Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program:
|
Beginning of School Year |
Number of States with Charter School Laws |
Number of States with Charter Schools |
Number of Charter Schools |
Source |
1992-1993 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Nelson et al. (2000). (Note: Data include Washington, D.C., starting in 1996-1997, but not Puerto Rico, which authorized charter schools in 1993.) |
1993-1994 |
8 |
3 |
36 |
|
1994-1995 |
11 |
6 |
100 |
|
1995-1996 |
18 |
10 |
254 |
|
1996-1997 |
26 |
17 |
432 |
|
1997-1998 |
30 |
24 |
721 |
|
1998-1999 |
34 |
28 |
1,122 |
|
1999-2000 |
38 |
32 |
1,692 |
SRI. (Includes D.C. and Puerto Rico.) |
Organization of the Report
The Year 1 data in this report paint a comprehensive picture of a number of issues: the development of the Public Charter Schools Program, state and charter school authorizer perspectives on charter school flexibility and accountability, and the charter school activities of states and a sample of charter school authorizers. This picture, however, is also a "snapshot" of a rapidly evolving movement during a narrow time interval (summer and fall 1999).
The report is organized according to the evaluation themes and findings from the first year of data collection and analysis. The overarching themes and specific findings are as follows:
Evaluation Theme 1: Like the charter school movement itself, the Public Charter Schools Program has grown and matured since its implementation in 1994.
Finding: Increasing numbers of new and developing charter schools are receiving support from federal funds through the Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP).
Evaluation Theme 2: Public Charter Schools Program funds flow as Congress and the U.S. Department of Education intended as grants to states and then directly to charter schools as subgrants. Overall, 95 percent or more of PCSP funds are spent at the charter school level.
Finding: As allowed in the legislation, states retain 5 percent or less of their PCSP grants for administrative purposes.
Finding: As allowed in the legislation, states have developed their own procedures for awarding subgrants.
Finding: States use different definitions of "start-up," differences that affect eligibility for PCSP subgrants.
Finding: The use of PCSP subgrant funds is largely unrestricted.
Evaluation Theme 3: In addition to providing financial support, the Public Charter Schools Program has provided national leadership in the charter school movement through policy-setting, research, networking, and technical assistance to the field.
Finding: The PCSP takes a leadership role within the Department of Education in helping shape the national charter school agenda.
Finding: PCSP staff have taken an active approach to connecting charter school operators, sponsors, and support groups with each other and with other resources.
Finding: The PCSP is responsive to technical assistance requests from states and other PCSP grantees.
Evaluation Theme 4: States, in general, are working toward increasing the avenues available to charter applicants, either by expanding the types of agencies that can charter or by loosening limits on the numbers of charter schools permitted.
Finding: State laws allow a diverse range of agencies to award charters to schools.
Finding: Although caps on the number of charter schools have been an obstacle to charter school growth in some states, the overall trend is to loosen or expand these limits over time.
Evaluation Theme 5: Reports from states and charter school authorizers suggest that charter schools have certain freedoms that other public schools do not, but that they are also subject to many of the same regulations and requirements. Perceptions of these freedoms differ between state and charter school authorizer respondents, and among charter school authorizers.
Finding: Half of the 38 states with charter school laws automatically grant waivers from many state laws, rules, and regulations; the other half either require charter school applicants to negotiate waivers on a case-by-case basis or ban waivers altogether.
Finding: In general, state charter school policies do not exempt charter schools from state student assessment or budgeting/auditing requirements. Charter school authorizers, on the other hand, reported that charter schools have considerable autonomy over key aspects of their programs.
Finding: In general, charter school authorizers that are not local educational agencies (e.g., agencies like state boards of education, institutions of higher education, and special chartering boards) allow charter schools greater flexibility and autonomy.
Evaluation Theme 6: Both States and charter school authorizers are establishing processes to hold charter schools accountable, typically involving many levels of the education system, [this phrase seems vague] and often focusing on student achievement.
Finding: In general, states reported that charter schools are held to the same student outcome measures as other public schools, student particularly with respect to state testing requirements. outcome measures as other public schools, as measured by state testing particularly with respect to state testing requirements. . Similarly, charter school authorizers reported that nearly all charter schools have measurable goals in the area of student achievement.
Finding: In the majority of states with charter school legislation, charter schools are accountable to multiple agencies.
Finding: The most prominent roles and responsibilities of charter school authorizers, as reported by states, include reviewing, negotiating, and monitoring the terms of the charter agreement and monitoring student performance.
Finding: During the charter-granting process, charter school authorizers reported focusing on curriculum, finances, and assessment and accountability. Once charter schools are up and running, charter school authorizers focus on monitoring student achievement, financial record keeping, and compliance with federal or state regulations.
Finding: Charter school authorizers that are not local educational agencies (particularly those that are states) and those that have chartered large numbers of schools are more likely to have well-developed accountability policies, processes, and procedures than local charter school authorizers.
Evaluation Theme 7: States and charter school authorizers have many corrective actions at their disposal; most have been used in moderation.
Finding: Though not a frequent occurrence, in about half of the states the accountability process has resulted in some type of sanction against one or more charter schools. Generally, corrective actions are related to fiscal and management issues.
Finding: Charter school authorizers echoed state reports concerning the variety, frequency, and causes of corrective actions involving charter schools.
Finding: Corrective actions, when they did take place, were more common in states with older charter school legislation, larger populations of charter schools, and multiple chartering entities.
As this list of themes and findings indicates, the key issues explored in the Year 1 report are the Public Charter Schools Program, charter school flexibility, and charter school accountability, mostly from the perspective of respondents to the state coordinator and charter school authorizer surveys. Information from federal interviews and the focus groups is incorporated anecdotally.
The report concludes with a chapter on the study findings as of Year 1 and on the impact of charter schools from the perspective of Year 1 survey respondents. The conclusion also presents information on the evaluation team's plans for future rounds of data collection, analysis, and reporting.
Acknowledgments | | | Table of Contents | | | Chapter 1 |