislation passed in NC in 1996
• From 1996 to 2011, 100 charters opened in North Carolina (at

100 school cap by 2001)

• Cap limiting the number of charter schools in NC lifted in 2011
• 2012-13: One school added in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area
• 2013-14: Four schools added plus two just outside the county
• 2014-15: Nine schools added plus two just outside the county
• 2015-16: Nineteen schools pending approval

Charter School Enrollment

• 2013-14 Meck Co. Student

Enrolled = 10,804

• 2012-13 Meck Co. Students

Enrolled = 8,844

• Adding 9 (2 just outside

Meck Co.) new charters for 2014-15

• Considering 19 new for

2015-16 (have not been approved by SBE).

• Charters located just
• utside Mecklenburg

County impact significant.

31% Growth in Mecklenburg County Student Charter Enrollment since 2011

Mecklenburg County Charter School Enrollment 20th Day, 2013

Demographic Information 2012-13

National Context

A 2009 study done by Stanford University found that, on average, charter schools perform about the same or worse than their traditional public school virtual twins. The “Waiting for Superman” film does note, however, that most charter schools do not outperform public schools and focuses on those that

• do. It also states that
• nly one in five

charter schools

• utperform public

schools (close to the 17% statistic).

Charter School Performance Compared to Public Schools

National Context

Case Study: Fulton County Schools

Authorization Unique state law allows Fulton County to be a Charter System, providing the system, as a whole, freedom from state regulations Accountability School Governance Councils established at each school District balances innovation with accountability for outcomes Portfolio of Schools FCS is a charter system, not a system of individual charter schools District Support District oversees and supports school-level reform strategies; reviews and vets school requests for flexibility

National Context

Case Study: Chicago Public Schools

Authorizer Chicago Board of Education, Chicago Public Schools Accountability CPS’ Office of Innovation & Incubation recommends charter applications for approval, reauthorization; monitors performance Portfolio of Schools Charters are a part of the district’s overall portfolio of schools District Support In 2013, CPS and charter providers signed a compact defining commitments to collaborate, share resources, ensure accountability and transparency, and provide equitable access

Funding

How funding flows

1. State

• Calculated using state allotment formulas
• LEA allotments reduced at start of fiscal year based on charter

school’s reported projected enrollment

• Paid directly to charter schools (34% @ start of year)
• Final adjustment based on 20th Day ADM
• Final LEA allotment adjusted in late October/early November

Note: If a child returns to LEA after the 20th day, no adjustment is made in state funding for CMS - $$ stay with the charter school

Financial Impact

2013-14 State Funding Impact

2013-14 20th Day Enrollment 10,823 Categories Impacted by Charter Reduction POS/MOE $ Allotment Classroom Teachers (483.82) $ (25,923,915.33) Non-Instructional Support (2,543,405.00) Instructional Support (62.12) (3,825,929.90) CTE - Months of Employment (538.69) (3,162,132.60) CTE - Program Support (130,741.84) Disadvantaged Student Support Funds (325,772.30) Teacher Assistants (3,478,403.97) Academically Gifted (535,630.27) Transportation (4,208,198.86) Instructional Supplies (313,975.23) At Risk Student Support (1,956,040.79) Textbooks (154,335.98) Total $ (46,558,482.07)

Funding

How funding flows

• 2. Local
• Calculated at beginning of year on per pupil basis using

projected 20th day enrollment

Total County Allocation + projected (Police Sales + Restitution) / projected (CMS + Charter) 20th day enrollment

• Paid monthly over a 9 month period

(Annual rate/9 X monthly reported enrollment)

• Settled up at yearend based on per pupil basis using

average enrollment

(Total County Allocation + final (Police Sales + Restitution) /Average (CMS + Charter) enrollment)

Financial Impact

2014-15 Projected Local Funding Impact

Flat + $40M (example) County Appropriation for 2013-2014 $356,544,548 $396,544,548 Other Local Revenue Projection (Police Sales & Restitution) 222,000 222,000 $356,766,548 $396,766,548

• Proj. 20th day - CMS K-12 Student Enrollment

143,366 143,366

• Proj. 20th day Charter School K-12 Student Enrollment

13,586 13,586 Total K-12 Students supported by Budget 156,952 156,952 Annual Cost Per Student $ 2,273.09 $ 2,527.95 Projected Budget for CMS Students $325,884,302 $362,421,842 Projected Budget for Charter School Students 30,882,246 34,344,706 Total Budget $356,766,548 $396,766,548

• -Example--

Impact of ABC Charter School

Financial Impact

2013-14 Projected State Funding Impact

ABC Charter School

129 20th Day Enrollment

POS/MOE $ Allotment Classroom Teachers (5.77) $ (309,000.15) Non-Instructional Support (30,317.58) Instructional Support (0.59) (36,327.70) CTE - Months of Employment (10.68) (62,682.83) CTE - Program Support (1,558.30) Disadvantaged Student Support Funds (3,882.88) Teacher Assistants (41,459.30) Academically Gifted (6,384.17) Transportation (50,157.74) Instructional Supplies (3,742.29) At Risk Student Support (23,314.15) Textbooks (1,839.56) Total $ (570,666.64)

Financial Impact – Funding is reduced as it follows the student but operating cost may remain the same

1 6 1 1 12 12 25 6th Grade only 7 2 3 2 1 11 1 15 3 1 1 1 10 7 2 1 ABC Charter School 129 X $2,325.20 = $299,951 (students from 24 CMS schools are enrolled at ABC Charter ) Number = students from CMS school attending ABC charter 1 1 3

Financial Impact

Charter School Local Payment Trend

$12,529,845 $15,397,848 $15,738,314 $18,293,823 $19,582,306 $25,165,603

(projected)

$- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 20008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Total may differ from general ledger due to exclusion of law suit accruals and payments.

Local payments are projected to increase by 100% since 2008-09

Issues

• Accountability
• Inclusiveness (e.g. Exceptional Children, ESL, At-risk)
• Due process for students
• Unlicensed individuals teaching students
• Criminal background checks
• Financial impact

Building Partnerships

• Quarterly meetings with charters and private schools
• Gates Foundation convening, Houston, TX

○ Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools was invited; took Sugar Creek Charter ○ Focus on charters and public schools working together

Lessons Learned

• Quality schools, regardless of their label as “charter” or

“traditional” is what interests and engages our community

• A lack of quality control is a concern, neither the school

district nor Board of Education input is included; the charter school advisory council does not have public school representation

• All public schools should serve all children, and

transportation and food services is a critical part of serving all children

• Building partnerships with quality charter schools is

intentional

Recommendations

• Assurance of quality review by state
• Review of new charters by school districts, comments count

for final recommendation

• Authority for school districts to sponsor their own charter

schools

• Call for metrics on academic effectiveness