Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Year One Evaluation Report
CHAPTER 4 APPENDICES
- Appendix N: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE OF STATE LEGISLATION AND CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER VARIABLES
- Exhibit N-1: Age of Charter Legislation
- Exhibit N-2: Relationship Between Age of Charter Legislation and Charter School Authorizer Variables
- Exhibit N-3: Relationship Between Types of Charter School Authorizer Allowed and Other Charter School Authorizer Variables
- Appendix 0: FUTURE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
- Exhibit O-1: Roles and Responsibilities of Charter School Authorizers, as Reported by States
- Appendix P: STATE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SUPPORTING CHARTER SCHOOLS
Appendix N
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE OF STATE LEGISLATION AND CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER VARIABLES
Although the charter movement overall is still quite young, the number of states joining the movement since the first law was passed in Minnesota (1991) has grown steadily in the past decade. As Exhibit N-1 below demonstrates, almost 40% of states (14 states and DC) got involved in the charter school movement in the middle of the last decade (1995 and 1996), with the total number of states involved in charter schools steadily increasing every year. As of September 1999, 36 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had charter school legislation in place.
Exhibit N-1
AGE OF CHARTER LEGISLATION
|
| |
Early
1991 - 1994 (n=12) |
Middle
1995 - 1996 (n=15) |
Recent
1997 - 1999 (n=11) |
|
Minnesota (1991)
California (1992)
Colorado (1993)
Georgia (1993)
Massachusetts (1993)
Michigan (1993)
New Mexico (1993)
Puerto Rico (1993)
Wisconsin (1993)
Arizona (1994)
Hawaii (1994)
Kansas (1994 ) |
Alaska (1995)
Arkansas (1995)
Delaware (1995)
Louisiana (1995)
New Hampshire (1995)
Rhode Island (1995)
Wyoming (1995)
Connecticut (1996)
Washington, DC (1996)
Florida (1996)
Illinois (1996 )
New Jersey (1996)
North Carolina (1996)
South Carolina (1996)
Texas (1996) |
Mississippi (1997)
Nevada (1997)
Ohio (1997)
Pennsylvania (1997)
Idaho (1998)
Missouri (1998)
New York (1998)
Utah (1998)
Virginia (1998)
Oklahoma (1999)
Oregon (1999)
|
Legislative Timing
Exhibit N-2 illustrates the relationship between the age of charter legislation and the types of entities permitted to charter schools, their roles and responsibilities, and the types of reporting requirements that are expected of charter school authorizers. Several findings are interesting here. First, although states identify multiple entities for chartering schools regardless of when legislation was passed, the distribution across states differs depending on the year passed. For example, in early states, the proportions allowing local school districts, school boards, and state boards of education to charter were comparable to one another. By contrast, states with recent legislation are much more variable, and local school boards, state boards of education, and universities have become more commonly included in charter legislation. This trend is consistent with both federal legislation and the thinking of charter school proponents, who argue for the value of different types of charter school authorizer.
In the domain of roles and responsibilities, although virtually all states require review of the charter document and student achievement, there appears to be a trend over time that fewer states expect that charter school authorizers will administer budgets or personnel, or provide services to charter schools. Although these are only a small portion of the charter school accountability picture, this finding seems to reflect a trend toward less control being given to charter school authorizers over time and, presumably, more freedom to charter schools in these specific areas of responsibility. Third, with regard to reporting requirements, an interesting - although not linear - pattern emerges over time. For example, fewer states with recent legislation require charter school authorizers and schools to report educational programs or financial record keeping, whereas large majorities of those from the mid-1990s require reporting in virtually all areas from educational programs, to compliance, and student enrollment. In sum, viewing the charter school movement against the backdrop of state legislation yields quite a dynamic picture that is changing the contexts in which charters operate over time.
Exhibit N-2
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE OF CHARTER LEGISLATION AND CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER VARIABLES
|
| | |
1991-94
(n=12) |
1995-96
(n=15) |
1997-99
(n=11) |
Charter school authorizer Type |
|
|
|
|
Local school boards
|
50% |
67% |
82% |
|
Local school districts
|
42% |
20% |
27% |
|
State board of education
|
50% |
73% |
64% |
|
Universities and colleges
|
25% |
13% |
27% |
|
Community colleges
|
25% |
0% |
9% |
Roles/Responsibilities (% of states reporting that no charter school authorizers have these responsibilities) |
|
Administer the budget
|
45% |
64% |
78% |
|
Administer personnel and benefits
|
45% |
64% |
60% |
|
Provide facilities for charter school(s)
|
27% |
57% |
60% |
|
Provide services
|
27% |
38% |
36% |
Reporting Requirements (% of states requiring charter school authorizers to report on these areas) |
|
Educational program
|
80% |
67% |
27% |
|
Financial record keeping
|
60% |
92% |
36% |
|
Compliance with federal regulations
|
40% |
91% |
44% |
|
Compliance with state regulations
|
44% |
90% |
27% |
|
Student enrollment and demographics
|
80% |
92% |
36% |
|
Student achievement
|
90% |
86% |
64% |
|
Other student performance indicators
|
67% |
82% |
40% |
|
Governance/decision-making
|
44% |
64% |
10%
|
|
Types of Charter School Authorizers Allowed
As described earlier, the legislative decision establishing which entities may charter schools and the roles and responsibilities of such entities can have an important impact on the way the charter school movement develops in an individual state. Exhibit N-3 below shows variation in roles and responsibilities and reporting requirements in light of the four categories of states in terms of charter school authorizer type. In the area of roles and responsibilities beyond review of charter documents and student achievement, states that allow local entities only and those that allow multiple independent entities appear to be less likely than other states to require charter school authorizers to perform functions related to budget, personnel, or services. Similarly, states that allow only local entities to charter appear to be generally less likely to require reporting in most of the reporting categories. Thus, it would seem to be consistent that states that legislate greater local control of chartering also are less likely to require specific responsibilities or reporting burden. This pattern may reflect the belief that this type of decision is best accomplished in the direct relationship between the authorizer and the individual school.
Exhibit N-3
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TYPES OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER ALLOWED AND OTHER CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZER VARIABLES
|
| | |
Single Type of Entity - Local
(n=9) |
Single Type of Entity -
State
(n=6) |
Multiple Entities - Independent
(n=11) |
Multiple Entities - Interdependent
(n=10) |
|
Roles/Responsibilities (% none) |
|
|
|
|
|
Administer the budget
|
43% |
80% |
46% |
78% |
|
Administer personnel and benefits
|
57% |
80% |
37% |
67% |
|
Provide facilities for charter school(s)
|
38% |
80% |
36% |
44% |
|
Provide services
|
33% |
75% |
27% |
11% |
|
Reporting Requirements (% yes) |
|
|
|
|
|
Educational program
|
33% |
60% |
64% |
75% |
|
Financial record keeping
|
38% |
50% |
30% |
67% |
|
Compliance with federal regulations
|
43% |
75% |
67% |
57% |
|
Compliance with state regulations
|
38% |
67% |
63% |
50% |
|
Student enrollment and demographics
|
38% |
80% |
83% |
75% |
|
Student achievement
|
67% |
100% |
83% |
78% |
|
Other student performance indicators
|
25% |
75% |
90% |
63% |
|
Governance/decision-making
|
13% |
33% |
42% |
71%
|
|
|
