[PPT] - U.S. Department of Education SEA Project Directors Meeting April PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

April 23, 2013

U.S. Department of Education SEA Project Directors Meeting

SLIDE 2

April 23, 2013

Jim m Shel helton n Assistant istant Deputy puty Secre cretar tary Of Office ce of Inno novation ation an and Improvement ment

SLIDE 3

SLIDE 4

4

Office of Innovation and Improvement

Jim Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary Nadya Dabby, Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary Margo Anderson, Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary

Executive

ffice

Pat Knight, Executive Officer

Charter Schools program

Stefan Huh, Director

Improvement Programs

Edith Harvey, Director

Parental Options and Information

Anna Hinton, Director

Teacher Quality programs

Peggi Zelinko, Director

Office of Non-Public Education

Maureen Dowling, Director

Investing in Innovation Program Office

Carol Lyons, Director

OI OII I Or Organ aniz ization ation Char art

SLIDE 5

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Staff

CSP Program Manager: Erin Pfeltz State Education Agency Grants (SEA): Kate Meeley Leslie Hankerson Non-State Education Agency Grants (Non-SEA): LaShawndra Thornton Brian Martin Kate Meeley Replication and Expansion Grants (CMO): Erin Pfeltz Brian Martin Kate Meeley Kristin Lundholm National Leadership Grants: Patricia Kilby-Robb Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards: Nancy Paulu Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Grants: Kristin Lundholm State Facilities Incentive Grants: Kristin Lundholm Administrative Support: Cheryl Weekes

Management CSP Director: Stefan Huh

SLIDE 6

Grantee Introductions

SLIDE 7

1. What is the largest challenge you are currently facing in your state with regard to creating a high quality charter school sector?

2. Pair-Off

3. Introduce yourself to the other person and provide the following information:

 Your State  Your Title/Role  How you got involved with Charter Schools and CSP and how

long have you been working in the CSP program

 Your one largest challenge

4. Introduce your partner to the group

Thin ink – Pai air - Share are

SLIDE 8

Stefan Huh, Director Charter Schools Program Office of Innovation and Improvement

Overview of the Federal Charter Schools Program

8

SLIDE 9

 The Charter School Landscape  The Charter Schools Program: SEA Performance  Budget and Continuation Award Considerations  The Charter Schools Program: National Activities  The Charter Schools Program: Highlighted Elements

9

Agend enda

SLIDE 10

To support the creation, expansion, and improvement of high-quality charter schools across the nation.

10

Mis issi sion

n

SLIDE 11

ED’s Reform Strategy & Key Inves estment tments

Race to the Top Investing in Innovation Promise Neighborhoods School Improvement Grants ESEA Flexibility

11

SLIDE 12

RTTT: : Core e Ed Educa ucational tional Ref eform rm Areas eas

(a) Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy; (b) Building data systems that measure student growth and success and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction; (c) Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and (d) Turning around the Nation's lowest-achieving schools.

12

SLIDE 13

ES ESEA EA Fl Flexi xibil ilit ity

PRINCIPLES FOR IMPROVING STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND INCREASING THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION:

1. College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students

2. State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support

3. Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership

4. Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden

13

SLIDE 14

ES ESEA EA Fl Flexibility xibility –Char harter er School hool Considerations siderations

 “When a charter school authorizer has indicated that it

intends to decline to renew or intends to revoke a charter for a particular charter school based on lack of progress towards improved student academic outcomes or other significant issues cited by the authorizer, the authorizer’s decision to do so supersedes any designation from the SEA that such a school is a focus or priority school, as consistent with any applicable State law.” (ESEA Flexibility FAQs, #A-10a, p. 6)

14

SLIDE 15

ES ESEA EA Fl Flexibility xibility –Char harter er School hool Considerations siderations

“Alternatively, if the SEA can demonstrate to the Department that all charter schools in its State are held to a high standard of accountability through a strong charter school authorizer system (consistent with the Department’s Charter Schools Program (CSP) assurances for SEA grantees from FY 2010 onwards, including the provision that charter school authorizers use increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students as the most important factor when determining to renew or revoke a school’s charter), the SEA may allow its charter schools to develop and implement evaluation and support systems that meet all of the elements of Principle 3, but that do not necessarily adhere specifically to the SEA’s guidelines.” (ESEA Flexibility FAQs, #A-10a, p. 7)

15

SLIDE 16

The Charter Landscape

SLIDE 17

 Voters approved a statewide public charter school initiative (Georgia)  Lifted caps on charter school growth (Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri)  Expanded the types of entities that are allowed to authorize (Georgia,

Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina)

 Quality control measures for authorizers (Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii,

South Carolina)

 Improved support for funding and facilities (Connecticut, Hawaii,

Utah)

17

A C A Chan angi ging ng La Lands ndsca cape

SLIDE 18

 The number of charter schools in operation around the nation has

grown from 1,993 in 2000-2001 to 4,952 in 2009-2010.

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_101.asp)

 The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools estimates that there are

6,002 charter schools during as of the 2012-2013 school year.  43 States now have charter school legislation including DC.

18

A Growing Movement…

SLIDE 19

…sti still fac aces es ch chal allenges lenges to rea

realiz

ize e it its s poten enti tial al

 Enrolling and educating students with disabilities  Closing the achievement gap for subgroups, such as English

Learners

 Improving Accountability  Aggregating demand and collaborating to tackle vexing issues  Replicating successful models for long-term success  Identifying and sharing effective practices  Facilities  Ongoing interest, investigations (Monitoring, Closures,

EMOs/CMOs, ELs)

19

SLIDE 20

Dif iffere erence nce betw etwee een n Economica nomicall lly y Dis isad advan antaged aged CS Stude dents ts and A d All TPS Stude dents

4th Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade Math Reading Math Reading Arizona

20.37% 11.94% 42.11% 16.39%

Arkansas

22.73% 32.26% 80.00% 32.76%

California

11.11% 16.67% 36.36% 14.29%

Colorado

5.81% 6.02% 14.29% 3.45%

DC

9.52% 15.00%

26.47%
21.82%

Florida

10.29% 7.58%

1.45%

5.66%

Georgia

14.08% 6.10% 12.99% 2.17%

Indiana

49.06% 28.13% 22.22% 21.67%

Louisiana

25.00% 24.14%

1.64%

26.92%

Maryland

13.75% 20.27% 71.79% 29.69%

Massachusetts

60.00% 39.47% 1.92%

1.23%

Michigan

8.24% 18.06% 25.40% 74.47%

Minnesota

51.11% 43.40% 52.94% 31.37%

Missouri

160.00% 140.91% 85.71% 92.86%

New Hampshire

N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Jersey

31.67% 61.54% 16.13% 13.89%

New Mexico

32.35% 38.24% 41.38% 12.77%

New York

0.00% 20.83% 1.67% 50.00%

Rhode Island

12.28% 9.52% 19.57% 4.23%

South Carolina

26.98% 4.00% 66.67% 23.64%

Tennessee

39.29% 114.29% 191.67% 118.18%

Texas

12.82% 10.26% 12.99% 1.09%

Wisconsin

33.33% 25.37% 51.92% 26.09%

20

SLIDE 21

CRE REDO DO Rep epor

rt

t – Foo

od

d for

r Though
ught

 Initial signals of performance are predictive of later

performance

 Poor first year performance cannot be overlooked or excused  Great need for careful due diligence by authorizers

 Substantial improvement over time is largely absent from

middle schools, multi-level schools and high schools. Only elementary schools show an upward pattern of growth if they start out in the lower two quintiles. (CREDO, “Charter School Growth and Replication”, 1/30/2013, Executive Summary)

21

SLIDE 22

The Charter Schools Program: SEA Performance

SLIDE 23

 State Education Agency Grants (SEA)  Non-State Education Agency Grants (Non-SEA)  Replication and Expansion Grants (CMO)  National Leadership Grants  Exemplary Charter School Collaboration Awards  Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Grants  State Facilities Incentive Grants

23

CSP P Gr Gran ant Pr t Prog

grams

ams

SLIDE 24

(FY11 & FY12)

Ob Oblig igations ations by Pr y Prog

gram

ram

SLIDE 25

1.

Arizona

2.

Arkansas

3.

California

4.

Colorado

5.

District of Columbia

6.

Florida

7.

Georgia

8.

Indiana

9.

Louisiana

10. Maryland
11. Massachusetts
12. Michigan
13. Minnesota
14. Missouri
15. New Hampshire
16. New Jersey
17. New Mexico
18. New

York

19. Ohio
20. Rhode Island
21. South Carolina
22. Tennessee
23. Texas
24. Wisconsin

25

Act ctiv ive SEA e SEA CSP P Gr Gran antees ees

SLIDE 26

(FY11 & FY12) *In FY11 & FY12 CSP Served a total of 35 States

Ob Oblig igations ations by St y Stat ate e (Incl

ncludes des SEA, Non-SEA, & CMO) O)

SLIDE 27

Ob Oblig igati ations

ns by S

y Sta tate e - SEA EA

27

Applicant Year FY11 Award Amount FY12 Award Amount FY11 &FY12 Arkansas 2010 $ 5,218,999 $ 3,376,237 $ 8,595,236 Arizona 2009 $ 6,377,894 $ 19,316,919 $ 25,694,813 California 2010 $ 71,640,825 $ 22,255,009 $ 93,895,834 Colorado 2010 $ 6,806,353 $ 5,047,293 $ 11,853,646 DC 2010 $ 4,497,470 $ 3,889,710 $ 8,387,180 Florida 2011 $ 21,420,201 $ 31,605,572 $ 53,025,773 Georgia 2010 $ 21,271 $ 1 $ 21,272 Indiana 2010 $ - $ 2,147,073 $ 2,147,073 Louisiana 2009 $ 5,832,186 $ - $ 5,832,186 Massachusetts 2012 $ - $ 5,779,506 $ 5,779,506 Michigan 2010 $ 4,760,574 $ 8,924,191 $ 13,684,765 Minnesota 2012 $ - $ 6,543,056 $ 6,543,056 Missouri 2010 $ 3,924,171 $ 855,330 $ 4,779,501 New Hampshire 2010 $ 2,947,300 $ 1,372,212 $ 4,319,512 New Jersey 2012 $ - $ 5,069,289 $ 5,069,289 New Mexico 2009 $ 2,555,030 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,555,030 New York 2011 $ 28,259,451 $ 33,418,655 $ 61,678,106 Rhode Island 2010 $ 4,372,998 $ 1 $ 4,372,999 South Carolina 2010 $ 3,465,821 $ 2,589,949 $ 6,055,770 Tennessee 2009 $ 6,690,790 $ 6,398,320 $ 13,089,110 Texas 2010 $ 8,483,853 $ 4,671,736 $ 13,155,589 Wisconsin 2009 $ 2,582,282 $ 18,573,500 $ 21,155,782

SLIDE 28

Ob Oblig igati ations

ns by S

y Sta tate e – Non

n-SEA

SEA

28

State Year Applicant FY11 Award Amount FY12 Award Amount FY11 &FY12 AK 2011 Birchtree Parents Guild, Inc. $ 190,761 $ 131,591 $ 322,352 AZ 2009 Morrison Education Group $ - $ - $ - HI 2011 Kanu o Ka Aina New Century Public Charter School $ 102,181 $ 102,181 $ 204,362 HI 2009 Laupahoehoe Alumni/Community Association $ 1 $ 149,999 $ 150,000 ID 2012 Idaho STEM Academy, Inc $ - $ 199,680 $ 199,680 IL 2011 Be The Change Charter School $ 55,000 $ - $ 55,000 IL 2011 Academy for Global Citizenship Charter School^ $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 IL 2011 The Catalyst Schools $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 IL 2011 Urban Prep Academies*+^ $ 202,500 $ - $ 202,500 IL 2011 Northwestern University Settlement Association $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 IL 2012 Christopher House $ - $ 178,175 $ 178,175 IL 2012 Southland College Prep Charter School, Inc. $ - $ 185,000 $ 185,000 IL 2012 Namaste Charter School $ - $ 192,000 $ 192,000 IL 2011 8 Points Charter School, Inc.^ $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 IL 2011 Legal Prep Charter Academies^ $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 IL 2011 Perspectives Charter Schools $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 IL 2012 Urban Prep Academies $ - $ 202,500 $ 202,500 MD 2011 Barbara Jordan Academy + $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 MD 2011 Creative City Public Charter School Foundation, Inc $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 MD 2012 Fredrick Outdoor Charter School, Inc. $ - $ 182,911 $ 182,911 MO 2009 Shearwater Education Foundation $ 159,770 $ - $ 159,770 MO 2009 Jamaa Learning Center $ 202,818 $ - $ 202,818 MO 2009 Pathway Academy $ 152,534 $ - $ 152,534 MO 2009 St. Louis Collegiate $ 175,000 $ - $ 175,000

SLIDE 29

Ob Oblig igati ations

ns by S

y Sta tate e – Non-SE

SEA A (continu ntinue) e)

29

State Year Applicant FY11 Award Amount FY12 Award Amount FY11 &FY12 NC 2009 Henderson Collegiate $ 118,890 $ - $ 118,890 NC 2010 Triad Math and Science Academy Company $ - $ - $ - NC 2012 Contemporary Science Center $ - $ 166,205 $ 166,205 NC 2012 Triad Math and Science Academy Company $ - $ 238,250 $ 238,250 NJ 2010 Academy for Urban Leadership Charter School $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 NJ 2010 Youth Consultation Services $ 1 $ - $ 1 NJ 2011 Friends of Tikun Olam $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 NJ 2011 Spirit Preparatory Charter School $ 186,562 $ - $ 186,562 NJ 2010 TEAM Academy Charter School $ 193,813 $ - $ 193,813 NJ 2011 Bright Horizon Charter School $ 199,099 $ 1 $ 199,100 NJ 2011 Shalom Academy Charter School, Inc $ 200,000 $ 1 $ 200,001 NJ 2010 People's Preparatory Charter School $ 199,000 $ 197,500 $ 396,500 NJ 2010 Toklu, Candemir $ 1 $ 350,927 $ 350,928 NV 2009 High Desert Montessori High $ 1 $ - $ 1 NV 2010 Silver Sands Montessori Charter School $ 90,350 $ - $ 90,350 OH 2011 Columbus Collegiate Academy, Inc $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 OH 2011 The Graham School $ 50,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 OH 2011 The ISUS Institute of Health Care $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 OK 2012 Lighthouse Academies of Tulsa, Inc. $ - $ 175,000 $ 175,000 OK 2011 KIPP Tulsa Academy College Preparatory $ 177,000 $ 179,000 $ 356,000 OR 2012 Annex School District #29 $ - $ 192,157 $ 192,157 OR 2012 Arco Iris Spanish Immersion Charter School $ - $ 193,700 $ 193,700 OR 2011 Joseph Charter School $ 226,168 $ 205,154 $ 431,322 OR 2012 Le Monde Immersion $ - $ 214,212 $ 214,212

SLIDE 30

Ob Oblig igati ations

ns by S

y Sta tate e – Non-SE

SEA A (continu ntinue) e)

30

State Year Applicant FY11 Award Amount FY12 Award Amount FY11 &FY12 OR 2012 Sauvie Island Academy $ - $ 242,741 $ 242,741 OR 2012 River's Edge Academy Charter School $ - $ 247,954 $ 247,954 OR 2012 Woodland Educational Initiative, The $ - $ 250,683 $ 250,683 OR 2010 National Institute for Direct Instruction $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 PA 2010 Aspira, Inc. of Pennsylvania $ 198,091 $ - $ 198,091 PA 2010 Franklin Towne Charter Elementary School $ - $ - $ - PA 2011 Friere Charter School $ 298,600 $ - $ 298,600 PA 2011 Urban Affairs Coalition $ 302,730 $ - $ 302,730 PA 2010 Propel Charter School - McKeesport $ 132,500 $ - $ 132,500 PA 2012 Propel Charter School-Montour $ - $ 126,941 $ 126,941 PA 2012 I-LEAD, Inc $ - $ 141,703 $ 141,703 PA 2012 Young Scholars of Western Pennsylvania Charter School $ - $ 150,970 $ 150,970 PA 2012 Urban Pathways K-5 College Charter School $ - $ 161,569 $ 161,569 PA 2011 The Montessori Network $ 165,000 $ 186,000 $ 351,000 PA 2011 ASPIRA, Inc. of Pennsylvania $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 PA 2012 Gillingham Charter School $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 RI 2009 The Greene School $ 185,880 $ - $ 185,880 RI 2009 Trinity Restoration $ 152,900 $ - $ 152,900 RI 2009 Rhode Island Mayoral Academies (Elementary) $ 171,250 $ - $ 171,250 RI 2010 Propel Braddock Hills $ 40,800 $ - $ 40,800 VA 2009 Patrick Henry School of Science and Arts $ 177,600 $ - $ 177,600 VA 2010 Robert R. Moton Museum, Inc. $ 1 $ - $ 1 VA 2011 Buffalo Creek School, Inc* $ 61,925 $ - $ 61,925 WY 2010 Laramie Montessori Community Organization $ 103,603 $ - $ 103,603

SLIDE 31

Ob Oblig igati ations

ns by S

y Sta tate e – CMO CMO

State Year Applicant FY11 Award Amount FY12 Award Amount FY11 &FY12 CA 2010 KIPP Foundation in consortium with KIPP Regions * $ - $ 1,212,294 $ 1,212,294 CA 2010 Aspire Public Schools $ - $ 2,793,750 $ 2,793,750 CA 2011 Alliance College Ready Public Schools $ 3,139,983 $ 60,017 $ 3,200,000 CA 2011 KIPP Foundation $ 9,463,103 $ 1 $ 9,463,104 CA 2011 Rocketship $ 1,881,569 $ 1 $ 1,881,570 CA 2012 KIPP Foundation $ - $ 10,302,649 $ 10,302,649 CT 2010 Achievement First, Inc. $ - $ 1,668,516 $ 1,668,516 DC 2011 DC Preparatory Academy $ 878,824 $ 1 $ 878,825 IL 2010 Noble Network of Charter Schools $ - $ 2,142,605 $ 2,142,605 IL 2010 Lawndale Educational & Regional $ - $ 668,250 $ 668,250 MA 2011 Richard Milburn Academy, Inc. $ 1,575,562 $ 1 $ 1,575,563 NJ 2010 Uncommon Schools, Inc. $ - $ 1,775,000 $ 1,775,000 NY 2010 Foundation for a Greater Opportunity $ - $ 801,621 $ 801,621 NY 2010 Success Charter Network $ - $ 2,141,498 $ 2,141,498 NY 2011 Uncommon Schools $ 1,400,000 $ 1 $ 1,400,001 NY 2011 Success Charter Network, Inc. $ 1,740,970 $ 1 $ 1,740,971 NY 2012 Democracy Prep Public Schools $ - $ 4,112,963 $ 4,112,963 OH 2011 Breakthrough Charter Schools $ 3,488,060 $ 1 $ 3,488,061 PA 2010 Propel Schools Foundation $ - $ 713,749 $ 713,749 PA 2010 Mastery Charter High School $ - $ - $ - TX 2010 IDEA Public Schools $ - $ - $ - TX 2010 Project Yes, Inc. $ - $ 1,245,384 $ 1,245,384 TX 2011 Cosmos Foundation, Inc. $ 1,431,929 $ 1,431,929 $ 2,863,858

31

SLIDE 32

Ob Oblig igations ations by Co y Cohor

rt

SLIDE 33

Ob Oblig igations ations by St y Stat ate e - SEA EA

SLIDE 34

Projecting…

SLIDE 35

As Assur surance ance 3A A an and 3B

SLIDE 36

Budget and Continuation Award Considerations

SLIDE 37

37

SLIDE 38

38

Gr Gran ants A ts Awar arded ded

SLIDE 39

39

$81,792,972 $136,181,260 $49,679,652 $9,708,214 $- $- $95,892,598 $87,775,726 $103,043,062 $29,931,735 $140,177,817 $174,125,345 $175,386,441 $170,663,600 $45,953,734 $78,681,765

$- $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 $160,000,000 $180,000,000 $200,000,000 FY 2009 FY2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

SEA Funding

New Continuations

SLIDE 40

40

Charter Schools Program FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013* FY 2014 **Projection FY 2015 **Projection FY 2016 **Projection SEA New Awards $ 81,792,972 $ 136,181,260 $ 49,679,652 $ 9,708,214 $ - $ - $ 95,892,598 $ 87,775,726 SEA Continuation Awards $ 103,043,062 $ 29,931,735 $ 140,177,817 $ 174,125,345 $ 175,386,441 $ 170,663,600 $ 45,953,734 $ 78,681,764 Total for SEA $ 184,836,034 $ 166,112,995 $ 189,857,469 $ 183,833,559 $ 175,386,441 $ 170,663,600 $ 141,846,332 $ 166,457,490 Total for Non-SEA $ 4,910,909 $ 6,755,144 $ 7,447,331 $ 6,919,706 $ 6,552,241 $ 2,768,278 $ 5,650,000 $ 8,000,000 Total for CMO $ - $ 50,000,000 $ 25,000,000 $ 31,070,232 $ 29,952,036 $ 35,467,193 $ 61,288,311 $ 33,899,124 Total for Facilities $ 21,031,000 $ 23,082,000 $ 23,035,836 $ 23,035,836 $ 23,000,000 $ 23,000,000 $ 23,000,000 $ 23,000,000 Peer Review $ 75,736 $ 80,861 $ 198,302 $ 149,886 $ 75,000 $ 50,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 National Activities $ 5,327,321 $ 10,000,000 $ 9,980,000 $ 10,026,850 $ 6,540,896 $ 9,557,543 $ 9,571,971 $ 10,000,000 Total for Other Programs/Activites $ 31,344,966 $ 89,918,005 $ 65,661,469 $ 71,202,510 $ 66,120,173 $ 70,843,014 $ 99,660,282 $ 75,049,124 Program Total $ 216,181,000 $ 256,031,000 $ 255,518,938 $ 255,036,069 $ 241,506,614 $ 241,506,614 $ 241,506,614 $241,506,614

*FY13 funding amounts are not finalized. ** Projections are based on estimated continuation awards and flat funding.

Char arter er Schools chools Pr Program gram Bu Budget dget FY2009 Y2009 – FY20 Y2016 6

SLIDE 41

Con

nti

tinua nuati tion

n Cos
sts b

ts by St y Stat ate

41

*Based on current recommended amounts and are subject to change.

SEA FY11 FY12 *FY13 *FY14 *FY15 *FY16 2009 Cohort Wisconsin 2,582,282 $ 18,573,500 18,648,500 $

$
$
$

Arizona 6,377,894 $ 19,316,919 6,830,449 $

$
$
$

New Mexico 2,555,030 $

$
$
$
$

Tennessee 6,690,790 $ 4,750,997 2,623,611 $

$
$
$

Louisiana 5,832,186 $

$
$
$
$

24,038,182 $ 42,641,416 $ 28,102,560 $

$
$
$

2010 Cohort New Hampshire 2,947,300 $ 1,372,212 2,789,811 $ 2,445,077 $

$
$

Arkansas 5,218,999 $ 3,376,237 1,821,955 $ 3,503,992 $

$
$

Michigan 4,760,574 $ 8,924,191 4,718,422 $ 8,836,191 $

$
$

Georgia 21,271 $ 1

$
$
$
$

Rhode Island 4,372,998 $ 1

$
$
$
$

California 71,640,825 $ 22,255,009 63,252,158 $ 63,271,073 $

$
$

Colorado 6,806,353 $ 5,047,293 10,244,383 $ 10,253,775 $

$
$

Texas 8,483,853 $ 4,671,736 9,473,684 $ 9,473,684 $

$
$

Missouri 3,924,171 $ 855,330

$
$
$
$

South Carolina 3,465,821 $ 2,589,949 5,252,726 $ 5,255,675 $

$
$

DC 4,497,470 $ 3,889,710 2,179,879 $ 5,522,353 $

$
$

Indiana

$

2,147,073 10,992,737 $ 10,997,822 $

$
$

116,139,635 $ 55,128,742 $ 110,725,755 $ 119,559,642 $

$
$

2011 Cohort Florida 21,420,201 $ 31,605,572 11,168,492 $ 20,049,459 $ 20,057,988 $

$

New York 28,259,451 $ 33,418,655 11,731,431 $ 20,800,097 $ 19,133,431 $

$

49,679,652 $ 65,024,227 $ 22,899,923 $ 40,849,556 $ 39,191,419 $

$

2012 Cohort Massachusetts

$

5,779,506 2,812,103 $ 3,534,341 $

$
$

New Jersey

$

6,543,056 2,719,718 $ 5,209,616 $

$
$

Minnesota

$

5,069,289 2,874,511 $ 6,762,316 $ 6,762,316 $ 6,762,316 $

$

17,391,851 $ 8,406,332 $ 15,506,273 $ 6,762,316 $ 6,762,316 $ Total 189,857,469 $ 180,186,236 $ 170,134,570 $ 175,915,471 $ 45,953,735 $ 6,762,316 $

SLIDE 42

Fund undin ing

Sequestration

CSP FY13 funding reduced by approximately 5%, as in other ED programs.

 In 2013, funding reductions will impact new awards.

Continuation funding

 Continuation funding (as stated in EDGAR) is contingent upon having sufficient funds

appropriated from Congress, among other things; historically, Departmental policy has been to prioritize continuations before awarding new grants or supplements.

 As in the past few years, we will continue to scrutinize grant activities and performance

carefully to determine whether original continuation requests match current needs, so that we direct CSP funding appropriately and effectively.

42

SLIDE 43

New A w Awar ards ds

 The grantee has met the conditions of previous awards

[75.217(s)(3)(iii)].

 The grantee’s management practices and financial accounting

systems are adequate to provide appropriate stewardship of federal funds.

 Section 75.253(c)(3) of EDGAR states that in determining the

amount of new funds to make available to a grantee, the Secretary considers whether the unobligated funds made available are needed to complete activities that were planned for completion in the prior budget period.

43

SLIDE 44

CSP P Com

mpeti

titi tions

ns 20

2013

Anticipated Competitions:

Non – SEA National Leadership Credit Enhancement

Sequestration Reality:

Non-SEA Funding down the Credit Enhancement Slate

44

SLIDE 45

The Charter Schools Program: National Activities

45

SLIDE 46

New 2012 Competition – info available at www2.ed.gov/programs/charter-collaboration/index.html

 Arts and College Preparatory Academy – OH  Boston Collegiate Charter School – MA  Community Day Charter Public School – MA  Highlander Charter School – RI  Jumoke Academy – CT  KIPP Metro Atlanta - GA

Ex Exem emplar ary y Col

llab

laboration

ration Awar

ards ds

SLIDE 47

Louisiana Department of Education
Minneapolis Public Schools
Atlanta Public Schools
Chicago Public Schools
Hillsborough County Public Schools
Denver Public Schools
New

York City Department of Education

Fulton County Public Schools
Audubon Center of the North Woods (MN)
Indianapolis Mayor’s Office

Auth uthor

rize

izer Ev Eval aluati uations

ns

20 2011-20 2012 12

SLIDE 48

 September 2012 – Quality Data for Quality Outcomes  December 2012 – Quality Standards  February 2013 – Maximizing Impact and Sustainability

Through Partnerships

 September 2013 – Characteristics of the Nation’s Most Successful

Schools

Mas aster er Clas asses ses

SLIDE 49

 Special Education Pre-Conference – June 2012  Convening at ED – October 2012  Webinars for SEAs:

 March: Integrating Special Education into Key Practices:

Rubrics to Examine Charter Applications and Monitoring

 May: Recent CREDO Report

Spec ecial ial Edu Educa cati tion

n

SLIDE 50

 2012 webinar series geared towards charter schools

 Available at http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/priority-area/english-language-

learners

Eng Englis ish Le Lear arner ners

SLIDE 51

 Public Impact is developing a study on Virtual School

Accountability

 They held a summit on March 18, 2013

 Agenda discussed their initial findings

 Final report, findings, and recommendations will be available

in the late spring

Vir irtua tual l School chool Acc ccou

untabi

ntabili lity ty

SLIDE 52

 Board Governance

 http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/webinar/fix-your-

board-meetings-strengthen-your-boards

 http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/webinar/board-

governance-101

 http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/webinar/student-

progress-over-time-using-academic-growth-determinant-high- quality-schools

Web ebin inar ar Ser erie ies

SLIDE 53

Year State 2007 Colorado 2010 Georgia, Indiana & Texas 2011 New York & Tennessee 2012 Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan & New Jersey 2013 Arkansas, Rhode Island & South Carolina 2014 TBD

*The database includes survey data from 956 charter schools across ten states.

Char arter er Sch choo

ol Fac

acil ilit itie ies s Sur urvey

SLIDE 54

Facility Size:

Few charter schools meet the standards for overall facility size
Few charter school classrooms meet grade level standards, based on square footage per

student

A majority of charter schools lack federally-approved kitchen facilities
Many charter high schools lack access to a gymnasium
Many charter schools lack at least one specialized instructional space

Facility Spending:

Charter schools spend between 7.5 and 13 percent of their Per-Pupil Operating

Revenue on facilities

On average, charter schools that rent their facility from a private organization spend

more (11.7 percent) than schools that own their facility (10.8 percent).

Key Fin y Findi ding ngs

SLIDE 55

 In FY12, ED awarded two new grants to MassDevelopment

and Build with Purpose

 In FY13, ED has approximately $11 million to fund down the

existing slate.

Credit edit En Enhanceme hancement nt for Char harter er School chool Fac acilities ilities

SLIDE 56

The Institute is a series of four interactive webinars led by experts in the field.

 May 29, 2013 Great School Spaces  June 5, 2013 Planning for

Your Charter School Facility

 June 12, 2013 Financing

Your Charter School Facility

 June 19, 2013 Charter School Predevelopment and Construction

Management

Registration http://registration.airprojects.org/CharterSchoolRegistrationSeri es/register.aspx

Cha harter er Scho hool

l Facilities

cilities Inst stitut itute e Ser eries ies

SLIDE 57

The Charter Schools Program: Highlighted Elements

57

SLIDE 58

Multiple Schools – Elements to Consider in Determining if Schools are Separate or the Same: Authorizing

 Who authorized each school, and when?  Did the schools go through separate authorization processes?  Are there separate performance contracts in place?  Will renewal be done separately (or, if the schools have already been renewed at least

nce, how did it occur)?

 Could one school be closed by the authorizer without affecting the other?

State Law

 Are the schools established and recognized as separate schools under state law?  Do the schools have separate NCES numbers?  Do the schools report academic performance separately to the state? Within network?

58

Sep eparat arate e Sch chools

ols or
r Mul

ulti tipl ple e Cam ampuses uses - Det Deter ermi mini ning ng F Fac actor

rs

SLIDE 59

59

Sep eparat arate e Sch chools

ols or
r Mul

ulti tipl ple e Cam ampuses uses - Det Deter ermi mini ning ng F Fac actor

rs

Multiple Schools – Elements to Consider in Determining if Schools are Separate or the Same: Physical Evidence

 Do the schools have separate facilities, are they located on separate campuses, and what is

their proximity?

 Do the schools share any staff?  Are day-to-day operations carried out by different administrations?  Do they operate under completely separate and autonomous budgets?

Lottery and Promotion

 Do the schools run separate lotteries if oversubscribed?  Describe any planned promotion or feeder pattern. Are they happening while the school

receives our funding?

 How are the schools advertised to the community?

SLIDE 60

Areas of Concern:

 Preferences, whether geographic or for special populations

 State-mandated preferences should be discussed with your program officer

 Lack of policy on “small percentage” for students of teachers and other

staff. When recruiting students, charter schools should:

 Target all segments of the parent community

 Give each student an equal opportunity to attend the school

 Recruit in a manner that does not discriminate.

 Consider additional recruitment efforts towards groups that might otherwise

have limited opportunities to participate in the program.

 Guidance specifically includes English learners and students with disabilities as

possible outreach targets.

60

Lo Lott tter ery

SLIDE 61

61

Ongoing Attention:

New GAO report on military charters
Recent Reuters article

(http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/16/us-usa-charters- admissions-idUSBRE91E0HF20130216)

Parental commitment requirements
Admissions tests
Social security number requirements

Lo Lott tter ery

SLIDE 62

62

All CSP eligible grantees except

California, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming have approved or pending ESEA Flexibility.

States using AYP for their CSP

performance measures will have reporting issues (additional dialogue will occur in a later session).

Every state’s ESEA Flexibility waiver

is different, creating additional variation across the charter sector to evaluate performance.

Pr Program

gram Measure

easures s and d ESE SEA A Fl Flexibility xibility

SLIDE 63

63

Waive Section Requirement to be waived Nickname/Description 5202(c)(1) Grant to SEAs cannot be more than 3 years 5 year waiver 5202(c)(2)(C) Dissemination subgrants cannot be for more than two years 3 year dissemination for effective evaluation (still 2 year dissemination activity limit) 5202(d)(1) Charter schools cannot receive more than one subgrant for planning and implementation Substantial Expansion Waiver 5202(d)(1) Charter schools cannot receive more than one subgrant for planning and implementation 2nd subgrant to finish activities (individual school – delay in opening) 5202(d)(2) Charter schools cannot receive more than one dissemination subgrant 2nd dissemination subgrant (blanket waiver questions have been raised)

Wai aiver ers s – getti tting ng on

n th

the sa e same me pag age

SLIDE 64

64