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 opportunities 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 o 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 o 2012-13: One school added in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area o 2013-14: Four schools added plus two just outside the county o 2014-15: Nine schools added plus two just outside the county o 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 outside 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 Charter School Performance A 2009 study done by Compared to Public Schools 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 only one in five charter schools outperform public schools (close to the 17% statistic).
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 20 th Day ADM Final LEA allotment adjusted in late October/early November Note: If a child returns to LEA after the 20 th 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 20 th day enrollment Total County Allocation + projected (Police Sales + Restitution) / projected (CMS + Charter) 20 th 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 20 th 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 1 1 1 12 3 1 2 1 15 6 3 12 1 25 1 6 th Grade only ABC Charter School 129 X $2,325.20 = $299,951 1 7 (students from 24 CMS schools are enrolled at ABC Charter ) 3 2 1 2 1 11 7 10 Number = students from CMS school attending ABC charter
Financial Impact Charter School Local Payment Trend $30,000,000 $25,165,603 (projected) $25,000,000 $18,293,823 $20,000,000 $19,582,306 $15,397,848 $15,000,000 $15,738,314 $12,529,845 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $- 20008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Local payments are projected to increase by 100% since 2008-09 Total may differ from general ledger due to exclusion of law suit accruals and payments.
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
Recommend
More recommend
