Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Year One Evaluation Report

CHAPTER 4 APPENDICES

Appendix O:ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS, AS REPORTED BY STATES

Exhibit O-1:Roles and Responsibilities of Charter School Authorizers, as Reported by States

Appendix O

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS, AS REPORTED BY STATES

Exhibit 4-4 in Chapter 4 illustrates the frequency with which states reported the following roles of charter school authorizers:

• Charter review and negotiation. However varied charter school authorizers may be in type and other responsibilities, it is a logical and an unequivocal finding that virtually all charter school authorizers in nearly all states have a role in reviewing and monitoring charter documents. This responsibility presumably applies across initial application, charter award, ongoing monitoring and oversight, and renewal.
• Student achievement. Concern about and the need for improved academic achievement are driving forces behind the charter school movement. Indeed, the notion of a contract to free schools from regulation in exchange for results in student learning is one of the charter movement?s most powerful messages. Not surprisingly, charter school authorizers are required in most states (84%) to monitor student achievement (see Exhibit O-1). The implementation of this monitoring function is probably quite variable, since improvement in achievement can be considered from a multitude of perspectives (e.g., comparisons to state averages or nearby non-charter schools).
• Budget and personnel. Most charter school proponents and operators would argue that budget and personnel functions are two of the most crucial areas over which a school should have flexibility. Because of the centralization of state financing systems, however, these may be the functions that are most difficult to disentangle from the existing system. More than half of the states reported that no charter school authorizers were responsible for the administration of budget (60%) and personnel and benefits (56%). In certain states, this might be because different agencies are considered responsible; in others, it might be a point of negotiation.
• Facilities. One of the most challenging start-up obstacles for many charter schools is locating appropriate facilities (Berman, et. al., 1998). However, providing facilities at free or reduced rent was not a requirement or high expectation of charter school authorizers in most states. In fact, approximately half of the states with smaller to medium-sized charter populations reported that no charter school authorizer was required to take on this responsibility. In the states with larger charter populations, assigning the responsibility to charter school authorizers was more likely, with over two-thirds of states reporting that some charter school authorizers were responsible for providing these options. Those reporting that responsibility for providing facilities varied indicated that, for the most part, this point was negotiated between the charter school authorizer and the charter school.
• Provide services. States were asked whether charter school authorizers were responsible for providing services such as special education. The provision of services, particularly for special education students, has been complicated and sometimes contentious issue for charter schools (Ahearn, 1999). Lack of clarity about educational and financial responsibilities for students with disabilities has created difficulties for charter school authorizers and schools alike. The primary issue here relates to the higher cost of educating these students and the lack of resources on the part of many charter schools to serve them, despite their obligation under federal law to do so. Similar situations apply to assessment and transportation services. States? reported expectations for the provision of services such as special education were quite variable. None of the states with larger numbers of charter schools reported that all of their charter school authorizers were responsible for providing these services; most of these states reported that some were responsible and others were not, depending on the circumstances. Ten states reported that no charter school authorizers were responsible for providing these services. The basic point that states made was that, in the case of special education services, the picture of who is responsible is perfectly unclear.

In some states, state coordinators responded that "no" charter school authorizers were responsible for functions like special education services or providing facilities because the issue was not addressed directly in the law, so official responsibility was unclear in that state. More often, however, if a state did not assign the responsibility to any of its charter school authorizers, it would mean that another entity was responsible for those activities. More likely than not, the responsible entity would be the charter school itself or, in some cases, the local educational agency (where it is not the charter school authorizer).

Role/Responsibility	All Charter School Authorizers	Some Charter School Authorizers	No Charter School Authorizers
Review, negotiate, and monitor the terms of the charter document (n=38)	97%	0%	3%
Review and monitor student performance in the charter school(s) (n=38)	84%	8%	8%
Administer the budget of the charter school(s) (n=34)	15%	24%	62%
Administer personnel and benefits functions for the charter school(s) (n=35)	9%	34%	57%
Provide facilities for charter school(s) at free or reduced rent (n=35)	9%	43%	49%
Provide services (e.g., special education) (n=35)	20%	46%	34%

Table of Contents