Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
54977696
label
G-8 Summit 1999 [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
54977696
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
G-8 Summit 1999 [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Bethany Little's Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
54977696
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367454-20130371S-009-002-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6f733f55f54166f2
ocrText
September 17, 1997
CHARTER SCHOOLS EVENT
DATE:
September 20, 1997
LOCATION:
San Carlos Charter Learning Center
BRIEFING TIME:
9:30 am - 10:00 am
EVENT TIME:
10:30 am - 11:50 am
FROM:
Bruce Reed
I.
PURPOSE
To demonstrate your commitment to charter schools and highlight the success charter schools
are having throughout the state of California. This is an opportunity to reiterate your veto
threat made public in your weekly radio address just hours before this event, and urge
Congress to continue funding for charter schools and other education initiatives.
II.
BACKGROUND
You will participate in a round table discussion with charter school administrators, teachers,
parents, and students from six charter schools in California. The event will take place on the
fifth anniversary of the nation's second charter school law, which passed with bipartisan
support and was signed by Governor Wilson on September 20, 1992. The San Carlos Charter
Learning Center was the first school in the state to receive a charter. This will be your
second visit to a charter school as President. Two years ago you visited the O'Farrell
Community Charter School in San Diego.
In your opening remarks, you will be announcing $40 million in new and continuing grants
for charter schools. California will be receiving $3,399,959. The grants will be used primarily
for planning and start-up costs. They can also be used for curriculum development, teacher
training, technology, assessment development, and dissemination of best practices between
charters and the rest of the public school system. Earlier this summer, $6 million in charter
school grants were also released.
When you first took office there was only one charter school in the nation, and only two
states had enacted charter school laws -- Minnesota and California. As a result of your
leadership, there are now approximately 700 charter schools open this fall, and a total of 29
states and D.C. that have charter school laws.
In 1994, you signed into law the first federal charter schools program as part of the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The program has grown
from $6 million in FY 1995 to $51 million in FY 1997. In your FY98 budget proposal, you
requested $100 million to support the development of approximately 900-1000 charter
schools.
As you know, the Gorton Amendment, which recently passed the senate, would block grant
the charter schools program and eliminate targeted support for charter schools. Today,
Congressman Hoekstra pulled the House version of the Gorton Amendment off the floor, and
the issue will now need to be addressed in conference.
The Gorton Amendment would also block grant education technology grants, such as those
released last week by the Department of Education. The Department announced the award
of $18.5 million for 19 new education technology grants in 14 states -- including grants to
four partnerships in California.
Two years ago this week, you met with information industry leaders in San Francisco to
launch your education technology initiative and announce your commitment to connect every
classroom to the Internet by the year 2000. At this event you challenged information industry
leaders to help meet this goal. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who will participate in this round
table, attended this meeting and has since made a commitment to contribute $100 million to
this cause. Just two days before your visit, Oracle will hold an event in Los Angeles to
announce that it will furnish the 100 poorest schools in Los Angeles with computers in every
classroom.
Currently 65% of schools are connected to the Internet, which is almost double to the number
of schools connected in 1994. The number of classrooms have quadrupled in this time
period. In addition, the FCC has now approved the e-rate, which will provide $2.25 billion
a year beginning next January to help ensure that every classroom and library will be
connected to the Internet.
III.
PARTICIPANTS
- Representative Anna Eshoo
- Don Shalvey, Superintendent, San Carlos School District
3
- Elise Darwish, Principal, San Carlos Charter Learning Center
4
- Sue Bragato, Parent and Founder of the San Carlos Charter Learning Center, and Executive
Director of the California Network of Educational Charters
5
- Gregory Miller, Student, San Carlos Charter Learning Center
6
- Larry Ellison, Chairman and CEO, Oracle Corporation
7
- Yvonne Chan, Principal, Vaughn Next Century Learning Center, San Fernando
(*She previously participated in the Family Conference.)
- Mark Kushner, Principal, Leadership High School, San Francisco
a-)
- Jose Maya, Student, Leadership High School
10
- Jonathan Williams, Founder and Principal, Accelerated Charter School, South Central, L.A.
?
11
- Betty Soto, Parent, Accelerated Charter School
?
12
- Ginger Hovenic, Teacher, Clear View Elementary School, San Diego.
13
- Tom Ruiz, Teacher/Founder, International Studies Charter School, San Francisco
IV.
PRESS PLAN
Open Press.
V.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
- You will be announced onto the stage accompanied by the First Lady, Superintendent Don
Shalvey, and School Principal Elise Darwish.
- Principal Elise Darwish will make welcoming remarks and introduce the First Lady.
- The First Lady will make remarks and introduce Superintendent Don Shalvey.
- Don Shalvey will make remarks and introduce you.
- You will make remarks.
- At the conclusion of your remarks you will take your seat at the round table. All other
participants will already be seated.
- Superintendent Don Shalvey will make brief opening remarks and serve as the moderator
for the discussion.
- Each participant seated at table will make brief remarks and you and the First Lady will have
an opportunity to ask follow up questions to each of them. (See attachment for sequence
of speakers and suggested follow up questions.)
VI.
REMARKS
Remarks provided by Speechwriting.
SEP-20-97 09:33 AM MIKECOHEN
301 6224044
P.02
09/19.9 FRI 18:34 PAX
002
Final
PRESIDENT WHILIAM J. CLINTON
REMARKS FOR CHARTER SCHOOL EVENT
SAN CARLOS CHARTER LEARNING CENTER
SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA
September 20, 1997
Acknowledgments: First Lady, Rep Anna [shoo: Superintendent Don Shalvery, Principal
Elise Darwish [DAR-wish].
1 am looking forward to talking to you all today about how charter schools are helping to
lift standards, renow our public schools, and give our children the world class education they need
to succeed in the 21st Century. I want to congratulate the San Carlos L earning Center for boing
the first of its kind in California -- which makes It among the very first in the United States.
For four-and-a-half, I have worked to expand opportunity for every American through
education, and to give our children the tools they need to make the most of their lives. The
historic balanced budget 1 signed in July includes the largest new investment In education since
1965; from more children in Head Start. to our America Reads initiative, to putting computers in
all our classrooms and libraries by the year 2000
But to help our children make the most of their potential, we have to make sure that our
schools are making the most of their resources. And to give our children the tools they need 10
make the most of their lives, we must give their parents and their communities the tools they need
to make sure that our public schools are performing. That is why in 1994. we put In place the
Charter Schools program that helped schools like San Carlos to get started.
Charter schools are public schools. They serve communities of all kinds and sizes -- their
student bodies reflect the rich diversity of America. And they bring together the innovation,
creativity and competition that make our public schools great. The way they work is simple: in
exchange for the same per-student funding, fewer regulations and less red tape. these schools
must meet high expectations and if they don't do M good job, they lose their charter.
Since 1 was elected, the number of charter schools nationwide has gone from just one to
700 this Fall. And from Massachusetts to Minnesota to New Mexico. 27 states have passed laws
permitting charter schools -- bringing the total to 29 By giving parents the power to choose a
charter school, these states are helping to make all of our public schools botter. And I want to
encourage those states that have not yet done so to give parents that power - and give our
children a greater chance to succeed.
Today, I am pleased 10 announce $16 million in grants 10 help more charter schools open
their doors. From the start-up costs that are the biggest obstacle to starting now charter schools
to currioulum development, from teacher training to new technology -- these grants will help
communities support approximately 500 now charter schools in 21 states.
301 6224044
P.03
BEP-20-97 09134 AM MIKECOHEN
003
But last wook, Congress supported an amendment that would make sure these charter
school grants are the last the national government ever gives out This amendment would lump
all of our education funds together and arbitrarily distribute them to the states. In the process, it
would abolish our afforts to open charter schools, to pur computers in our classrooms, and to
create safe and drug-free schools. Congress also recently passed an amendment that would halt
my plan for national Lests in the basic skills - tests that are absolutely essential to our continued
progress. 1 will not let Congress undermine the quality of our children's oducation -- and I will
veto any logislation that tries to do it.
Making sure our charter schools succeed requires something from us all Teachers must
teach to high standards that lift our children up: parents must stay involved and demand
accountability; business lenders must lend their management expertise 10 help charter schools
meet their goals; superintendents and teacher unions must commit themselves to support charter
schools. And Boards of Education must exercise care in granting charters -- and approve
applications by teams that are clearly up to the challenge
For make no mistake: running a charter school is not an easy rask it in M serious
responsibility. It requires a vital, creative educational vision, sound judgment, and the ability to
manage public funds. Above all, It requires an iron-clad commitment to provide every child who
walks through the door an education scoond to none in the world.
To help more communities get started. I am pleased to announce that Secretary Riley will
convens a National Conference on Charter Schools in Washington this November. This
conference will bring together parents, teachers, school administs ators. and education advocates
to discuss problems. share best practices, and chart a course for the future of charter schools
Before we get started, 1 want to thank some of the business leaders here with us today for
their continued commitment to educational excellence: Rewis McKenna President of Regis
McKenna, Inc.: David Fillington, the Chief Executive of Ner Noir, Brook Byers, a partner of
Kleiner Perkins; Jerry Young. co-founder of VaHoo!: and Paul Lipps, the Vice President of
Synopsis. T also want to thank Larry Ellison the Chairman and CEO of Oracle Corporation.
Larry sponsored the San Carlos Learning Center, and jum yesterday, he announced that Oracle's
Promise -- a $100 million foundation he pledged 10 create at the President's Summit for
America's Future last April - will connect the 100 needy schools across California.
This is how we will meet America's challenges as we до forward and I thank all of you
here today for your support Now I want to turn this discussion over (0 the panel.
CHARTER SCHOOLS: RAISING STANDARDS
AND EXPANDING PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE
[E]very state should give parents the power to choose the right public school for their children. Their
right to choose will foster competition and innovation that can make public schools better. Our plan will
help America to create 3,000 of these charter schools by the next century so that parents will have even
more choices in sending their children to the best schools.
President Clinton, State of the Union Address, February 4,1997
Today President Clinton visited the San Carlos Learning Center, one of the nation's first charter
schools, to announce new grants for charter schools and host a roundtable discussion with charter
school principals, teachers, students, parents, and community supporters.
PRESIDENT CLINTON ANNOUNCES $40 MILLION IN NEW AND CONTINUING
GRANTS FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS. These grants, along with $6 million in grants given
earlier this year, are going to 21 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to support the
planning and start-up costs of about 500 additional charter schools. Grants will also be used for
curriculum development, teacher training, technology, and dissemination of best practices
between charters and the rest of the public school system.
CHARTER SCHOOLS HAVE EXPERIENCED TREMENDOUS GROWTH UNDER
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S LEADERSHIP. As a result of the President's continuing
leadership, there has been a tremendous growth in the number of charter schools. When President
Clinton took office, there was one charter school in operation nationwide and only two states with
a charter law. This year, over 700 charter schools are expected to be in operation. Similarly, the
number of states with charter laws continues to grow -- 29 states, and the District of Columbia
have passed enabling legislation.
This growth is attributable to the President's proposal of a public charter schools program,
which was enacted in 1994 as part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. With the President's leadership, the charter school program has grown from $6
million in FY 1995 to $51 million in FY 1997. The President has requested $100 million from
Congress from FY 1998 to support the development of approximately 900-1000 charter schools.
Under this program, the Education Department:
Provides funds for planning and start-up of charter schools. Since 1995, 19 states
and the District of Columbia have received a total of about $22 million to help launch over
450 charter schools. A number of studies, including the latest report from a national study
of charter schools funded by the Department of Education, shows that the greatest need
facing charter schools is a lack of access to planning and start-up funding. The federal
investment in charter schools helps meet this need.
Serves as a clearinghouse of information on charter schools for parents, teachers,
and policymakers. The Education Department provides technical assistance, organizes
conferences and informational meetings, and has established a Charter Schools Website
(www.uscharterschools.org)
Conducts research and evaluation on charter schools. The Education Department has
contracted for a 4-year independent evaluation of charter schools to provide the most
comprehensive data on the nation's charter schools. In addition, the Education
Department is supporting research on charter schools in areas such as assessment and
accountability, special education, school finance, equity, and leadership training.
CHOICE WITH PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY. Every parent should be able to choose what
public school their child will attend. The administration's support for the development of high-
quality charter schools has increased the choices parents have about their child's education. At
the same time, The Administration's charter school policy ensures public accountability. Charter
schools can be closed if students fail to perform at promised levels. And like all public schools,
charter schools are nonsectarian, cannot charge tuition, are open to all students, and must still
comply with health, safety and civil rights requirements.
CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S EDUCATION
REFORM STRATEGY. Charter schools are just one piece of a larger strategy of promoting
high standards and accountability. The President has urged states and school districts to adopt
challenging academic standards in all core subjects, and to adopt high national standards in the
basics of reading and mathematics. The President has strengthened existing federal programs and
fought for new resources to improve local schools and help students reach those standards.
CHARTERS ARE EVIDENCE OF THE KIND OF INNOVATION THAT RESULTS
WHEN WE COMMIT TO IMPROVE -- NOT ABANDON -- OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Charter schools are examples of genuine public education reform -- they provide a mechanism for
change with real public accountability for promised results. Unlike charter schools, private school
vouchers offer no public accountability -- there are no standards to meet, and no way to shut them
down.
A Brief History of Charter Schools
Definition
Charter schools are public schools run by groups of teachers, parents or other community leaders that
operate with a contract -- or charter. Charters are granted by public groups, such as local school
boards or state boards of education. Each charter explains how the school will operate and how well
its students will perform. In many states, as long as the school meets the terms of its charter it is freed
from rules and regulations covering traditional public schools. However, charter schools are held
highly accountable, and if students in a charter school fail to perform at levels described in their
charter, or if the school breaks rules that have not been waived, it can be closed. Like all public
schools, charter schools are not allowed to charge tuition, must be non-sectarian, and cannot be
selective in their admissions.
Background
The concept of charter schools grew out of several other educational reforms, including expanding
public school choice, increasing accountability, delegating control of education and management
decisions to schools, and increasing parent and community involvement in schools. At the heart of
the concept is an exchange. Charter schools receive increased autonomy in exchange for performing
under increased accountability. The charter school movement grew out of a belief that carefully
developed competition among existing public schools and new kinds of schools could provide:
1. a broader range of options for families within public education systems;
2. new models of successful schools that traditional schools could replicate; and
3. incentives for school districts to improve their other schools.
Growth
Minnesota became the first state to enact charter school legislation in 1991. The first charter school
opened in Minnesota in 1992. Since then, the charter reform concept has spread rapidly. In January
1997, 428 charter schools were open, and in the beginning of the 1997-98 school year approximately
700 charter schools were operating. These numbers are likely to grow rapidly over the next few
years.
As of September 1997, 29 states have enacted varying forms of charter school laws. Federal
legislation also provides the District of Columbia with a charter law. [see chart below] The state of
Oregon has no specific charter law but does have authority in state law to establish charter schools
and has received a Federal grant.
The specific terms of states' charter legislation vary widely. In some states, charter school legislation
is a relatively modest effort to facilitate modifications in the relationship of existing individual schools
to local school districts. Charter legislation in other states provides opportunities for fundamentally
different schools, sponsored by groups such as state boards of education or public universities, as well
as local school boards.
States with Charter School Legislation, by Year of First Enactment
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Minnesota
California
Colorado
Arizona
Alaska
Connecticut
Mississippi
Georgia
Hawaii
Arkansas
D.C.
Penn.
Mass.
Kansas
Delaware
Florida
Nevada
Michigan
N.H.
Illinois
Ohio
New Mexico
Louisiana
N.J.
Wisconsin
R.I.
N.C.
Wyoming
S.C.
TX
Federal Role
The 1994 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act established a role for the
Federal government in the charter movement by authorizing funds for charter school development
and for a national study to assess the impact of charter schools. This program is designed to address
the most pressing challenge shown in surveys to be facing charter schools: a lack of access to start-up
funding. This program also provides fundsfor national activities to support the development of
charter schools, including a charter schools website, technical assistance and information to parents
and teachers about charter schools, and research.
FISCAL YEAR 1997
Public Charter Schools Program Grantees-Continuations
ALASKA
Juneau
State Department of Education
$1,516,500
Contact: Marjorie Menzi (907) 465-8720
ARIZONA
Phoenix
State Department of Education
$3,221,226
Contact: Kathi Haas (602) 542-5206
CALIFORNIA
Sacramento
State Department of Education
$3,399,959
Contact: David Patterson (916) 327-5929
COLORADO
Denver
State Department of Education
$2,024,372
Contact: Bill Windler (303) 866-6631
CONNECTICUT
Hartford
State Department of Education
$1,286,371
Contact: Yvette Thiesfield (860) 566-1233
DELAWARE
Dover
State Department of Education
$541,302
Contact: Larry Gabbert (302) 739-4885
Supplement $150,000
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington
District of Columbia Public Schools
$2,063,095
Contact: Richard Wenning (202) 724-4222
FLORIDA
Tallahassee
State Department of Education
$3,366,026
Contact: Tracey Bailey (904) 414-0780
Supplement $1,200,000
GEORGIA
Atlanta
State Department of Education
$1,469,380
Contact: John Rhodes (404) 657-7627
Supplement $140,000
ILLINOIS
Springfield
State Department of Education
$782,850
Contact: Sally Vogl (217) 782-0541
KANSAS
Topeka
State Department of Education
$900,000
Contact: Phyllis Kelly (913) 296-3069
LOUISIANA
Baton Rouge
State Department of Education
$373,711
Contact: Bill Miller (504) 342-3603
MASSACHUSETTS
Boston
Executive Office of Education
$2,352,362
Contact: Scott Hamilton (617) 727-1313
Supplement $586,780
MICHIGAN
Lansing
State Department of Education
$3,843,820
Contact: Gary Cass (517) 373-4631
Supplement $1,099,972
MINNESOTA
Saint Paul
State Department of Education
$2,183,458
Contact: Jessie Montano (612) 296-2181
NEW MEXICO
Santa Fe
Turquoise Trail Elementary School
$170,173
Contact: Nycha Leia Zenderman (505) 471-7282
NEW JERSEY
Trenton
State Department of Education
$1,290,934
Contact: Dalia Georgedes (609) 292-5850
Supplement $468,421
NORTH CAROLINA
I
Raleigh
State Department of Education
$1,490,276
Contact: Grova Bridgers (919) 715-1730
Supplement $1,000,000
OREGON
Salem
State Department of Education
$779,948
Contact: Leon Fuhrman (503) 378-5585
PUERTO RICO
San Juan
State Department of Education
$1,313,500
Contact: Nilda Baez De Morales (787) 765-9772 Supplement $676,912
TEXAS
Austin
State Department of Education
$2,165,167
Contact: Brooks Flemister (512) 463-9575 Supplement $250,000
WISCONSIN
Madison
State Department of Education
$856,548
Contact: Thomas Stefonek (608) 266-5728
Suppplement $500,00
EVALUATION
Berkely
RPP International
$792,510
Contact: Beryl Nelson (510) 843-8574
**Supplement grants were awarded earlier this year.
FISCAL YEAR 1997
Public Charter Schools Program Grantees-New Grants
HAWAII
Honolulu
Waialae Charter School
$90,000
Contact: Amy Kwock (808) 733-4880
Kailua
Lanikai Elementary School
$149,635
Contact: Donna Estomago (808) 266-7844
PENNSYLVANIA
Harrisburg
State Department of Education
$1,333,333
Contact: Tim Daniels (717) 783-9783
SOUTH CAROLINA
Columbia
State Department of Education
$1,447,900
Contact: Calvin (Chip) Jackson (803) 734-8496
CHARTER SCHOOL Qs &As
*Internal Use Only -- Not For Distribution*
CHARTER SCHOOL ISSUES
Q.
Why do charter schools need extra funding?
A.
The Federal start-up grants provide funding for start-up costs and can last a maximum of three
years. The grants are designed to fill an acknowledged gap. Research has documented that
the greatest challenges charter schools face are associated with initial planning and start-up.
For example, charter schools that start from scratch often must pay for their facilities out of
the portion of funding used in traditional systems to pay for operational costs. Federal grants
help by paying for things like curriculum design or renovations that must occur before the
school opens.
Q.
Aren't charter schools eroding the teaching profession by allowing uncertified teachers?
A.
Teacher certification requirements for charter schools are set by each state. Most states
require that the vast majority of teachers in charter schools be certified. Charter schools
sometimes hire people to teach who have professional experience that can be translated into
valuable teaching. For those non-credentialed staff, charter schools must demonstrate that
they will have the appropriate training and support to effectively provide instruction in the
classroom.
Q.
Aren't charter schools elitist?
A.
No. Charter schools are public schools and they must be open to all students. Charter
schools are being established in all types of communities -- including inner cities, suburbs, and
rural areas. Recent studies show that on average, they serve roughly comparable numbers of
minority students as neighboring schools, and in some states, they teach a higher proportion of
minority students than are in that state's traditional public schools.
Q.
Do you think that charter schools might draw students and resources away from public
schools?
A.
These are public schools -- exciting, innovative public schools that can draw people back into
the public school system. In some states between 10 and 14 percent of the students in charter
schools are students that were not previously enrolled public schools. These new students
include former dropouts, teen mothers, and students coming back from private schools to
attend charter schools.
Q.
Are charter schools adequately serving disadvantaged students?
A.
It is critical that charters schools serve a diverse population and provide help to those students
who need it most. Several of the schools highlighted today have student populations that are
predominantly poor or limited English proficient and these schools are successfully educating
1
all of their students. And there are encouraging reports that show that charter schools are
serving the same or slightly higher percentages or poor and minority students than their states'
overall public school systems.
Q.
Are charters are serving students with disabilities?
A.
As public schools, charter schools are not exempt from requirements to serve special
education students. This reflects one of the fundamental values of public schools -- that they
serve all children. There are wonderful examples of charter schools' providing a better
education to children with disabilities than the schools from which they came. It is true that
data from the national survey contracted by the U.S. Department of Education showed that,
except in a few states, charter schools are serving a slightly lower percentage of students in
special education than the overall public school system. We think this is an important issue
and the administration is working to address it. Several of the school highlighted today have
-higher- than average percentages of students with disabilities.
Q.
Do charter schools represent a significant reform, if they only represent 700 of the
thousands of schools in this country?
A.
Charter schools are just one piece of a larger strategy of promoting high standards and
accountability, but these schools can help lead the way for reforms and improvement in public
education. They can provide models for successful public schools, provide new choices for
parents, and stimulate healthy competition within public education. But they are part of a
broader strategy. The President has urged states and school districts to adopt challenging
academic standards in all core subjects, and to adopt high national standards in the basics of
reading and mathematics. The President has strengthened existing federal programs and
fought for new resources to improve local schools and help students reach those standards.
CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOL ISSUES
Q.
How do you respond to charges that charter schools are breeding grounds for religious
instruction, as in the case of the recent consideration of a charter school application
based on scientology?
A.
While charter schools are freed from many rules and regulations, they are not exempt from
health, safety and civil rights requirements under the law. Federal law is clear that public
schools cannot promote religion. As with all other public schools, charter schools must be
non-sectarian.
Deciding which schools to charter is solely a state and local matter. The chartering authority -
- in California, the local school district -- is responsible for evaluating the charter application
to determine, among other things, whether the charter complies with federal and state
definitions of a public, non-sectarian school. If issues arise concerning any public school's
non-sectarian status, the U.S. Department of Education can investigate those concerns.
Background on scientology charter: A former special education teacher in the Los Angeles
2
district submitted a charter application to create a K-8 school. The school would utilize an
educational methodology set forth in texts written by the founder of the Church of
Scientology. The district delayed a hearing on the charter application pending its review of
the proposed texts -- which have been used by other area teachers for years -- and the
school's connection, if any, to the Church of Scientology. According to the district official
overseeing the charter process, the applicant has temporarily withdrawn the charter
application.
Q.
California has more than 130 charter schools, but only 34 of them have received Federal
start-up grants. Why has California received so little Federal charter school funding?
A.
Each state receiving federal grants establishes its own process to award subgrants to the
charter schools in their state. California's subgrant program focused on newer schools.
California had many schools operating before it received Federal funds and the state allocated
most of its funds for start-up costs. Schools that had already been operating for a year or more
did not apply for, or receive, funds for start-up costs. Other states have shaped their programs
differently, providing funding to larger proportions of their charter schools and, in some cases,
funding older charter schools.
California's newly announced FY 1997 grant will increase its charter school funding by an
additional $3.4 million. This increase should enable California to raise the proportion of its
charter schools receiving federal support.
Q.
If the country is to reach the President's goal of 3,000 charter schools, shouldn't
California revise its charter law to repeal or expand its cap on the number of schools?
A.
The President firmly believes that the number of charter schools nationwide should be
increased -- and he has included funding of $100 million in the FY 1998 budget to support the
development of approximately 900-1000 new charter schools. The Department of Education's
charter school program provides start-up funding, technical assistance and research support
that we hope will enable states to increase the number of charter schools. Ultimately,
Californians should look at the success of these schools and make their own decisions about
how many more they want.
NATIONAL TESTS IN CALIFORNIA
Q.
Is California participating in the national testing initiative?
A.
We do not consider California to be one of the seven states (Alaska, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina and west Virginia) that have committed to
participate in the tests.
Last April, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin announced her support
3
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
How are school
A Study of
districts responding
Eight States
to charter laws and
and the District
of Columbia
charter schools?
Policy Analysis for California Education
Eric Rofes, Investigator: April 1998
Preface
This report provides findings from a study titled "How Are School Districts Responding
to Charter Laws and Charter Schools?" This research aimed to identify: (1) the impact of
charter schools on school districts; (2) the ways school districts had responded; and
(3) whether districts had experienced systemic change as a result of charter laws and the
opening of charter schools.
The study was conducted in 1997, six years into the nation's experiment with charter
schools. It focused on eight states and the District of Columbia and included case studies
of 25 school districts affected by charter schools. This research was funded by The Saint Paul
Foundation and was hosted by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), an indepen-
dent research unit of the University of California at Berkeley. The study's investigator was
Eric Rofes.
Highlights
Overview
This study is the first published empirical research aimed at documenting the effects of
charter school laws and the opening of charter schools on public school districts. The
overall effects are a result of complex interactions between the impact of charter laws
and charter schools on a district and the responses by that district. The study's goal
was to examine the impact, analyze ways in which school districts were responding or
This is the
not responding, and assess the overall effects of this new reform initiative.
first published
Charter Impact
This study revealed the following primary impacts: (1) the loss of students and often an
empirical research
accompanying loss of financing; (2) the loss of a particular kind of student to niche-
focused charter schools; (3) the departure of significant numbers of disgruntled parents;
documenting the
(4) shifts in staff morale; (5) the redistribution of some central office administrators'
time and increased challenges predicting student enrollment and planning grade-level
placement.
effects of charter
Of the 25 case-study districts in this research study, almost half (12 or 48%) had experi-
schools on public
enced either strong (five or 20%) or moderate (seven or 28%) impact from charter schools
and slightly more than half (13 or 52%) had experienced either no impact (nine or 36%)
or mild impact (four or 16%). Large urban districts had experienced significantly less
school districts.
impact from charters than rural, suburban, and small urban districts.
ESEA-choice
Public School Choice
Reauthorization Paper
1.
N
Mul to reven]
2. Lots can Ln done Now, administated]
B. Newl more Hylitful consider in of
]
why and why not open choice /
4
who is may IL recommendation
ult due buy Hill
OGC ?
OCR ?
OBEMLA ?
OSERS ?
September 23, 1998
A
September 23, 1998
PART I: CONTEXT
Choice in education has become one of the most widely supported education reforms of the last decade.
Research suggests that public school choice fosters a sense of ownership among school staff, students, and
parents that promotes successful efforts toward common goals. Public school choice can also encourage
greater flexibility in what schools offer to address the necds of students, families, and communities, while
maintaining accountability for students meeting challenging state or local standards of performance.
(hish
quility
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the President are avid supporters of increasing the choices
available to all public school students. As articulated in ED's Strategic Plan, promoting choice in public
and families have, and take advantage of, options within the public school system.
schools is one of ED's primary objectives, with the goal of ensuring that increasing numbors failed of students
Currently, ED supports the expansion of public school choice primarily through its Public Charter Schools
and Magnet Schools Assistance programs and the work of the Equity Assistance Centers. Further, there is
legislative authority for promoting choice in the Title I and Goals 2000 programs. However, there is no
centralized approach or initiative that secks to promote the development or research of a growing array of
additional choice options such as inter- and intra-district choice, postsccondary options for high school
students, and district-operated focus schools.
Public school choice includes a range of options that allow families to select among public schools, and, in
some cascs, to participate in other educational opportunities within the public school system that do not
involve changing their primary school setting. Taken together, the extensive variety of public school choice
options flourishing around the country has vastly expanded the extent to which students in public schools
can actively participate in shaping their educational experiences.
Importantly, this range of options reflects a variety of objectives that form the basis for the type of choice
mechanism chosen and implemented. For example, magnet school programs are often used as vehicles for
they
(Sed)
assisting schools in reducing minority group isolation. Large-scale interdistrict programs are often
mut
undertaken as a way of infusing competitive forces into the educational system and increasing the choices
and
the
available to families and students within the public school students. Yet another example of an objective
way
for choice is to evaluate the effects of a new model of education on schools and students; this purpose is
embodied by the statute that authorizes ED's Public Charter Schools Program. It is important to note that
there are instances in which the objectives of choice mechanisms are viewed as counter-productive. For
example, Milwaukce administrators are currently fighting to remove the unrestricted open enrollment policy
that allows any student-regardless of race-to transfer to or from Milwaukee and neighboring suburban
districts, arguing that the policy is in complete disregard of the city's desegregation objectives.
States and districts vary dramatically in the ways that they provide-or do not provide-choice within the
public schools. For example, Minnesota allows every student to choose to attend the public school of their
choice, regardless of its proximity to students' attendance zones. State education dollars follow the student
regardless of district lines. Minncsota was also the first state to enact charter school authorizing
legislation, and is one of two states that allows income tax deductions or credits for certain expenses related
to public school attendance. At the other end of the continuum. however, there are several states that have
no statewide policies that address public school choices. Most states do have some form of public school
choice policy in place. and often have combinations of several vehicles available to students and families.
Further, many districts initiate public school choice systems in the absence of, or as a complement to,
state-level policies. Regardless of the source of the initiative, districts certainly are most often the entity
that implements these initiatives, and have donc most of the work to date designing choice systems in the
public schools. One example of a highly developed and widely heralded program exists in Cambridge,
MA. In this district. parents must choose a school for their children because there are no assigned or zoned
schools. Parents voice their preferences, and school assignments are made randomly in a manner that
maintains racial balance.
As outlined above, public school choice takes on many different faces. A summary some of the most
common types of options available to public school students and their features and participation rates
follows.
Common Public School Choice Options
Interdistrict choice. Eighteen states have statewide public school choice programs-sometimes
called 'open enrollment' policies-in which students can attend the school of their choosing across
district boundaries. Kcy differences among these programs include whether participation is
voluntary or mandatory, how state educational funding is treated for participating students, the
extent to which transportation funds are available, and the extent to which the racial/ethnic make
up of participating districts is considered.
Intradistrict choice. State-initiated intradistrict choice initiatives are in place in about nine states.
These initiatives involve the voluntary transfer of students among public schools within district
boundaries, but states differ according to whether district participation is mandatory or voluntary
(most are mandatory), and whether there are limitations placed on transfers to control for space or
desegregation issues. These initiatives include unrestricted choice among schools, as well as
programs often termed 'controlled choice,' in which typically parents and students are required to
rank their top selections for schools, and the district honors these preferences to the extent possible
without creating or exacerbating minority group isolation.
Magnet schools. Magnet programs seek to enhance educational quality and often to alleviate
minority isolation in schools by offering a distinctive curriculum that attracts students from outside
their assigned ncighborhood attendance zonc (magnet schools funded by the federal Magnet
Schools Assistance Program must have this desegregation objective). They are primarily an urban
phenomenon, most commonly found in large urban school systems where there are above-average
levels of minority student enrollments. More than 60% of all large urban districts currently offer
magnet programs. According to a 1993 survey of schools, there are approximately 5,200 schools
with magnet programs. Other sources report that these magnet programs enroll roughly 1.5 million
students nationwide
Charter schools. Charter schools are created through a contract. or "charter," in which local
educators, parents. community members, and/or school boards are granted freedom from a variety
of state and local regulations in exchange for operating a public school that achieves the goals of
the charter, sometimes including improved student performance. Thirtv-three states, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico have enacted legislation authorizing charter schools. More than 800
charter schools were in operation during the 1997-98 school year, serving an estimated 120,000
students. Charter schools are heavily concentrated in seven states (AZ, CA, CO, FL, MI, NC, and
TX).
Postsecondary options. Twenty-one states have postsecondary option programs that allow
high school juniors and seniors to take courses in colleges, universities, or vocational-technical
institutes. These options vary in terms of whether the activities apply towards high school
graduation requirements, college credit, or both, as well as how and to what extent they are
subsidized. About 12 of the 21 states with such options meet the costs of the postsecondary
education courses taken for college credit
District-operated focus schools. Districts also sometimes operate 'focus' schools within
selected traditional public schools. These schools are similar to magnet and charter schools in that
they have a specialized mission or philosophy that caters to the individual needs of students, but
operate as a part of an otherwise traditional public school. Estimates of the scope of these
programs are unavailable.
Public Funds for Private School Options
The options outlined above include some of the most common types of choice available to public school
students. However, they comprise only a part of the school choice spectrum that includes educational
choices that involve the transfer of public funds to bc used towards the cost of private education services.
These options most commonly include direct public subsidies to familics-often those below a certain level
of income-to usc towards tuition at participating private schools. Such initiatives are often called voucher
or scholarship programs. Currently, state-sponsored but city-targeted voucher programs are operating in
Milwaukec, WI and Cleveland, OH; these programs are targeted towards low-income and minority students
and provide respective per-pupil allocations to participating students to put towards private-including
sectarian-school tuition. Both programs are currently involved in legal battles regarding the
constitutionality of their allowance of public funds to bc used towards tuition in religiously affiliated
schools. Wisconsin's program for Milwaukec has been in operation since 1991, and current estimates of
the number of participating students are approximately 6,000 students. Cleveland's program began serving
students in the 1996-97 school year and now serves approximately 3,000 students. There are also
voucher-like programs in rural towns in Mainc and Vermont that allow students to attend private schools
with public-funds if no public school options are available to them. While currently only these few
programs exist, proposals to usc public cducation funds towards private education continue to show up on
dockets in state legislatures across the country.
A growing number of states are also considering the usc of the tax system to promote greater accessibility
to private schools by allowing families to deduct expenses from their taxable income that are used toward
the purchase of some form of private education (i.c., tuition costs, tutoring costs). Currently, Iowa and
Minnesota are the only states that authorize income tax deductions and credits for private elementary and
secondary school tuition and fees, but activity on the issue has occurred recently in at least 15 other state
legislatures.
Lastly, although not involving the expenditure of public funds, a vastly growing network of privately
funded voucher programs is beginning to impact the public school system by drawing large numbers of
students out of the public school system and provoking harsh criticisms of the public schools in
those-typically urban-areas. Privately-funded voucher programs are operating in 30 cities, but are
typically relatively modest in scope. Exceptionally large programs are currently operating in Milwaukee,
WI (approximately 4,000 students): Indianapolis. IN (approximately 1,000 students); and New York, NY
(approximately 1,000 students). A new program in the Edgewood, TX school district, a suburb of San
Antonio, is designed to have the capacity to serve every student in the district throughout their K-12
education.
With that context in mind, the next section takes up the question of why ED should promote public school
choice. This rationale is in turn used to support the development of a sct of key principles that should lay
the foundation for any federal action to support the expansion of public school choice.
ISSUES
This section is divided into two parts: the first presents a set of reasons why public school choice can be a
positive force for public education as well as some concerns about the reform; and the second sets up a
framework for public school choice by outlining key principles.
4F,
Threshold Question: Why Public School Choice?
in
This question is particularly important to answer carefully and clearly. The Department's support for the
expansion of public school choice options to date has been cursory, unclear, and at times inconsistent. This
problem stems from a lack of attention to this threshold question, as we have yet to make the case that
choice is truly consistent with of our vision for improving public education. Clearly, we must first set forth
the theoretical base for premoting this reform to make informed decisions about appropriate federal action.
Juls
Further, our basis for supporting public school choice must bc carefully crafted to make clear the
distinctions between public school choice and vouchers. We have been sharply criticized for supporting
public school choice options simply as a knee-jerk reaction against vouchers; indeed, the Department most
often voices its support for public school choice in the context of voicing its opposition to voucher
proposals.
While this paper is not about vouchers, it is worthwhile to make a few points about the voucher debate in
the context of mapping out the Department's support for public school choice. It is important to recognize
that some of the typical arguments for and against vouchers can also apply to public school choice. This
alignment will bc illuminated in detail in the discussion of the 'pros' and 'cons' of public school choice that
follows. The kcy distinction between public school choice and private voucher programs that allows us to
support the former without contradicting ourselves is that the variety, innovation, and improvements that
choice in schools can promote can be accomplished within the public school system without undermining
our fundamental commitment to ensure a high quality education for all of our children. In short, this
reform can help improve our schools while remaining accountable to the public for ensuring that all of our
students have access to a high quality education. Private voucher programs fundamentally undermine the
public nature of schools, as private schools have no obligation for providing a quality education to all
students.
The three key reasons why public school choice is a reform that the Department should promote are:-
different
1.
Public school choice allows parents to match the educational needs of their children to
individual schools within the public school system. Choice in the public schools offers a variety
No
of educational settings to students and families. Recognizing that no one school can meet the
unique needs of every student. public school choice provides students and families the flexibility to
my
choose among public schools that differ with respect to educational setting, pedagogy, and
academic content.
?
2.
Public school choice and the competition it brings to the public schools can help improve
public education generally without abandoning the fundamental concept of community-based
?
public schools. Empowering parents to choose among a sct of schools invites market-like
But
pressures into the public school system As parents 'vote with their feet this competition can lead
they
to overall improvement in the public schools in a number of ways. First, schools that develop
specialized or focus schools can lead to model programs that can bc replicated in other public
cloin
schools. Second, the pressure to attract and retain students can provide incentives for surrounding
neighborhood schools to change and improve in order to meet the needs of the community Finally,
this competition can function as a tool for driving improvements in school systems that better fit
instructional offerings to student needs by acting as a gauge for educational 'demand.'
then
There are many anccdotal stories to suggest that choice programs-both public and private do have
effects on the systems in which they operate. Charter schools. magnet schools, and other focus
cantal
schools have been known to serve as models for other public schools. A notable research example
of a public school choice program that has had an impact on school systems is in Massachusetts.
The statewide interdistrict choice policy in Massachusetts has sparked programmatic change in
small 'scnding' districts (i.c., those districts who sent transfer kids to another 'receiving' district)
that has resulted in a smaller loss of transfer students over time.
The idca that competition can help our schools is controversial, because it mirrors many of the
arguments that voucher advocates have been making for years.) However, it is both logical and
consistent. While we acknowledge many of the problems in our schools that voucher advocates
point to as reason to support a radical overhaul of the system. WC don't SCC choice as a way to
&
"escape a failing system.' Rather, WC can build on the many successes in public education, and
embrace public school choice as a promising reform within the public school system that retains
possible
the appropriate focus of our concerns-improving public schools for the betterment of all children.
regative
3.
Public school choice can improve student performance. Research suggests that public school
choice fosters a sense of ownership among school staff, students, and parents that promotes
successful efforts towards common goals. Coupled with our continued support of systemic,
standard-based reforms that drive school improvement, choice can bc a strong force for raising
Data
student achievement Cambridge, MA and New York City #4 are examples of public school
NO
JL.
choice programs that have shown increases in student achievement. There is also evidence to
suggest that students in urban public magnet schools outperform their counterparts in both
traditional public and private schools. While the research base on this question is still emerging,
this reform docs have promise for improving student outcomes when combined with strong school
improvement measures.
These strengths notwithstanding, there are some concerns that public school choice will have adverse,
unintended effects on schools and students. The primary issues center on questions of equity and the
application of market power in public schools Both bear discussion
A growing body of evidence suggests that unrestricted public and private school choice tends to
'skim' the brightest students. the better educated families, and nonminorities. As these students
leave struggling schools and districts. those students in most need of help are increasingly
concentrated in disadvantaged schools. This dynamic has been shown to occur even in programs
that are heavily targeted to serve disadvantaged students. For example, in San Antonio, TX,
students and families who chose a public or private school had more years of education, higher
incomes, higher employment levels, and a lower probability of being African-American than
non-choosing families. Also, while a study of interdistrict public school choice in Massachusetts
suggests that minority representation is not 'fatal' to the program, the authors still note that it is
nonetheless an important problem.
All
Public schools may have difficulty responding to unchecked competition because unlike a true
effective
Charten
market structure, they are obligated to comply with regulations that govern public schools.
moit
Further, they may lack adequate funding to change in a way that responds to the demand of
students and families. Because all of the underlying assumptions that govern markets are not
we regulat
naturally inherent to public schools, the marriage of competition and market-like pressures within
thought
public agencies can bc problematic. It can introduce confusion into the system and unfairly punish walt
schools that do not respond adequately.
have my permine
writer
ju
Rini
These issues underscore the importance of supporting public school choice that are specifically designed to
meet a set of carefully constructed principles. School choice should not bc viewed as a dichotomy in which
Hing
has,
the Department supports it or docsn't. Rather, the range of objectives, mechanisms, and their subsequent
effects dictates a more sophisticated stance. To address this need, WC have drafted a set of principles upon
which we believe public school choice programs should be based. These principles flow both from the
reasons public school choice is a promising reform as well as the possibilities for unwanted effects that
could stem from choice in the public schools. The principles outlined in the next section have been
designed to maximize the potential benefits of public school choice while minimizing the potential harm
that could arisc from it.
to
Key Principles of Public School Choice
The seven key principles of public school choice arc:
1.
Public schools of choice are public. First and foremost, public schools of choice must be
IDEA
nonsectarian, not charge tuition, abide by the civil rights, health. and safety laws that apply to all
public schools, and operate under the supervision of public agencies. While promoting choice and
variety among schools, it is critical to retain the core clements of public schools as institutions that
operate within the scope of public authority. Choice within the public system of education must
support the development of schools that can serve the unique needs of students, while ensuring that
a basic, quality cdu cation is provided to everyone.
7 rech dut # clour
suggest huldredge
2.
Public school choice must allow parents to match the educational needs of their children to
The with
individual schools. Choice in the public schools must offer a variety of educational settings to
students and families. Recognizing that no one school can meet the unique needs of every student
NO
public school choice must provide opportunities for students and families to choose among public
schools that reflect a range of pedagogies, instructional settings, and academic content.
3.
Public schools of choice must premote high standards for al! students. Consistent with ED's
strong conviction that all students can achieve to high levels, public schools of choice must ensure
that students and teachers are held to high standards of performance. Choice schools, like all
public schools, must focus on continuously improving the quality of teaching and learning so that
students have the tools they need to maximize their potential. While providing an education that
accommodates the individual learning styles of students. public schools of choice must retain an
emphasis on what students should be able to know and do in core subjects. Ensuring that students
who attend public schools of choice are held to challenging state or local standards is essential.
Public schools of choice must be genuinely open and accessible to all students. It is absolutely
essentially that public school choice programs attend to the many inequities of access that exist
across students and families of varying backgrounds To be truly općn and accessible to all
students-regardless of race, SCX, national origin, disability, religion, English proficiency or
economic status-public schools of choice must pursue strategies to ensure that meaningful choice
is available to all eligible students and families. Two critical aspects of choice programs that
promote cquitable access include fair and open school admission policies and concentrated
attention to minimizing the barriers that exist among groups of students and families.
First, the standards for admission to public schools of choice must be fair and non-discriminatory.
It is important to note that this stipulation does not necessarily exclude the use of admissions
criteria for specialized schools, as is sometimes the case in magnet and charter schools that have
specialized missions and areas of emphasis. However, choice schools must use criteria for
admission very carefully, and with thoughtful consideration as to how those criteria might
adversely affect certain groups of students, particularly those that are traditionally underserved.
Public schools of choice must also make every effort to reach out to students and families to
climinate potential barriers that may preclude all eligible students from participating. These
barriers tend to center on some form of isolation, such as language or poverty. A barrier that has
repeatedly been identified as problematic by policymakers and researchers is access to
transportation. If a family wishes to send their child to a school that is not physically proximate to
their home, financial barriers may exist for them to exercise this choice. A lack of access to
transportation could easily limit or climinate altogether their choice. A system of public school
choice must address any disparities that may arise due to distance, through expanded school bus
routes, subsidization of public transportation, or other means.
Complete information about public school choice options must be made available to all
families, especially those that are traditionally underserved. Families cannot choose schools
that best serve their children's individual learning needs without good information about available
educational opportunities. To allow every family the opportunity to n.ake good decisions about the
best option for their child, public schools of choice must work closely with school districts and
members of the community to ensure that information about public school choices reaches all
families. Concentrated efforts to get the word out are particularly important for improving access
for low-income and minority families. who are often less connected to public institutions-like
schools-than their wealthier counterparts. Thus, parent information centers, school fairs,
dissemination of report cards and other school-level data, and other mechanisms that are designed
to reach families in every neighborhood and on every block are a necessity for ensuring that all
students participate and benefit equitably from the options available.
Previous and ongoing efforts to ensure that all students and families know about their educational
choices have underscored the importance of this principle. Studies of choice programs in urban
arcas have found that even concentrated outreach undertakings have not always succeeded in
reaching all parents. The experience of school districts to date also suggests that straightforward
methods for disseminating information (e.g., printing flyers and mailing them to every home) may
not be sufficient to educate families on the range of available options and steps they need to take to
make choices. Innovative, creative means for addressing this problem are often required; some
citics have sent officials into laundromats and other community establishments to talk one-on-one
with parents. The way in which information is transmitted, then, is an important consideration for
designing a public school choice program.
Public schools of choice must be accountable to the public to achieve and document their
performance. Providing regular information to the public about their performance is essential for
public schools of choice to remain accountable to their community for serving the best interests of
all children. This information should include indicators of performance such as the extent to which
the school has met identified school objectives, improved student achievement outcomes, and
managed school resources responsibly In this way. the needs of the community as a group are
addressed.
4
Public schools of choice should be used as a tool for strengthening public educationgenerally.
Public schools of choice should not operate in isolation from traditiona! public schools or district
and state agencies. Effective public school choice programs and the fair and healthy competition
that choice promotes among public schools can support an overall improvement in the quality of all
schools in a variety of ways. Choice schools that feature special pedagogical philosophics,
missions, or governance structures should be seen as laboratories for testing different ways of
helping our children reach high standards of learning Widely shared lessons learned from these
models can strengthen public education overall by supporting the replication of promising practices
in other schools. Choice can also provide an incentive for surrounding neighborhood schools to
change and improve in response to the pressures of attracting and retaining students, and function
as a tool for driving improvements in school systems that fit instructional offerings to student
needs.
The Federal Role
The final issue to consider when reviewing the various options available for reauthorization is the extent to
which an expanded or modified federal role would promote choice above and beyond what states and
districts would have initiated otherwise. Clearly, choice programs in many for 11; are already proliferating
across the country. As with all federal initiatives in education, we must use our scarce resources in a way
that provides incentives for states and districts to act in ways that they otherwise would or could not have
in the absence of federal initiative.
The next section outlines a set of options for consideration in promoting and furthering public school choice
options, including a new ESEA title that embodies the seven principles outlined above.
PART II: A NEW FEDERAL INITIATIVE TO PROMOTE CHOICE
The next issue to consider is the extent to which an expanded or modified federal role would promote
choice above and beyond what states and districts would have initiated otherwise, or to encourage the
further development of certain types of programs as a result of new initiatives. Clearly, choice
mechanisms, in many forms. are already proliferating across the country. As with all federal initiatives in
education, H'C must use our scarce resources in a way that provides incentives- for states and districts to act
in ways that they otherwise would or could not have in the absence of federal initiative
ISSUE: KEY PRINCIPLES
Whether to adopt the set of principles for public school choice proposed below, or recommend
modifications to the proposed principles.
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE
1.
Public schools of choice are public. They operate under the supervision of public agencies, are
nonsectarian, do not charge tuition, and abide by the civil rights, health, and safety laws that apply
to all public schcols.
2.
Public schools of choice must allow parents sufficient variety in educational offerings to match
the needs of their children to individual schools. Choice in the public schools should offer a
variety of educational settings, pedagogies, and academic content from which students and families
can choose. Recognizing that no one school can meet the unique needs of every student, public
school choice must provide a range of educational opportunities designed to attract students and
promote their achievement.
3.
Public schools of choice must promote high standards for all students. Choice schools, like all
public schools, must focus on continuously improving the quality of teaching and learning so that
students have the tools they need to maximize their potential. While providing an education that
accommodates the individual learning styles of students, public schools of choice must retain an
emphasis on what students should bc able to know and do in corc subjects. Ensuring that students
who attend public schools of choice are hcld to challenging state or local standards is essential.
4.
Public schools of choice must be genuinely open and accessible to all students. To ensure
equitable access and participation, public schools of choice must actively pursue strategies to
ensure that meaningful choice is available to all students and families. First, these schools must
have fair and non-discriminatory school admission policies. They also must make every effort to
reach out to students and families to climinate potential barriers that may preclude all eligible
students from participating.
5.
Complete information about public school choice options must be made available to all
families, especially those that are traditionally underserved. To allow every family the
opportunity to make good decisions about the best option for their child, public schools of choice
must work closely with school districts and members of the community to ensure that information
about public school choices reaches all families. This principle IS critical for ensuring the equitable
participation of low-income, minority, and other groups who often lack access to the information to
make good educational choices
6.
Public schools of choice must be accountable to the public to achieve and document their
performance. Providing regular information to the public about their performance is essential for
public schools of choice to remain accountable to their community for serving the best interest of
all children This performance should include indicators such as the extent to which the school has
met identified school objectives as well as improved student achieveme outcomes and managed
the school responsibly
7.
Public schools of choice should be used as a tool for strengthening public education generally.
Effective public school choice programs should bc replicated in other public schools, and the
preferences of students and families voiced through the process of choosing schools should be
actively pursued as a tool for driving improvements in school systems that better fit instructional
offerings to student needs.
ISSUE: NEW AUTHORITIES
Whether to support an expanded public school choice initiative that would include closer coordination
and a more coherent strategy in administering existing choice programs and that would encompass
any or all of the options for new programs and strengthened technical assistance to support public
school choice.
Option 1: Create a New Discretionary Program for Inter-district Choice
On September 22. the White House asked us to create a new choice program that would encourage districts
to work collaboratively to implement inter-district choice options for public school students. The primary
objective of this program would bc to foster increased interaction among stud. its of different classes,
races, and cultures. While WC have had insufficient time to develop a complete proposal, what follows is
the first attempt at drafting an option to create this program and sct the dialogu- for further discussions.
Discussion:
The goal of this new program would bc to attract students from inner city schools that are racially isolated
into predominantly white schools in a neighboring district, and vicc versa. The would be innovative,
excellent schools that provide a unique learning environment that students and their families are free to
choose to attend. This program would be a competitive program for LEAs (or States) for planning and
implementing an inter-district school choice program for public school students. It would provide possible
incentives to encourage school districts to work together to overcome barriers to effective inter-district
programs (see Appendix D)
Districts would bc permitted to use a combination of magnet schools. charter schools, and other schools.
with specialized curriculum to attract students. An emphasis would be placed on creating urban/suburban
partnerships, partnerships with colleges and universities, and other arrangements that facilitated-
inter-district school choice.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
Such a program would expand opportunities for students who currently attend racially isolated schools to
attend a school and interact with students whose background is different from their own on the basis of
race, ethnicity, economic status and so forth.
The program would have the flexibility to permit schools and school districts to develop new strategies for
the implementation of inter-district programs.
Like other choice programs, participation on the part of students and their families would be completely
voluntary
Cons
Inter-district programs often require longer planning periods in order to overcome barriers, especially
finanical and social barriers, that often hamper the potential effectiveness of such programs.
Implementation of a new program could require a substantial increase in resources necessary for the
effective administration of the program.
Option 2: Create a Public School Choice Model (PSCM) demonstration authority
Create a demonstration authority specifically designed to support the creation support, and dissemination
of public school choice model projects.
what
Discussion:
The purpose of this authority would be to support projects and activities that have demonstrated success in
implementing a public school choice program at the SEA, LEA, or school level and are willing to serve as a
model, in conjunction with one or more ED-sponsored technical assistance provider(s), to assist other
them
SEAs, LEAs and schools with the development. implementation, expansion or improvement of choice
An
jet
programs.
for
The PSCM would operate as a two-tier discretionary grant program. Tier one projects would focus on
OESE
effective system-wide coordination of two or more public school choice approaches at either the State level
or the school district level, as appropriate. This would allow for the exploration of ways to align choice
can't
approaches into a comprehensive choice system and provide models that demonstrate what changes need to
be made to existing systems of choice to ensure their efficacy and equity. Tier two projects would focus
on school level implementation of a specific type of school choice program, with priorities placed on those
types of programs currently supported by the Department of Education --magnet schools and charter
schools.
Key features of the program would include the following:
An emphasis on rewarding successful programs, practices and activities;
School-level programs that provide evidence of success based on student outcomes, parental
involvement. student recruitment and selection practices, and other performance indicators with a
public accountability and reporting process;
State and LEA-level programs and activities that demonstrate how two or more public school choice
strategies (eg., charter schools, magnet schools, controlled choice, inter-district choicet, etc) are used
together to maximize access to high-quality educational programs for parents and students, especially
those who traditionally have not participated in such programs:
Collaboration with one or more ED-sponsored technical assistance providers in making available in-
depth information (including, where appropriate, on-site demonstrations) about successful strategies for
the implementation of choice programs; and
Highly flexible use of funds. Consistent with the idea of rewarding success. recipients would be
afforded significant flexibility in how they used funds awarded to them to enhance, strengthen or assess
their programs. Restrictions might be limited to the inclusion of a requirement that a certain percentage
of funds be allocated to technical assistance activities and legally necessary prohibitions on the use of
funds.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
The program would provide a unified approach to developing models of school choice programs that would
emphasize the role that various public school choice strategies can play in concert with one another, rather
than pitting one strategy against another.
The program would have the flexibility to include all public school choice options and strategies such as
magnet schools and charter schools that ED supports directly, as well as other public school choice
strategies that do not receive such direct support.
Emphasis would be placed on rewarding success in implementation of programs and achieving intended
results.
Our knowledge about what works in the area of public school choice will bc significantly increased.
Use of the existing ED technical assistance infrastructure would expand the availability of in-depth
information about choice programs and issues and strategies related to the successful implementation of
those programs and place technical assistance providers and succcssful implementers of public school
choice programs in a collaborative working relationship.
This supports the attainment of each of the performance indicators for Objective 1-6 of ED's strategic plan
and would significantly bolster implementation of several kcy clements in the plan to expand public school
choice.
Cons
The PSCM program would represent a new discretionary grant program that the Department would be
required to administer.
The program would require additional appropriated funds, although the annual level of appropriation could
be relatively modest, based on the following assumptions: First, that most if not all grants can be relatively
modest in size --in the range of $100,000 to $200,000 per year for up to 4 years; and second that the total
number of grants would be in the range of 100 (at least 80% of which would be grants to schools).
Recon:mendation:
Creating this authority would promote the identification of models to help parents. educators, and
communities design effective school choice programs; and it would strengthen efforts to disseminate
information on strategies for expanding high-quality school choice programs that improve student
achievement.
Support for this option IS trongly recommended.
Option 3: Provide improved technical assistance for public school choice
Now
Obtain legislative authority to enable public school choice staff to provide additional funding to the
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers (CCs), the Equity Assistance Centers (EACs), and the
$
Regional Educational Laboratories and other ED-sponsored technical assistance providers, as needed, to
enable them to address special needs associated with public school choice.
Thrisher
Discussion:
The number of charter schools, magnet schools, cpen enrollment plans, and other choice programs is
increasing, in part as a result of the support and leadership provided by the Department. However, there
are concerns that students receive high quality instruction and that students from different social, economic,
the
racial and ethnic backgrounds have equitable access to the programs. These concerns often are-couched in
terms of "accountability," but it also is a planning and design issue.
skill
The Department should provide more extensive, coordinated and focused technical assistance in the area of
public school choice. Existing TA providers could meet the existing need, provided they are awarded
sufficient resources and there is central coordination of their public school choice assistance activities. For
the
I
example, the Equity Assistance Centers, the Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Education
Consortia and the Regional Educational Laboratories have information and resources needed by many
per
public school choice planners and implementers. The Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers would
bc kcy TA providers for supporting public school choice. These Centers provide comprehensive training
purchase
and technical assistance, related to administration and implementation of ESEA programs to ESEA
grantees. However, the statute for the Centers also establishes a long list of priorities to bc addressed, none
of which focuses on the special technical assistance needs of States, school districts, and communities
implementing public school choice.
Rent.
Using this authority, TA providers would have resources and training activities to address various
the
choice-related needs, including the increased need for family and community involvement outreach
activities and strategies, tips and training on conducting lotteries, assistance on allowable admissions
policies, professional development, and training modules.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
This approach supports ED $ effort to consolidate and coordinate its technica¹ assistance activities. It
utilizes existing TA sources by providing the resources they would need to carry out significant TA in the
area of public school choice.
This approach would establish public school choice as a legitimate priority of selected TA providers, thus
facilitating the delivery of these services.
This approach is more cost-effective than creating choice-specific TA centers
Cons:
ED's Choice staff would have to expend a significant amount of time coordinating and negotiating services
from various providers.
Planners and implementers of public school choice would receive services from multiple providers and
therefore may need guidance from ED regarding the best provider for a given TA need.
More funds will bc needed by the Comprehensive Centers to support an increased level of TA for public
school choice.
Recommendation:
The Department plays a significant role in providing technical assistance. This option is a logical extension
of the existing efforts to provide comprehensive assistance.
Support forthis option is strongly recommended.
Option 4 (Legislative): Create a new Choice Institute within OERI
Create a Choice Institute within OERI to coordinate research and model development that focuses on
options of public school choice.
Discussion:
The Department's efforts at organizing a comprehensive plan towards looking at public school choice are
limited. Research efforts for the two currently funded choice programs, charter schools and magnet
schools, are not coordinated, and other methods of public school choice (c.g., open enrollment, and inter-
and intra-district choice) are neither funded for support nor included in research or evaluations.
In order to provide a comprehensive and coordinated approach that examines the successful elements of
public school choice, while also maintaining the distinctiveness of each individual option, ED must
reorganize its research efforts by looking at the various public school choice options as part of an array of
options, not as individual programs that happen to provide choice.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
This would provide a centralized authority that would guide new research, consolidate existing research,
and provide leadership to coordinate the various elements of public school choice.
Cons:
The creation of another Institute would be expensive. Additionally, it would add another layer of
bureaucracy and create confusion in the overall management of OERI. Not a productive method of
coordinating existing and future research
Existing institutes exist to cover the various components of public school choice, and a new Institute would
bc redundant.
Recommendation:
Discussions with some OERI staff suggest that this option would be overly bureaucratic and would not be
a good use of existing resources.
Support for this option IS not recommended.
Option 5 (Non-legislative): Organize and Consolidate Current Research
Create a work-group that draws on staff from all the offices of the Department to focus on public school
choice through evaluations, research. and model development. This work group would set and define a
comprehensive research agenda and request a unified budget to implement netv research and evaluation
activities for public school choice. [Note If either option under "Organizational Structure" is approved,
this work group would work under the supervision of that entity. If neither of the "Organizational
Structure" options is approved, sponsorship of this work group would have to be determined.]
Discussion:
See Option 4.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
Now
Consolidates existing staff and research activities in an effective way.
Would provide a coordinated unit that would provide a Department-wide perspective on public school
choice.
Cons
Could be difficult for various offices to coordinate without a strong leader with the authority to coordinate
these activities.
Without legislative change, the work-group might lapse or wither away over time as other priorities take
shape.
Recommendation:
This is a good option that provides flexibility and accountability within the Department while maintaining a
strong role in developing a consistent agenda on public school choice.
Support for this option is strongly recommended.
ISSUE: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Whether to support either of two proposed changes to the current organizational structure of the
(acm)
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Neither option requires legislative action.
Option 1: Establish a Program Office for Public Choice
Create a program office for "Public School Choice" that coordinates the work of the Public Charter School
Program, the Magnet School Assistance Program and a new and evolving Pubik Choice Program. The
Public School Choice Office would bc headed by a program director who reports directly to the Assistant
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
Discussion:
The Department docs not have a coherent strategy or agenda regarding choice 111 education. Choice is
either viewed from the vantage of the Charter Schools program or the Magnet Schools Program, but not in
a comprehensive, organized, coherent structure of looking at the phenomenon of choice in public education.
The Department largely ignores other public school choice options since we do not fund a grant program to
support those other options.
Establishing a Public School Choice Office would provide a cohesive structure under which a coherent and
consistent strategy for supporting choice in public education would emerge. This Office would oversee the
operation of the Charter School and Magnet Schools programs and bc responsible for establishing the
Department's position on other choice options that are not supported by grants from the Department but
may be consistent with the Department's principles for public school choice. The Choice Office would also
be responsible for operating the model development program discussed in New Authorities, Option 3. This
Office would enable better coordination and cooperation throughout the Department among various
activities, including grant making, research, technical assistance, model development, and external and
internal communication on choice-related issues.
The Public Schools Choice Office would consolidate the existing staff (approximately 12 FTE) from the
Magnet and Charter program offices, and would require additional staff to oversee the research activities,
implement an effective outreach strategy, assist in the creation of a scamless voice on public school choice,
and provide assistance in the grant review and technical assistance activities. The new Office of Choice
would encompass between 12 and 18 FTEs.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
A coordinated Office would clevate the importance of public school choice, without necessarily adding
resources. The Department could publicly acknowledge the commitment to expanding public school
choice, and reinforce for the field the importance of addressing all forms of public choice as part of a
continuum rather than isolated reforms.
-
The Office could better coordinate work on issues that generate controversy. By coordinating actions, the
Department could remain more responsive to States and schools, while at the same time addressing these
issues in a way that is sensitive to Department positions on related issues -- such as vouchers, skimming,
and supporting school reform.
Many SEAs create similar offices of Public School Choice. These offices allow State agencies to develop
familiarity with all the choice options available within a State. Similar structure within ED would improve
our work with State contacts.
Cons
Staff resources and time could bc directed away from their primary mission of supporting the individual
programs.
The Charter Schools program could receive more attention since it is primarily a choice program.
The field could react negatively to the inclusion of the Magnet Schools program under a Choice Office.
Recommendation:
This option would provide a unified and clear approach to supporting choice in public education and would
enable the Department to coordinate its rhetoric and programs supporting public school choice in a
comprehensive and cohesive manner
Support for_this option is strongly recommended.
Option 2: Establish a Special Assistant for Choice within ODS or OS
Discussion:
Designating an individual to bc responsible for coordinating the Department's efforts on public school
choice would provide the Department with a centralized voice that would bc able to promote the
Department's views and policies on public school choice. This Individual would ensure that the
Department speaks with a consistent and clear voice on the research, model development, and technical
assistance for the various methods of public school choice available to students.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
An individual with the authority to organize the Department's efforts at supponing public school choice
into a cohesive team would provide leadership to the diverse and dispersed efforts at supporting and
promoting public school choice.
Providing a coherent and consistent voice on public school choice would allow the Department to further
discussions on public school choice.
Cons
Separating the decision-making from the program implementation within OESE would not be an efficient
use of Department staff or resources and would create an additional layer of unnecessary coordination and
oversight. -
Recommendation:
This option would be a burdensome addition to the Department's efforts in choice by removing it from the
program offices and placing it in a separate office. Instead of streamlining efforts, this would create a new
authority and responsible entity and would not bc productive.
Support for this option is not recommended.
PART III: CHARTER SCHOOLS
Background:
The first charter school law was passed in 1991. Currently 33 States, Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia have charter school laws, and more than 1,100 charter schools will be open in September, 1998.
The President has repeatedly called for the creation of 3,000 charter schools by the beginning of the next
century.
The Public Charter Schools Program (PCSP) is designed to address the most pressing challenges facing
charter schools: a lack of access to start-up funding. Each year the National Evaluation of Charter
School's survey indicates that the lack of access to start-up funding is the greatest obstacle to operating a
charter school. In the 1993 report, the survey found that 59 percent of schools listed this lack of start-up
funds as difficult or very difficult to overcome. This is 17 percent more than the next most pressing
obstacle -- lack of planning time.
In 1993, the President proposed the creation of a public charter schools program, which became law in
1994 as part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The program's
primary task is to address the schools' most pressing obstacle. The program does so primarily by awarding
grants to eligible State educational agencies (SEAs) that then award subgrants to individual schools. In
cases where eligible SEAs elect not to participate or do not have approved applications, the Secretary may
award grants directly to schools. The program provides grants to over 400 charter schools in 19 States,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. FY 1997 funds provided more than $44 million to new and
continuing grants, with the average State receiving more than $2 million. and the average school receiving
between $50,000 and $70,000. Schools can receive only one grant or subgrant for a period of up to three
years. These funds can bc used by grantees for planning (up to eighteen months), and initial
implementation of a charter school (no more than two years).
The reauthorization issues discussed in this paper have origins directly related to either:
(1) legislation pending in Congress; or (2) concerns voiced about some aspects of charter schools that may
need closer scrutiny. Items numbered one through four of the cight arcas to bc considered under this
reauthorization address issues related to the pending legislation, and items five through eight address
special arcas of concern.
Pending Legislation
Legislation, endorsed by this administration, is pending in Congress. This legislation would reauthorize
the Federal charter school program this year. If such legislation passes (an increasingly unlikely event) the
re-reauthorization" of the program next year will bc shaped by the nature of changes enacted this year. If
pending legislation docs not pass, there may bc components of the current legislation that have to be
included in the proposed reauthorization.
Areas of Concern Needing Special Scrutiny
Recently, the Office of the Inspector General conducted an informal review of charter schools in Arizona,
Colorado, and Michigan. That review has identified several arcas not considered in the pending
amendments in Congress that need to be considered during reauthorization:
Use of a Lottery in Student Admission - Some charter schools. with at least the tacit approval of SEAs,
are not admitting students on the basis of a lottery. Section 10306(1)(H). ESEA requires that "charter
schools" (used here to refer to schools receiving PCSP funding) admit students on the basis of a lottery, if
more students apply for admission than can bc accommodated. When questioned by the OIG about this,
one SEA official said that. since ED has never defined the term "lottery," he was using his own definition.
An official at another SEA said that there was wording in its application for PCSP funding that allowed
charter schools to select students by an equitable selection process such as a lottery. He further maintained
that admitting students on a first-comc/first-served basis is similar to a lottery system. ED needs to
yer
continue its efforts to develop an operational definition for the term "lottery and disseminate this
ASAP
information to SEAs and charter schools.
For-profit Entities Awarded PCSP Funds - OIG was informed by an SEA official that at least eight
for-profit charter schools received PCSP subgrants in her state. Also, a Center for Education Reform
[CER] survey reported that for-profit entities are participating in PCSP in othe: states, and that for-profit
organizations were applicants or operators of 7 percent of charter schools nationwide during the 1996-97
school year. ED should examine and clarify the role for-profit companies play in charter schools to
ensure that the education of students has top priority.
/Tale
Take
Private School Conversion to Public Charter School Status - OIG found that there is at least the
shoul
potential for schools to use PCSP funding to serve select populations that are normally served by private
schools. Some private schools that have been "converted" to public charter schools may have maintained
their select clientcle. The CER survey indicated that during the 1996-97 school year 14 percent of
charter schools had at one time been private schools. ED should consider recommending that the
program statute be amended to require specifically that the recruitment, selection, admission,
and counseling procedures of schools receiving PCSP funds ensure that their educational
offerings are effectively publicized for and truly made available to all segments of the
community.
Eight areas under consideration for the reauthorization of charter schools:
1. The quantity of charter schools nationally;
2. The quality of charter schools;
3. The accountability (academic and fiscal) of schools and charter granting entities;
4. The flexibility given to charter schools;
5. The promotion of equity in and through charter schools;
6. The usc-of lotteries in admissions;
7. The participation of schools that were previously existing private schools; and
8. The involvement of for-profit and contracting organizations in charter schools
For many of these issues a range of strategies have been identified. While not mutually exclusive, in most
cases the Department can address an issue by selecting from among several options. including:
1. technical assistance
2. guidance
3. regulation
4. statutory change
5. leveraging changes in State and local policy
Changes in State and local policy can only bc suggested or encouraged. Such changes can be facilitated
through technical assistance. guidance. regulation or statutory change But in addition, ED may impact
State policy by:
1. prioritizing States according to elements of State law for the delivery of program funds
2. developing and disseminating model legislation that incorporates desired aspects.
Areas for Reauthorization
1: Quantity of Charter Schools/Incentives for Effective State Laws
Background;
The primary objective of the charter school program will remain supporting the creation of significant
numbers of charter schools. Given the rapid growth in the number of charter schools, the challenge will be
to promote high-quality charter schools that are held accountable for results. The most important lever for
generating large numbers of successful charter schools is State policy. Despite the availability of Federal
start-up grants, it is the determining factors of State policy that truly affect the numbers of charter schools
in a given State. While 35 States and entities have charter school laws, three States -- Arizona, Michigan
and California -- have more than half the nation's charter schools. Other States -- such as Texas, Florida
and North Carolina -- have new laws and fewer schools but also have tremendous growth rates. -The
majority of States, meanwhile, have laws that generate fewer schools.
Consequently, one of the most promising strategies for promoting more charter schools is to establish
priorities for providing Federal funding to States that create incentives for States to enact laws that lead to
more/schoo!s. (For further discussion on the role of state policy in shaping charter school programs and
possible Federal activity to inform State policy, sec Appendix B)
Need
Currently, pending legislation would provide incentives for states that:
remove caps on the numbers of charters allowed;
etto
allow entities in addition to local school districts authorized to grant charters;
grant a larger degree of regulatory freedom; and
have a regular review of cach charter school's progress toward meeting the terms of its charter.
Options:
1. Depending on the outcome of pending legislation in Congress, these and other priorities could be
rewarded through the distribution of Federal dollars to States with policies that match desired
prioritics. The appropriate criteria that the programs dollars should encourage will require a more
extensive discussion than the scope of this paper allows. State policies that the program could
encourage through the distribution of Federal dollars include:
State provision of star:-up funds;
?
State-provision of facilities funds;
State-provision of equitable pcr pupil funding
2. ED could release model charter schoo! laws and allow states to consider suggestions for more effective
laws. State laws vary considerably. Differences in policy affect the scope and nature of charter school
programs. Congress has already suggested that the Department develop and disseminate model charter
you
school laws. States may favorably consider suggested policies that promo*. high-quality, accountable
charter schools. (Also see Appendix B. for strategies for informing States of effective laws, and on the
pros and cons of adopting a model law.)
Pros and Cons:
Pros
Cons
1. Further prioritize States according to laws
generate more charter school laws
could antagonize States and advocates for
jorl
leverage money for broader impact on core
States' rights
issues-
Congress could amend legislation to build in
increase numbers of schools. strengthen the
support for aspects of laws that threaten
degree of flexibility allowed as well as the
accountability or equity
level of support provided and the amount of
accountability required of charter schools
2. Release model laws
Adopting a model law could add to quality of
antagonize groups who are opposed to
policy, without dictating results or allowing
charters
Congress to determine elements of models
Recommendation:
-0k
Option 1 is not recommended at this time. Depending on legislation pending currently, an abundance of
Ion
be
priorities" would become too complex to administer. If no legislation passes this year, a sct of priorities
should bc established reflecting ED's positions on many of the issues presented in this paper. The utility of
Nov
priorities in State funding will decrease as more are included, consequently the total mix of priorities in
State law must reflect core objectives of the Department. Option 2 is strongly recommended. The creation
that
of model legislation by ED is already authorized under the current legislation Creating such models could
claimal
leverage significant changes in State policy.
action
2: Quality of Charter Schools/National Activities to Support Charters
Background:
The provision of start-up funds supports the quality of charter schools by allowing them to overcome the
financial and logistical obstacles encountered in the carly stages. The additional Federal funds can create
the opportunity to focus on many other program improvements of individual schools. In addition, the
Department has authority to use 10 percent of the total funds to support national activities. Congress is
considering limiting the national activity proportion to five percent, or five million dollars (which ever is
least).
The program currently uses national activities funds to support things such as: evaluation, technical
assistance and networking among charters to support the provision of other services to charter schools
through the Department's Comprehensive Assistance Centers and Equity Assistance Centers. (For more
discussion of recommended activities to support charter schools, sec Appendix A as well as Appendix C.)
Options:
1. Retain adequate national activities funds (at the 10% level) to support charter schools. Useful activities
include:
the
national, regional and local meetings of charter schools to share best-practices:
Do
evaluation;
electronic communications through the "uscharterschools" website,
Now
N
assistance and materials to help SEAs and LEAs with the charter granting and review;
communication and outreach to other organizations and communities that can assist and promote the
development of high-quality charter schools: and
impact on the rest of the education system.
2. Create an "Exemplary Charter School Award"
Tridy
ED could seek authority to conduct a competition to recognize outstanding charter schools. A State and
national competition would provide visibility to exemplary schools, and help disseminate success by
determining which schools deserve disignation as an exemplary school.
Pros and Cons
ore
Pros
Cons
1. Retain 10% of funds for national activities
strengthen accountability and work by districts
draw resources away from grant programs
and other charter granting entitics
that support school start up
improve networking among good schools
draw criticism for "inappropriately "broad
build public understarding/support for
Federal role
charters
people may push for "carmarked" activities
build networks among the rest of the education
that do not match our priorities, such as
establishment, thus Inveraging additional
support for capital expenses
resources
2. Create Exemplary Charter School Award
provide visibility and recognition of high
administrative burden
quality schools
cost
determine which successes warrant
dissemination
support in-depth evaluation of charter schools
Recommendation:
oh
Options I and 2 are both strongly recommended Decreasing the proportion of funds from 10% to 5% of
national activities would limit ongoing activities primarily to the completion of current research. Work on
technical assistance that would impact quality and accountability would bc curtailed. An exemplary
charter school award would promote visibility for successful schools, while encouraging evaluation.
3: Accountability of Charter Schools and Charter Granting Entities (CGEs)
Background:
Charter schools are based on the premise that a group of people will receive freedom to run a school as
Add
they sce fit, if they demonstrate that the school mccts the terms of its charter and that it is meeting the
standards of public education that we hold for all schools i.c., operating in a safe manner, providing a
non-sectarian education, and not discriminating in any way that violates students' civil rights Various
writers SCC the recent US News and World Report Articles, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine
for two examples -- have alleged that there is inadequate accountability in the charter school movement.
(For more information on steps to strengthen accountability in charter schools, SCC Appendix C.)
Options:
1. Modify the prioritization of State funding according to the presence of policy elements that strengthen
accountability. Possible policies to reward include: terms of the charter not to exceed five years;
oh
required evaluations of state programs. or state-sponsored evaluations of the entities that grant
charters.
2. Directly fund, or use subgrants, to support work by CGEs and LEAs to create accountability plans.
Such plans could incorporate: solicitation and review of applications; oversight of schools; evaluation;
and consideration of charter renewal. Such plans could also bc developed for each school, with
additional support.
3. Clarify that an allowable use of Federal start-up grants would bc to develop accountability plans for
each school.
4. Mandate that a proportion of cach Federal start-up grant be used to develop an accountability plan for
each school.
Inforation
Pros and Cons
about
Family fully Listality to is
school
Pros
Cons
1. Prioritize accountability
could antagonize States and advocates for
jaid
generate more accountability
States' rights
we
leverage cost and burden for broader impact
Congress could amend legislation to build in
their
on core issues
wit you to ment.
support for aspects of laws that threaten
accountability or equity
whil
2. Fund accountability plans
larger role for Federal funding
ensure stronger accountability
only covers selected schools
can bc donc under existing national activities
activities
3. Clarify allowable use of funds for
could take resources from portion of national what
accountability plans
no mandate included
little leverage
1100
no additional resources
4. Mandate accountability plans
leverage additional resources
is a mandate
scope covers all grantees
take resources from total used to meet other
obstacles
Recommendation:
Option I is recommended only if the program is not overburdened with additional priorities by the passage
it
of pending legislation. Options 2 and 3 are strongly recommended. Existing and additional funds should
be directed toward strengthening accountability. States and districts are reluctant to put adequate resources
into evaluation and the development of accountability plans. Funding some "model" efforts may encourage
other SEAs and CGEs to increase their attention to accountability Option 4 is not recommended. The
charter school movement is based on a minimum of regulation and direction. Placing additional mandates
on charter schools would undermine the concept.
Tolumb
4: Flexibility Given to Charter Schools:
Background:
The other half of the "autonomy for accountability" exchange is freedom from mlcs and regulations.
Currently charter schools in some states enjoy regulatory freedom. The Department could encourage
greater regulatory freedom at the State and local level by providing incentives for States that provide
adequate deregulation. E what does this ?
At the Federal level, the national evaluation finds that Federal regulations are one of the least significant
barriers facing charter schools. Only six percent of schools list Federal regulations as a difficult or very
here
difficult obstacle. This percentage puts Federal rules behind 14 higher-rated obstacles. However, recent
research by the Government Accounting Office finds that barriers still exist. Additionally, feedback from
are
individual operators (shared through recent focus groups and at the Department's National Charter Schools
Rod
Conference) indicates that many Federal programs are not readily accessible to charter schools.-Operators
often describe difficulties with:
reluctant SEA and LEA administrators;
difficulties associated with generating estimates of enrollments before schools open; and
lack of knowledge of the specific issues and peculiarities that come with charter schools on the part of
Federal, State and local officials.
Options:
you
1. Clarify eligibility and reporting requirements of charter schools for Federal programs, or have each
Now
separate program clarify such requirements.
2. Provide guidance and direction to LEAs and SEAs in how they administer Federal programs for charter
you
schools.
Now
3. Inform other Federal agencies and ED programs about the needs of charter schools.
4. Prioritize Federal funds for states according to the amount of flexibility granted.
NO
5. Include provisions granting deregulation to charter schools in model laws
as
with
6. Work with charter schools to examine application for, and use of, waivers by charter schools.
7.
you
Work with charter school operators to review ED programs to ensure there are no unnecessary
the
obstacles to accessing Federal funds.
Now
lood
what.
100 below L for a realth clate
sublith
Len
Lave
slul
you
non
put
modelly
mal
the
Pros & Cons:
Pros
Cons
1. Clarify administration of Federal programs
case administration for all involved
may require regulating
may not take legislation for most cases
Congress may overstep changes ED plans
2. Provide guidance to LEAs and SEAs
complicated issue requiring case-by-case
leverage existing resources for charter schools
analysis of schools' legal and financial
little additional costs of delivering resources
relationships with iocal and State entities
3. Inform ED and other agencies
leverage all Federal resources
difficulty of interagency communication
not require legislation
4. Prioritize funds by flexibility
antagonize States/advocates for States' rights
leverage State action
Congress could amend legislation to threaten
covers State-level obstacles
accountability or equity
Not
State context of regulation varies
5. Include flexibility provisions in model laws
no cost or burden to Federal programs
adopting model laws could antagonize
you 1. not need this
NO
or
sole
not require legislation
issue-based and organization-based groups
6. Examine use of waivers
provide discretion to Department
none
No
avoid legislative solutions that go beyond
Department's intended level of flexibility --
ensuring civil rights and special education
7. Analyze ED programs to find obstacles
helping "reinvent" government
none
obstacles encountered may be helpful if
removed more broadly, expanding scope of
benefits from charters to rest of system
Recommendation:
Options 1, 2 and 3 are strongly recommended Such action is necessary to appropriately admimster these
programs for the growing number of schoois. Option 4 is not recommended. Priorities should be focused
on areas increasing accountability, quality and the number of charter schools. Options , 6 and 7 are
strongly recommended. Mcdeľ laws should encourage the real exploration of flexibility among charter
schools. Additional information on obstacles or the use of waivers would be uscful to understand the
benefits of innovation in charter schools that may be of benefit to other public schools.
5: Promoting Equity In and Through Charter Schools
Background:
One of the most important issues raised by charter schools involves serving poor and minority students and
the potential concentration of students of homogeneous backgrounds in these schools. This issue is central
to any discussion of school choice. The national evaluation of charter schools that most charter
Really
schools roughly represent the demographics of the districts in which they are lockeds A small percentage,
around five percent. have higher concentrations of white students than the districts in which they are
located; and a larger percent, around 20 percent, have significantly more students of color than the districts
in which they are located.
Perhaps this issue is reflective of larger changes and trends in public education, but it could also be linked
to the opportunities that charter schools provide communities. Charter schools can be used by people to
create schools with a focused mission, designed to provide an education that will help particular students
succeed. ED discussions of this issue need to address charter-specific issues as well as larger concerns the
Department has for equity in public schooling. Likewise, Department-wide attempts to explore this issue
may want to consider any lessons or experiences emerging from the charter school movement when shaping
other Federal initiatives.
Options:
you
1. Expand work with Equity Assistance Centers designed to increase cquitable access to charter schools:
Now
2. Convenc a national group of education and community leaders to discuss implications of charter school
you
movement for equity in public education;
Now
3. Expand the attention to equity issues in existing studies;
you
Now
4. Begin a separate study of equity issues among charter schools:
5. Specify language in model laws addressing equity in charter schools:
yru
6.
Clarify Ianguage regarding special education and demographics in the definition of charter school law.
In
the
Pros & Cons
Pros
Cons
1. Expand work of Equity Assistance Centers
leverage existing financial resources/expertise
additional cost
flexibility in application of assistance, based
yes
on local context
2. Convene a national group
may raise issues outside scope of area
Gather experience and input
yet
Now
may expand interest in additional options
reflect range of attitudes
3. Expand existing studies
burden or delay existing studies Why?
low cost
you
y
quickly implemented
limited ability/expertise, to deal withrissues
Now
get the
4. Begin a separate study of equity issues
additional cost
petien
not burden existing studies
slower implementation
focus study on appropriate data, analysis you and
administrative burden of growing number of
expertise
individual studies
5. Specify language in model laws
no power over State policy
no legislation required - oh ?
Maybes
difficult to determine what policy is best
leverage State policy which more directly ??
affects schools
spell ed
6. Clarify language in charter school law
open issue to congressional debate
power over States policy
difficult to determine what policy is best
?
maybe
leverage State policy through incentives
Recommendation:
Options 1 and 2 are strongly recommended. Options 3 and 4 should bc decided on the basis of the feedback
gained under option 2, and conducted without additional legislation under current authorization. Option 5
is recommended. Option 6 is not recommended.
6: Lotteries:
Background:
The current authorization requires that any charter school receiving Federal start-up funds must use a
lottery to select students if more students apply than the school can accommodate. The language provides
no more guidance in what constitutes a lottery, or what sorts of preferences are appropriate when
conducting a lotterv. Several States have similar language requiring schools to use lotteries (CA, MI for
example) and have since issued State-guidance on how to administer lotteries. Other States have no such
requirement. Congress placed the lottery language to address concerns about equitable access to charter
schools, and to reflect the practice in some of the first States with charter schools. (From personal
communication with Jon Schrocder, former staff to Sen. Durrenberger. May 1998.) For more information
on how one State's charter school operators view lotteries. see Appendix D. This document summarizes
feedback from a focus group meeting with operators.)
In lotteries, specific issues that arise, include:
preferences for siblings;
preferences for attendance zones of existing public schools that convert to charter status;
preferences for children of school organizers, teachers and staff:
preferences or thresholds to match students to a school's mission -- for example, preferences for deaf
students at a school for the deafm, or for mothers and fathers at a school designed to serve teen
parents; and
the usc of entrance requirements, tests, prerequisite courses or student/family interviews.
The first national survey reported that 39 percent of the respondents reporting using a lottery, 41 percent
used a "first-comc-first-scrved" system, and that ten percent used a combination of the two. Under ten
percent used "some other process." Recent focus groups with school organizers provided extensive
we
feedback about their concerns regarding lotteries. Many operators felt so strongly about this issue that they
would turn down Federal start-up dollars before using a lottery. They feel that they can achieve equitable
admissions, and mcct the mission of their school through other means
Options:
1. Issue further guidance cn lotteries. (The Department has drafted a letter from the Assistant Secretary to
all chiefs and State charter school program administrators, clarifying basic positions on siblings,
children of founders, teachers and staff, and on children in attendance zones of existing public schools
Now
that convert to charter status This letter is still in process. Further guidance may address
controversial issues.)
2. Regulate the usc of lotteries in charter schools.
?
3. Change the lottery language in the law to allow various exemptions or preferences.
4. Clarify the lottery language in the law to rule out all exemptions
5. Allow the Secretary to waive this requirement when the school or charter granting entity can
NO
demonstrate the another method is necessary to helping the school mcct its mission, and that such
action will not prevent equitable access to the school or violate the civil rights of any prospective
students.
the
See
stoull
not be dealy
with Schools
Pros & Cons
Pros
Cons
1. Guidance
need not regulate, or risk Congress changing
limited impact
Now
position through legislative process
2. Regulations
need not risk Congress changing position
have avoided regulating thus far
AB
NO
through legislation
may prompt legislative changes
3. Legislative changes to allow exemptions
clearly stipulate what should be donc
Congress may allow unintended exemptions
Sa
or
would avoid need to regulate
proposal may not be adopted by Congress
4. Legislative changes to eliminate exemptions
climinate approaches that are creative
avoid possible abuses by schools
in contradiction with most State laws, leading
NX
to potential abandor:ment of Federal program
5. Create waiver authority
maintain flexibility envisioned as part of
may receive overwhelming number of
charter school process
exemption requests
maintain discretion over what is appropriate
possible allowance of undesirable waivers
flexibility
would require legislative changes
Recommendation:
Option 1 is recommended. Option 2 is not recommended, unless adequate protections cannot be agreed to
under current legislative authority. Option 3 is not recommended unless options 1 and 2 cannot lead to
adequate protections. Options 4 and 5 are not recommended. Eliminating all exemptions would be
unfortunate, and counter to most States' laws. Limited exemptions or preferences make administration of
charter programs more practical in communities and remove disincentives for people to commit the time
and work necessary to create charter schools. Appropriate direction to States to ensure any exemptions or
preferences protect students' civil rights and maintain the open nature of charter schools is necessary
Extended waiver authority could lead to requests that under mine open-nature of charter schools.
7: Conversion of Existing Private Schools
Background:
The conversion of previously existing private schools to charter status generates controversy. Currently
only a handful of State charter schools laws allow this (sce MI, AZ, NC, TX). Even in States with a
prohibition against the direct conversion of private schools, it remains possible to dissolve an existing
school and apply for a new charter with a different group that includes many people and resources from the
original school. ED's primary concern has been existing schools converting in a way that does not open the
new school" to children who were not previously enrolled in the school. If this is the case, the charter
mechanism can be used to provide public funds for the original private school If, however, the school is
open to all students, the experience and resources from the original school may provide help that ensures a
successful school. The Department is examining this issue through focus groups and additional
investigations should provide more information in the coming months. Current legislation does not appear
to provide a mechanism for prohibiting the conversion of existing private schools. as long as such schools
create a new public charter school under State law.
Options:
you
Now
1. Userguidance to describe appropriate steps for enrollment in converted private schools.
2. Use regulations to describe appropriate steps for enrollment in converted private schools.
3. In statute specify steps for appropriate enrollment practices in converted private schools.
4. In statute prohibit existing private schools from converting to charter status
5. Create a priority to give preference to States that prohibit the convel ion of private schools
6. Include language in model laws that prohibits converting private schools or clarify appropriate
steps for conversion.
7. Take no action to restrict or discourage the conversion of private schools to charter status.
Pros & Cons
Pros
Cons
1. Use guidance, re: appropriate steps
avoid legislating or regulating
possible abuses
increase numbers of charters and resources
possibly add support to vouches
2. Use regulations, re: appropriate steps
could contribute to confusion with vouchers
??
increase numbers of charters and resources
have to regulate
3. In statute, specify appropriate steps
allow States to cont nuc converting schools
increase numbers of charters and resources
Congress may not include steps in language,
expanding scope of private school involvement
lose resources of private schools to charters
4. In statute, prohibit
Congress may not include steps in language,
avoid possibility of abuse
expanding scope of private school involvement
separate charters from vouchers clearly
possible abuses
5. Prioritize States that prohibit converting
continue confusion regarding differences
avoid mandate
between charters and vouchers
allow States to determine best approach
many priorities becomes unworkable
leverage State policy
create incentive without mandating
6. Include language in model laws that prohibits
abuses could occur
or clarify appropriate steps,
avoid mandate, yet clarify voucher distinctions
allow States to determine best approach
7. Take no action to restrict or discourage the
abuses could occur
conversion of private schools to charter status
charter movement benefits from resources of
private schools
Recommendation:
The least burdensome, yet effective option of 1,2 or 3 should be ennacted. If option 1 is not sufficient,
option 2 should bc ennacted. If options I and 2 are not possible, than option three should be enacted. The
prohibition of private schools (option 4) is not recommended, unless options that clarify appropriate
practices (options 1, 2, 3) cannot be enacted. In the event that appropriate steps for use of conversions
cannot bc enacted, a prohibition against conversions should be enacted (option4). Option 5 is not
recommended. Based on decisions reached regarding the prohibition of private conversions, option 6 is
recommended, granted the model law reflect the appropriate steps. Option 7 is not recommended.
8: Involvement of For-Profit and Contracting Organizations in the Charter Movement
Background:
A growing number of charter schools involve for-profit organizations in their management and operation.
Active organizations include:
Edison
Advantage Schools
Sabis
Beacon Education Management
Charter Schools Administration Services
creater orher
E
Excel Education Centers
The Lcona Group
Like converting private schools, involving these companies' provides additional resources and expertise that
charter schools need; but, it also raises larger policy questions. Many States limit the involvement of such
groups, or force them to contract with public, non-profit groups. that then work with the organizations
through contracts. The involvement of these groups in public education also occurs outside of charters
through contracts with school districts to create new schools or operate existing schools. As many as half
of the Michigan charter schools are created through such groups. and the use of multiple sites for individual
charters has grown in Arizona recently. Some estimates of charter schools operating with such
organizations or as franchises put the total number of 80 individual schools, or roughly 10 percent of all
charter schools. (For more discussion of this issue, SCC Appendix C for a review of the role of such
organizations and steps the Department could take to decrease any competitive advantages such
organizations now enjoy over charter schools that start from scratch without such organizational backing.)
Options:
will
L
2. Through guidance, prohibit contracting organizations from/recciving 1 Federal funds
1. Clarify through guidance, the steps necessary to ensure that contracting organizations are appropriately
NN
working with independent groups carning charters, rather than receiving charters directly.
the
in
galme!
3. Clarify through regulations, the steps necessary to ensure that contracting organizations are
IG
appropriately working with independent groups earning charters, rather than receiving charters directly.
4. Through regulations. prohibit contracting organizations from receiving Federal funds.
5. Clarify statute, clarify the steps necessary to ensure that contracting organizations are appropriately
working with independent groups earning charters. rather than receiving charters directly.
6. Through statute, prohibit contracting organizations from receiving Federal funds
7. Include language restricting or prohibiting contracting organizations from receiving charters directly in
model laws, or stipulate appropriate levels of involvement.
8. Create a piority to give a preference to States that restrict the direct involvement of such entities in the
charter schools.
smill
9. Provide support to independent organizations that provide the logistical, managerial and financial
be
support to charter schools. (Such support has been a primary reason why independent organizations
seek partnerships with for-profit contractors.)
to
10. Take no action to restrict or discourage the involvement of contracting organizations.
it
receive
Pros & Cons:
Pros
Cons
1. Use guidance to describe appropriate steps
for contracting organizations
will support development of such groups
schools maintain access to resources
avoid legislating or regulating
New
2. Prohibit through guidance
maintain grass-roots nature of charters
schools lose access to such resources
strengthen competitive stance of independent
charter schools
avoid regulating
3. Use regulations to describe appropriate
steps for contracting organizations
will have to regulate
schools maintain access to resources
avoid legislating
4. Prohibit through regulations
maintain grass-roots nature of charters
schools lose access to such resources
strengthen competitive stance of independent
charter schools
5. Through statute, describe appropriate steps
for contracting organizations
schools maintain access to rescurces
will support development of such groups
6. Prohibit through statute
maintain grass-roots nature of charters
schools lose access to such resources
strengthen competitive stance of independent
charter schools
7. Include language restricting or prohibiting
contracting organizations in model laws
defer to States
States may chose not to limit involvement
some schools maintain access to the resources
limited impact of model laws
of such organizations
8. Provide support to independent
organizations
additional cost
all schools have access to such resources
difficulty in determining quality
do not create infrastructure of contractors
expanded Federal rele
9. No action
all schools have access to such resources
growing infrastructure of organizations, may
compete with public education system
Recommendations:
Some level of control over the type of operation by contracting organizations is recommended. (Options 1,
3, and 5 each would define appropriate steps). The least burdensome method that still ensures an
appropriate level of control should be enacted. Options 2, 4 and 6 are not recommended. Options 7 and 8
are recommended. Option 9 is not recommended.
Technical Fixes
In addition to these major arcas, there are several "technical fixes" that may be necessary to the current
legislation. Topics that need minor clarifications include language in the legislation that references sections
that have been deleted later, language about the types of laws States must pass to be eligible for funding, or
other issues that may arise after a careful reexamination of the statute.
PART IV: MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSIST ANCE PROGRAM
Background:
Federal support for magnet schools began in the early 1970's as a Special Projects activity under the
Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA). In the carly stages of the effort to desegregate schools, the goal was
to eliminate dual school systems, which were primarily in the South and the result of de jure discrimination
against blacks. Later. special theme schools with high quality instruction (i.e. magnet schools) were used
by Courts and by desegregating school districts as an alternative to forced busing as a way of achieving
desegregation on a voluntary basis. It was believed that if white parents were given the choice of having
their children attend top quality schools, they would select those schools even if it meant traveling across
town to a previously all-black school. This concept proved to have mcrit and the number of magnet
really?
schools for desegregation has quadrupled since 1981 (from 1,019 to over 4,000).
distriction
The ESAA program, and with it Federal support for magnet schools ended in 1981. In 1984 support for
magnet schools was reinstated through the authorization of the new Magnet Schools Assistance Program
under the Education for Economic Security Act. The statutory purpose of the program was to assist the
desegregation efforts of public school districts by supporting magnet schools that will (1) climinate, reduce
or prevent minority group isolation in schools with substantial proportions of minority students and (2)
offer courses of instruction that will improve student achievement in the academic subjects and their grasp
of marketable vocational skills. By regulation the Department continued the ESAA statute's definition of
"minority isolation" to mean a school with a 50 percent or higher minority student population. In 1988,
the Magnet Schools program was reauthorized as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In
1994, the program was again reauthorized, with changes that would help ensure that the Federally funded
magnet schools would contribute to state and local systemic reform efforts and that poor and minority
students would have equitable access to the schools.
The statute requires that Federally funded magnet schools bc designed to bring students of different social,
economic, racial and ethnic backgrounds together. The magnet schools must to part of an approved
desegregation plan either voluntary or required, and proposed projects must show how they plan to
improve the racial balance among participating schools; provide high quality educational programs for
participants; and foster positive interaction among students of different backgrounds.
While morc-rescarch is needed to reach firm conclusions, there is evidence that magnet schools are making
a difference for many children, particularly children in poor urban school districts.
clien
00'..
A recent study conducted by the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights and the : anderbilt Institute for
Public Policy Studies found that the magnet schools in St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Nashville provided poor
and minority children educational opportunities that they mav not have had otherwise. The study also
shul
the
found that the opportunities provided these children are of the type "that have enabled many to succeed
academically and to go on to college or productive employment."
states
More specifically, low-income students in magnet schools included in the study generally scored better on
academic performance tests than their counterparts at non-magnet schools. In St. Louis, magnet students
substantially outperformed non-magnet students on state assessments in reading, mathematics, social
studies, and science. It is believed that they also performed better than would be predicted from their prior
ability and socio-cconomic background. The low-income students who participated in the St. Louis magnet
and inter-district transfer programs were found to be significantly more likely to complete high school than
their counterparts in non-magnet schools. Cincinnati magnet schools with substantial numbers of
disadvantaged students performed above average on standardized tests. (Difficult Choices. Spring 1997.)
Other studies, using data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) conducted in 1988
and 1990. concluded that:
Magnet Schools show slightly higher tenth grade achievement levels, higher proportions of students
?
taking college preparatory mathematics, and planning for further education than their students'
backgrounds would suggest
Minority and low-income children were over-represented nationwide in magnet schools and other
schools of choice". Low-income or minority students were more likely to go to a magnet school than
by
high-income or white children.
regulated
Magnet schools are more likely to serve disadvantaged students than comprehensive schools, and the
average student in a magnet school was more likely to have higher achievement in reading and social
studies than a comparable student in a non-magnet school.
citte
A study of the San Antonio School District, where 80% of the children qualify for free or reduced price
lunch and where 94.4% (1995-96 Characteristics) of the population is minority, found, after adjusting for
past test scores, family background, and parental expectations, statistically significant differences in the
achievement test scores of students enrolled in magnet schools and the score of students who applied but
were not admitted to those schools
The Magnet Schools contribute to better race relations as well as academic achievement. In a recent Public
Agenda Report entitled, "Time to Move On: African-American and White Parents Sct an Agenda for Public
S
Schools," both white and black parents were reported to believe that integrated schools improve race
relations and enhance their children's ability to thrive in a diverse world. About 6 in 10 of the black and
white parents were reported to favor achieving school integration through magnet schools. (The percentage
was even higher among parents whose child had enrolled in a magnet program.) Since both groups
considered academic achievement to bc the highest priority, one can assume that magnet schools are
perceived to assist academic achievement as well as good race relations.
The Problem
The changing demographics of the country and of school districts are making it difficult to reduce,
eliminate, and prevent minority student isolation in schools. Schools, particularly those in large urban
areas, are becoming more minority-isolated. Since minority isolation in schools correlates closely with
economic isolation, the isolation that is occurring affects both minority and poor students. It also affects
white students and society as a whole. In isolated schools students of different racial, ethnic, and economic
groups have fewer, if any, opportunities for positive interaction with one another. The reduced
opportunities for positive interactions run counter to needs that arc quite apparent today. We are living in a
time when reports of racia! cension and violence have increased, when our soc: ty is becoming increasingly
diverse, and when the idea of a global society has become a reality. Our country's economic and social
well-being requires a well educated citizenry that is capable of living and worki g together peacefully and
productively. It requires a citizenry that also is capable of functioning well with people from other
countries and cultures.
According to the 1990 United States population census, whites comprise approximately 71% of the total
population. Between 1980 and 1990, the total population increased by 10%, the white population
increased by 8%, the black population increased by approximately 16%. the Asian population increased by
65% and the Hispanic/Latino population increased by 44%. It is expected that by the year 2000 one in
three people in the United States will be a member of an ethnic or racial minority (The State of
Desegregation).
For schools, the change is even more dramatic. Census Burcau data suggests that the number of black
students enrolled in public schools increased 3% from 1972 to 1992. In that same period Latino enrollment
increased 89%, while white enrollment decreased by 14%. The drop in white enrollment was not balanced
for by growth in white private school enrollment. There were 18% fewer white students in private
elementary schools and 23% fewer in private high schools than two decades earlier. This means that most
of the change in school population characteristics is the result of low white birth rate, higher minority birth
rates, and immigration (NSBA, Sonnenschein 1989)
BuBs
1954
The growing minority student population increasingly is being relegated to separate, largely urban, schools.
Research data indicates that during the past 10 years, schools have been re-segregating. In 1968 when
Brown V. Board of Education was decided percent of black students attended schools with less than 50
percent white enrollment. In 1972, as a result of court-ordered desegregation, that figure dropped to
approximately 64 percent and remained relatively constant through 1986. By 1994, however, it had risen
to 67 percent and appears to have continued to climb. Isolation of Latino students has increased at an even
greater rate than for black students during this period. As of the 1994-95 school year over 75% of Latinos
were in schools with majorities of Latino or black students. Many large urban school districts now have
minority student enrollments of 70% or greater and the minority enrollments co tinue to increase in these
districts. Also the population of minority children in minority-isolated schools IS becoming increasingly
diverse. (Orfield, 1997. Banks, 1991).
ISSUE: SHOULD ANY CHANGES IN THE MSAP BE PROPOSED
Should the Department seek changes in the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) statute to
make it a more effective tool for providing to students educational equity, educational excellence and
the ability to function well in a diverse society and world?
RECOMMENDATIONS: Option #2, including both sub-options is recommended. In addition, we
recommend adoption of the proposals offered under options #4 and #5. Options #1 and #3 are not
recommended for adoption. A discussion of the options follows.
Option 1: Do not propose a change in the statute or in the administration of the program.
This option is not recommended for adoption.
The Magnet Schools program has helped to make a difference for poor and minority students. Specifically,
magnet schools have helped reduce minority group isolation and provide opportunities for positive
interactions among students of different social, ethnic and economic backgrounds. This has been
accomplished in spite cf residential segregation or changing demographics, and they have promoted the
value of diversity within our schools and communities. A study completed in 1996 for the Department
found that in spite of the changing demographics and other factors outside their control, grantees either
achieved their objectives or made progress in reducing the incidence of racial isolation in 64% of the
schools examined. (American Institute for Research, 1996)
The Magnet Schools program also is helping to close the achievement gap between minority or poor
students and other students. Students from a wide range of backgrounds, not just our traditionally highest
achieving students, are benefiting from the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.
Finally, magnet schools are an integral part of the systemic reform efforts of many school districts. Over
the years, magnet schools have been and continue to be a major vehicle for parents and students to exercise
choice within the framework of our public schools. Magnet schools offer stud ents and parents
opportunities to find the types of educational programs best suited to their needs and interests. They also
often serve as school districts informal laboratories for innovation, change and reform. In Cleveland, Ohio
a survey of parents whose children attended a federally funded magnet school revealed that 81.7 percent of
the parents were either satisfied or extremely satisfied with the program. When asked about the aspects of
the program they valued most highly, the parents cited the quality of teacher/student interactions, the
education program offered, and the program's ability to strengthen the academic development of their
children. (MSAP Performance Report)
Pros and Cons:
Pros
1. The issues of school desegregation and diversity are politically sensitive and there are significantly
different points of view in the education community as to the changes that should be made. Therefore
raising them may make what is likely to be a difficult reauthorization process more difficult for the
Department.
-
2. The program has contributed in positive ways to the achievement of school desegregation and the
valuing of diversity.
3. The Department does not have all of the answers regarding what is needed to make the program more
effective and relevant to the needs of poor and minority students.
4. We need additional research on the needs and the results of the program's efforts, particularly as they
relate to improving educational equity and excellence.
5. To the extent that race would bc a factor in student assignments, the diversitv approach to achieving
educational equity may bc subject to legal challenges The courts have not yet resolved this issue.
Cons
1. A failure to propose changes that can improve the program might be viewed as an abdication by the
Department of its leadership and administrative responsibilities for the program.
2. The issues are likely to tc raised by the education community during reautherization and the
Department would either bc restricted to a reactive role or would appear to have been less than
forthcoming on this important topic.
3. The Department would miss an opportunity to make changes in the statute that would enable the
Department to administer the program in a way that would increase its effectiveness and relevance
to the needs of poor and minority children and to the needs of our society in the 21st century.
4. The White House may decide to advocate a change as part of an expanded public school choice
initiative (e.g., inter-district magnets). (See Appendix D.)
Option 2: Propose changes in the statute to address issues associated with the desegregation/equity
purpose of the program.
This option is recommended for adoption.
As discussed earlier, the Magnet Schools Assistance Programs has helped to reduce minority student
isolation in public schools. However, because of changing demographics and current legal trends, progress
in this area is becoming increasingly difficult.
The program's strategy for promoting desegregation reflects the demographics associated with dismantling
dual school systems (black/minority VS. white). Current demographics in school districts are different,
bringing, perhaps, the need for different solutions.
Both the statutory language regarding the climination, reduction or prevention of minority group isolation
and the policies and procedures established by the Department to implement the statute, reflect the black vs
white, dual school system paradigm. This statutory language and the Department's approach to
implementation are not consistent with current reality in many school districts. Many school districts are
attempting to serve a highly diverse student population, in terms of race and ethnicity as well as social and
economic differences. For example, between 1979 and 1995, the number of children with limited
proficiency in English rose from 1.25 million to 2.44 million and in central cities and urban fringe/large
towns, 60 percent of the schools had such children. During the coming decades minority children are
expected to make an even greater share of the school age population. (Condition. 1997)
The current statute calls for programs that are capable of attracting students from different social,
economic, racial and cthnic backgrounds. However, the statutory purposes and the operational policies
established by the Department may make it difficult for grantees to achieve this kind of diversity. For
example, the regulatory definition of "minority group isolation" stipulates an cni-ollment of 50 percent or
more minority group children and groups all minorities together. Grantees are encouraged through grant
selection criteria and through required assurances to ensure that children with different backgrounds have
access to the programs but their efforts in this area may be restricted somewhat by the statutory
requirement to climinate, reduce, or prevent minority group isolation in schools and by the regulatory
definition of "minority group isolation."
Current legal trends also are making it more difficult to achieve school desegregation. An increasing
number of school districts are being declared unitary by the courts and released from the requirements of
their court-ordered desegregation plans. Among the large districts released in recent years are Buffalo,
New York, Broward County, Florida, Denver, Colorado, St Lucic, Florida, and Corpus Christi, Texas. In
many instances the standards that the courts are using to determine that school districts have met their
constitutional obligations is desegregate also appear to be casing.
In addition, the usc of race for student assignments is being challenged. School districts implementing
voluntary plans to reduce minority group isolation or improve racial balance an.ong their schools have
traditionally used race as a criterion in making student assignments to schools. In the case of school
districts that had been declared unitary and released from their court orders, frequently, the same
race-based criteria that had been used in the court order were continued as part of their voluntary plan.
Now,
school districts are facing legal challenges to the use of race as a criterion in making student assignments
under their voluntary desegregation programs, including magnet schools.
To be eligible for MSAP funding, applicants must have approved desegregation plans. The statute requires
that the eligibility of voiuntary desegregation plans bc determined by the Department's Office for Civil
Rights on the basis of whether the plans are adequate under Title VI of the Civi! Rights Act. The Office for
Civil Rights' review of the voluntary plans had to be expanded this past year to encompass, for plans that
use race as a student selection criterion, consideration of whether race is used only to the extent that it
satisfies the strict scrutiny standard established by the Supreme Court. Under this standard, any use of race
must satisfy a compclling governmental interest - identified for the MSAP as reduction, elimination, or
prevention of minority group isolation - and be narrowly tailored. Among the considerations that affect a
determination of whether the use of race is narrowly tailored are: (1) whether the district tried or seriously
considered race-neutral alternatives and determined that those measures have not been or would not be
similarly effective, before resorting to race-conscious action: (2) the scope and ilexibility of the use of race,
including whether it is subject to a waiver: (3) the manner in which race is used, that is, whether race
determines eligibility for a program or whether race is just one factor in the decision making process; (4)
the duration of the usc of race and whether it is subject to periodic review; and (5) the degree and type of
burden imposed on students of other races.)
Also, the use of race to achieve educational benefits other than required desegregation is a critical issue that
has not yet been resolved by the courts. Three recent Federal District Court opinions illustrate this
controversy. In Arlington, Virginia, a judge found that the non-remedial interest in diversity is not
compelling. In Boston, Massachusetts and Montgomery County, Maryland, judges found that diversity is a
compelling interest. The Arlington and Boston cases are on appeal to the Fourth and First Circuit Courts
of Appeals.
Public opinion regarding the value of desegregation is mixed. Some question whether school desegregation
is consistent with current social needs. They question whether minority students need to be educated with
white students in order to have access to high quality educational opportunities comparable to those
enjoyed by white students. Some have expressed the belief that high quality teaching and learning can
occur in racially and economically isolated schools. However, according to the recent Public Agenda
Report, 86% of black parents and 74% of white parents believe that integration would mean a better
chance that all kids will have good schools and, with the exception of [forced] busing, both groups support
policies aimed at achieving integration.
Research has documented the fact that serious problems of inequity exist for students who attend
minority-isolated schools. Further, the research shows that there is a link between segregation by race and
segregation by cconomic status. Minority children are over-represented among the poor and among those
at risk for poor school outcomes. In 1995. both black and Hispanic children were more than twice as likely
as white children to live in poverty. Further, minority children are more likely than white students to attend
high poverty schools. In 1993-94, 65 percent of black and Hispanic students were in schools. These
schools do not have resources comparable to those enjoyed by low poverty schools. For example:
Students in mathematics classes in more affluent public secondary schools are more likely to be
taught by teachers who majored or minored in mathematics than were students in high-poverty
public secondary schools.
Public schools with high levels of students in poverty are less likely to bc connected to the Internet
or have library media centers with computers than schools with lower levels of student poverty.
Teacher salaries are higher in low poverty public schools than they are in high poverty public
schools. (In 1993-94 teachers in low poverty schools carned 28% more in total school earnings.)
In 1989-90, after adjusting for differences in the cost of living and the educational needs of
students, the Nation's richest school districts spent 36% more per student than the Nation's poorest
districts.
Fourth-graders in high-poverty public schools are less likely tc be in schools with gifted and
talented programs or extended day programs than fourth-graders in low poverty schools.
Finally, the climate in high-poverty schools is less conducive to learning than that in low-poverty schools.
Public school teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely to report that physical conflicts, weapons,
and verbal abuse of teachers are problems. Also. there generally is a low level of parental involvement in
high-poverty schools. (Condition, 1997)
The inequities that accrue as a result of the poverty status of students often are compounded for children
who suffer from multiple forms of discrimination, such as children who are poor and minority. Low
expectations, the denial of information and opportunities, overrepresentation in lower track classes, high
incidence of severe disciplinary actions, and under-representation in gateway courses and programs are
among the disparities experienced by minority children, including some children who are not poor.
In light of all of the inequities, it is not surprising that research shows that children from racial and ethnic
minority groups do not perform as well in school as white students. Children who have difficulty in
speaking English have a higher school dropout rate than other children. For example, in 1995, Hispanic
students were more likely than white students to drop out of school (12 compared to 5 percent,
respectively). Other examples, include the following:
In 1994, 4th, 8th and 12th grade whites and Asians scored higher than blacks and Hispanics in
history and geography. Whites also scored higher on reading and writing proficiency tests than
blacks and Hispanics.
In 1994, there continued to bc a large gap between the mathematics and science proficiency scores
of white students and minority students.
In 1996, 93% of whites had a high school diploma or the equivalent, CC pared to 86% for blacks
and 61% for Hispanics. (25 - 29 year olds)
Many minority children attend urban schools and the majority of these students attend schools that are
either predominantly or completed racially segregated. Further, as indicated earlier, most of them attend
schools in which 50 percent or more of the students are poor. (Condition, 1997)
While research on the educational and social effects of diversity is limited, there is evidence that suggests
that children who attend integrated schools and classes gain some important benefits. Learning
environments can bc enhanced by what students with a variety of backgrounds and interests bring with
them. Today's students live in a world in which they will need to live, work and interact with pcople who
are different from themselves. As onc of the attorneys who argued on behalf of Boston's efforts to use race
as a factor in admitting students to its special programs noted, "There are some things kids just need to be
taught that it's not casy to touch in a monochromatic environment." The recently published study by
William Bowen and Derek Bok examines the affect of affirmative action in the selection of black students
into elite higher education institutions. Their study found there were positive coults for white and black
students. For example, although the black students entered the colleges with lower test scores and grades,
they carn advanced degrees at rates identical to those of their white classmates, are slightly more likely than
whites from the same institutions to obtain professional degrees in law, business and medicine and tend to
be more active in civic and community activities than their white classmates. The black and white students
both reported that their interaction at college helped them relate to members of different racial groups later
in life.
Earlier studies showed similar benefits for students who attended desegregated elementary and secondary
schools. A 1982 study by Braddock and McPartland demonstrated that after controlling for individual
differences in academic preparation and geographic location of high schools and colleges, high school
desegregation experiences were related to college attendance [by blacks]. especially attendance at
desegregated colleges.
A 1984 study by Braddock and McPartland found that blacks who attended desegregated schools develop
networks, select college majors, and find jobs in non-traditional occupations to a greater extent than their
pcers from segregated schools.
The following sub-options are proposed as ways to improve the effectiveness of the Magnet Schools
Assistance Program as a tool for educational equity, integration and diversity The sub-options are not
mutually exclusive and therefore any number of them might be selected for pursuit by the Department.
Sub-Option A. Add to the MSAP statute authority for support of efforts*io promote diversity in
schools (social, economic, racial, ethnic) where this approach will best ensure that minority Possible
students have access to high quality instruction.
This option is recommended for adoption.
part
9,
Specifically:
& cut
8
Revise the statute's purpose statement to add the promotion of diversity (social, cconomic, racial, ethnic)
in schools or programs designed to ensure that minority and poor students have access to high quality
instruction.
Include in the statute a definition of "minority group isolation" that gives school districts flexibility in
determining when a school is minority-isolated (e.g., flexibility to reflect the multi-ethnic demographics
of the school district). For example, a new definition would address the distribution of students among
groups currently defined as mincrity by OMB and also within individual minority group classifications,
such as bringing together Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Guatemalan students
Expand and rewrite the "Innovative Programs" provision of the statute to address the goal of diversity
in schools or programs designed to ensure that minority and poor students have access to high quality
instruction in schools.
Include in the statute a priority for inter-district magnet school programs where such programs will
result in more integrated learning environments, in more opportunities for positive interactions among
students from different backgrounds, and in improved opportunities for poor and minority students to
achieve to high standards.
Provide in the "Findings" section of the statute an expanded discussion of the educational and social
benefits of bringing together students from diverse backgrounds - e.g. different social, racial, ethnic,
and economic backgrounds.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
1. Programs of the type fundce currently would continue to be eligible for funding with this change..
2. Under certain conditions, districts that have large but diverse minority populations may bc assisted in
achieving goals that reflect current needs of their student populations (e.g., achieve greater
diversity among minority groups as well as between them and white students).
3. Districts with large minority populations may be aided in their efforts to reduce isolation through the
promotion of and incentives for inter-district programs.
Cons
1. Fewer program resources would support the reduction of minority student isolation, as currently
defined, and therefore It may be perceived by some that the basic purpose and principles of the
statute will be undermined.
2. To the extent that race would be a factor in student assignments, the diversity approach to achieving
educational equity may be subject to legal challenges The courts have not yet resolved this issue.
3. OMB might not approve a proposal that calls for a definition of "minority" that differs from their own
Sub-option B. Revise the statute by adding a new provision for the use of up to 10 percent of
appropriated funds for operational research and demonstration projects designed to identify and/or
develop new ways of achieving diverse and equitable learning opportunities for all students.
This provision could bc part of a larger public school choice demonstration authority and would have two
primary purposes. One, it would provide demonstration support for successful magnet schools and
programs that are willing to serve as a model and to work with one or more ED-sponsored technical
assistance providers to assist other LEAs and schools in planning and implementing high quality magnet
programs. The second purpose of this new authority would bc to support the development and testing of
new approaches to reducing the isolation cf minority and poor students in public schools. Under this
option the "Findings" section of the statute should include an expanded discussion of the educational and
social benefits of bringing together students from diverse backgrounds -e.g., different social, racial, ethnic
and economic backgrounds
This sub-option is recommended for adoption.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
1. Projects of the type currently funded would continue to be funded.
2. New information needed to make program support for equity more effective would be provided.
3. This activity would contribute to a more rapid expansion of high quality choice options for parents and
students.
4. More students will have opportunities for positive interactions with students who are different from
themselves.
Cons
1. Some program proponents may object because support for traditional magnet schools would bc reduced
under current funding levels.
OPTION 3. Do not revise the statute but make administrative and regulatory changes that will enable
districts to seek more diverse, multicultural student populations in schools. Specifically:
1
This option is not recommended for adoption.
Revise the regulatory definition of "minority group isolation" to give school districts more flexibility to,
respectively). This provision significantly curtails the use of MSAP funds for professional development
and capacity building after the first year of a project.
The changes should include the following:
Revise the "Usc of Funds" section to permit support for ongoing, high quality professional
development that is aligned with state standards and required for effective teaching and learning in
the magnet school.
Revise the "Usc of Funds" section to permit support for other activities that will increase the
capacity of the school district to continue the magnet program after Federal funding ends.
Revise the "Limitations" section to permit the use of up to 50 percent of the grant amount in the
first year, and up to 25 percent in the second and third years, for planning, professional
development. and other capacity building activities.
Require MSAP applicants to describe how funds that are expected to t.c available from other ED
programs (c.g., T:tlc I, Eiscnhower, Bilingual Education, Comprehensive School Reform, Goals
2000, etc) would be used, along with MSAP funds, to implement capacity-building activities that
are part of local systemic reform plans.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
1. The changes would promote a greater emphasis on systemic reform and the use of magnets to improve
the quality of education for all students in the districts.
2. The changes would increase the likclihood that programs will be continued and at a higher level of
quality after federal funding ends.
Cons
1. Some may perceive the change as an attempt to subvert the program from its desegregation purpose.
Option 5. Clarify or eliminate existing priorities that have not been well defined and therefore have
not helped the grant selection process.
This option is recommended for adoption.
Specifically:
1. Eliminate the priorities that-are not well defined and therefore do not help identify the applications most
deserving of funding. This would include elimination of the priorities "Need for Assistance," and
connection with "comprehensive community involvement plans
2. Clarify or revise priorities that are working well but could bc made more effective tools for determining
the relative quality of applications. This would include defining the priority "innovative
educational approaches" and rewriting it to link it to principles of effectiveness. It also would include
writing as a separate priority the linking of magnet programs with "systemic reform plans", and
3. Propose additional priorities that may help some districts achieve more significant results. Specifically,
for example, reflect the multi-cthnic demographics of the school district VS the minority/non-minority
distribution of students.
Remove the regulation that prohibits the magnet schools from increasing minority enrollments in their
feeder schools above the district-wide average for the grade levels involved.
Pros and Cons:
Pros
1. We avoid the possibility of a confrontation on the issue of school desegregation in the reauthorization
process.
2. The program would be a little more responsive to current needs than it is at present.
Cons
1. The changes that can be made through regulation would be much more limited than could be made
through the legislative process.
2. Congress and the public might perceive the regulatory approach as an attempt to rewrite the statute
through administrative fiat, with limited public and Congressional deliberation.
Option 4. Propose statutory changes that could increase the impact of the Magnet Schools Assistance
Program on systemic reform. Specifically, propose changes that will increase the impact of federally
funded magnet schools on the quality of teaching and learning in publie schools and on the quantity
and quality of public school choice options.
This option is recommended for adoption.
In the 1994 reauthorization, a new purpose was added to the Magnet Schools Assistance Program statute.
The programs are to assist in achieving systemic reforms and providing all students the opportunity to mcet
challenging State content and student performance standards. However, the statute docs not explicitly
authorize the usc of funds for key activities that would make the new charge a reality.
In response to the 1994 statutory change, school districts receiving MSAP funds are attempting to align
their magnet programs with systemic reform plans. To accomplish this purpose, the school districts need to
develop longer-term capacity to implement high quality instructional programs. They need to align
curriculum, technology and professional development and provide high caliber professional development on
an ongoing basis. They nec di to identify and adapt strategies and methods for teaching and learning that are
based on reliable research and/or proven practices, and staff at the district and school levels need
information about available resources and how they can bc coordinated to assist their efforts.
Currently the MSAP provides no explicit authorization for the usc of funds for professional development or
other capacity developing activities The statute authorizes planning, under which staff training,
curriculum dci elopment and other capacity building activities might take place. However, the statute
places emphasis on the use of funds for instructional staff necessary for the implementation of magnet
programs, and for the acquisition of supplies and equipment to support the implementation of the magnet
programs. Further, while the statute provides significant flexibility for the use of funds for planning
activities in the first year of a project (up to fifty percent of the amount awarded). the amounts that can be
used in the remaining years of a project are much more restricted (fifteen percent and ten percent
(a) Propose a priority (or fund reservation) for projects that are based on inter-district plans, and
(b) Propose a priority (or fund reservation) for smaller LEAs seeking to implement smaller projects
Pros and Cons:
Pros
1. The changes will be more useful tools for determining the relative merit of pplications.
2. Applicants will receive a clearer message regarding priorities and principles the Department values and
about promising strategies for achieving results.
3. Applicants will bc relieved of the requirement to respond to essentially useless priorities.
Cons
1. Some may perceive the climination of prioritics as a signal that certain aspects of program design (i.c.,
need and comprehensive approaches to magnet planning) are not considered valuable.
Magnet Schools References
1. Banks, James. Teaching multicultural literacv to teachers. Teaching Education. 1991.
2. Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the
United States: 1995-96. National Center for Education Statistics. Statisticai Analysis Report. July
1998.
3. The Condition of Education: 1997.
4. Deepening Segregation in American Public Schools. Orfield, Bachmeier, James, and Eitle.
Harvard Project on School Descgregation April 5, 1997.
5. Difficult Choices: Do Magnet Schools Serve Children in Need? Report of the Citizens'
Commission on Civil Rights. Spring 1997.
6. The Growth of Segregation in American Schools Changing Patterns of Separation and
Poverty Since 1968. A Report of the Harvard Project on School Desegregation to the National School
Boards Association. December, 1993.
7. Reducing, Eliminating. and Preventing Minority Isolation in American Schools: The Impact
of Magnet Schools Assistance Program. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education by
American Institutes for Research, 1996.
8. Sonnenschein, Francis M. America's Changing Demographics: Their Impact on Public
Education. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith. 1989.
9. The State of Desegregation Around the Country. Midwest Desegregation Assistance Center.
1997.
10. Time to Move On: African-American and White Parents Sct an Agenda for Public Schools.
1998.
Appendix A
Lessons for Charter Schools from
the Alternative and Public School Choice Movements
The attached issue paper was solicited to gain input from Joc Nathan on lessons the charter school
movement should take from previous education reform efforts that have attempted to promote independent
and innovative public schools.
For this paper, Nathan was asked to provide key lessons that previous reform efforts learned over the years
that should remain on the radar screens of charter school operators and supporters as this new reform
evolves. In this paper, Nathan defines several types of school reforms and describes a history of several
decades of efforts to create smaller, innovative and semi-independent public schools that families can chose
to attend. The author draws from research, personal experience with charter schools and alternative
schools, interviews with individuals involved in education reform and personal reflections based on his
experience.
In his brief account of the choice movement's history, Nathan notes several developments that should be
kept in mind as the charter school movement matures. These include:
1.
the options of choice within public education were originally created to provide innovative and
potentially more effective public schools. The idea of public school choice was adapted to magnet
schools, which were seen primarily as an instrument for addressing racial segregation. Ironically,
Nathan points out, this has left many minority families unable to attend magnet schools because
they have been allowed to become selective;
2.
many alternative schools were caught by the movement "back to the basics" when they couldn't
demonstrate the positive impact of their programs. Many schools were closed as policy makers
called for increased performance and higher standards; and
3.
districts often attempt to convert alternative schools with a unique focus or mission, into schools
that the districts can use as "dumping grounds" for students who do net succeed in traditional
public schools.
Nathan offers lessons on seven issues from the public school choice movement that charter schools ought to
learn.
1.
Quality curriculum and inservice charter schools should not reinvent the wheel. They should take
advantage of other developments from people working outside their schools. This learning should
also take place after the school opens and be part of an ongoing professional development and
improvement process.
2.
Governance charter schools must develop effective governance structures that make decisions
and remain workable. He takes lessons from alternative schools of the 1970s and notes eight
important lessons, including: do more than oppose old ideas: avoid previous mistakes; build trust;
acknowledge cultural differences; define clear goals; build clear structures for decision making;
assign responsibility for completing tasks; and avoid burn-out He also refers to eight lessons from
his own research of charter school governance. which include using clear goals, agendas and time
limits for meetings; establishing priorities; using subgroups; agreeing on a process for handling
disagreement; fixing problems rather than assigning blame; letting all voices bc heard; and
celebrating progress.
3.
Evaluation -- charter schools and their sponsors should make sure that before a school opens, it has
clear goals. at least some of which can be measured, and the instruments to bc used in evaluation
are agreed upon. Such evaluation should use involve authorities, a variety of measures in addition
to standardized s(rewrite):
4.
Higher Education -- Nathan notes that higher education has not contributed adequately to the
progress of education reform. He notes that many innovative alternative public schools have been
ignored by higher education or rejected in their overtures by these institutions;
5.
Personnel and budget control -- charter schools need to maintain control over their staff and
finances or else their vision may bc croded over time.
6.
Historical perspective -- charter schools ought to study previous reforms, including those outside
education, as they begin and develop their schools.
7.
Working with the community -- charter schools ought to develop positive working relationships
with their communities, build understanding and support for what they are trying to do, and
consider directly involving the pcople, groups and organizations in their community in their school.
Nathan offers a few policy lessons:
1.
details of legislation are critical for individual schools, including issues like prohibitions of
admissions tests, multiple sponsorship and State-provided start-up funds;
2.
"stronger" charter school laws can stimulate improvement in larger education systems -- Nathan
cites the stimulus of the Boston charter schools in encouraging the city's school system to embrace
its "Pilot Schools" program.
At the conclusion of this paper. Nathan recommends that the Department:
1.
work with State charter support groups to share the lessons of previous reforms;
2.
promote dialog among charter schools, school reform networks and other innovative school reform
networks:
3.
publicize the Department's support for effective charter schools and charter school laws;
4.
encourage university officials to become more involved in charter schools. For example, include
incentives for including charter schools in partnerships supported by Federal grant programs that
arc designed to promote higher education/k-12 collaboration;
5.
encourage greater regulatory flexibility, at the State. local and Federal level; and
6.
produce materials describing innovative approaches to space and facilities in successful charter
schools.
Background on the Author:
Nathan directs the Center for School Change, at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey
Institute for Public Affairs. Dr. Nathan has written extensively on charter schools and school
reform. His previous work includes the first national survey of charter schools and a book
documenting the early activity of charter schools across the nation. The National Governors'
Association asked Nathan to coordinate a major school reform project in the mid 1980's, which
produced Time for Results: The Governors 1991 Report on Education In this project he worked
closely with then Governors Riley and Clinton. In August, 1997, the American School Board
Journal named Nathan's recent book, Charter Schools. one of the seven "best books written about
schools and schooling in the last year. Nathan also helped start, and worked for 7 years in, a k-
12, 500 student public school that began in 1971, and is starting its 28th year this fall. This school
was recognized by the US Office of Education as a "carefully evaluated, proven innovation
worthy of national replication." Nathan then directed a Federally funded project to help other
districts and schools adopt and adapt key ideas from this school. Nathan writes a weekly column
for three Minnesota papers and is a frequent guest columnist in several national publications.
Appendix B
Summary Memo on Developing Model Legislation and Working with States
To:
Charter School Team
From:
Alex Medler
Date:
4/13/98
Re:
Charter School Laws Issue Paper
Subject:
Charter School Laws:
Should the Department support particular aspects of charter school laws?
The attached issue papers discuss whether or not the Department should develop a model charter school
law and what the Department can do to help States that are considering charter school legislation. This
memo summarizes the attached documents.
Summary:
Charter schools are a significant element of education reform in the United States. Currently, more than 32
States and territories allow people to create charter schools and nearly 800 charter schools are open.
While growth is strong, approximately 500 charter schools are in just three States. The likclihood that we
will achieve the President's goal of having 3000 charter schools by the year 2002 is slim given the limited
activity in many States. Despite State differences, ED has not taken a position on which charter school law
is best. It is now time to revisit the question of whether or not the Department should take a position.
Based on a review of the Department's activities to date, lessons learned in implementing policy, and an
analysis of likely outcomes if the Department takes a position, this paper concludes that to achieve the
Stated goal of achieving 3000 schools by the year 2002 and to increase the chances that these schools
will uphold the principles the Department holds for the charter school movement -- the Department should
develop a model charter school law. Once such a position is clarified, the Department should take
deliberate and appropriate steps to disseminate it. A model law should:
lead to significant numbers of truly independent charter schools -- either through strong appeals
processes or a non-local district sponsor;
clarify the need of charter schools to remain more accountable to the public than traditional
schools; and
clarify their need tc serve all children and to enhance equity in American public education.
Background:
Thus far, the Department has strongly supported charter schools, but not joined debates about the specifics
of charter school legislation. The Department's reluctance to join this debate could stem from several
issues. Charter schools are relatively new, and -- until recently -- it was too early to draw conclusions about
what policy differences meant to implementation. Comparisons of charter school laws have also been
controversial and involved partisan political fights. These fights can affect other education reforms and
issues in States -- such as standards, vouchers, and the Federal role in education. These fights also involve
major constituencies in States. Against this backdrop, the Department has articulated strong support for
charter schools but deferred to States in how they establish programs
On the activist side, the Department has provided funding to States that pass charter school laws to help
schools in these States overcome start-up costs, sct ambitious goals for the charter school movement,
spoken out for key principles in their implementation, provided testimony and answered questions for
State-level policy makers on request. and supported the creation of documents that help State leaders
consider charter school legislation. Meanwhile, the Department has deferred to States in how they
authorize charter schools. While ethics rules prohibit the Department from lobbying State governments,
Congress has directed ED to create and disseminate model charter school legislation. ED has yet to act on
this directive.
The variety of State laws, and the resultant charter school programs have begui! to provide enough
information to draw preliminary conclusions about the impact of policy on programs. Some preliminary
conclusions include.
laws with several distinctly weak aspects (such as only allowing the conversion of existing public
schools, or not allowing an appeals process or alternative sponsor) lead to few or no schools;
the "strongest" laws lead to more schools, but can also bring problems in accountability and
quality; and
district control of the charter process docs lead to the creation of schools, but they are
disproportionately designed for at-risk students.
If the Department decides !o not take a position on charter school laws there are several possible outcomes
-- some help the Department's primary charter school objective of establishing 3000 schools, while others
detract from the likclihood of achieving this objective. Since States continue to pass charter school
legislation, it is likely that the objective of having 40 States pass charter school laws by the year 2002 will
be achieved with no significant work by the Department. In addition, the number of charter schools will
continue to grow.
However, there are at least three risks of not taking a position. First, groups with idcological agendas may
successfully redefine and reshape the charter school movement and take credit for it. Second, ineffective
laws that produce few schools, or laws with inadequate accountability, might pass. In addition, good laws
-- which have the potential of passing -- would not benefit from the Department's direction. Third,
Congress might act to describe a model law directly.
There are several unfortunate possible affects, if ideological groups successfully shape the movement,
including:
the concept of charters may be defined differently than ED would hope, i.c., charters could be
described as private schools, or their increased accountability could bc lost;
charters that don't serve all children equitably or remain accountable could thrive;
bipartisan support may bc lost:
charters may be used to influence other education issues. such as vouchers, standards based
reforms, and the Federal role in education; and
a narrow segment of supporters may take credit for the movement
If the Department docs take a position, it is likely that better laws will pass. more schools will be created
and these schools will more closcly reflect the Department's principles. On the negative side, most of the
trade-offs from taking a position on legislation could come from antagonizing micrest groups and
constituencies which perceive an interest in fighting the charter school movement as a whole
Once a model law was established there are several strategies that could appropriately disseminate the
model. These strategies include
1.
continuing to provide grants to States with charter school legislation and charter schools;
2.
educating policy makers by providing neutral guidance and information about charter schools and
policy options;
3.
providing official testimony when requested;
4.
increasing public awareness of charter schools through the media, public forums and other events;
5.
providing official model legislation as directed by Congress;
6.
educating key constituencies about charter schools; and
7.
school visits and public speaking by Department and Administration officials, including the
Secretary and President.
Appendix C
Briefing on Accountability and Assistance Needs of Schools
SUMMARY
The attached materials were prepared at the request of OERI and the Public Charter School
Program Office The Center on Reinventing Public Education is conducting the Department's
research into accountability in charter schools. The attachments are briefing materials on "How
The Department Of Education Can Help Charter Schools." They were presented by Paul Hill, on
behalf of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, The University of Washington, July 1998.
I. At this preliminary stage, the Center's main conclusions are as follows.
1.
Charter school accountability processes and standards are unclear in every State visited;
2.
Both charter schools and authorizing agencies shy away from relying on student test
results;
3.
Many charter schools are too poorly defined instructionally and organizationally-to permit
informed parent choice;
4.
Schools need technical assistance as well as funds for start-up; and
5.
Impending decisions regarding the renewal of recently opened charter schools will test the
possibility of performance accountability.
II. A primary finding is that schools need assistance sources in addition to start-up funds.
Specifically charter schools need access to:
1.
Coherent school wide plans to use as models;
2.
Competitively-priced administrative service providers;
3.
Capital for leasing or buying facilities;
4.
Testing that is curriculum-independent, secure, not biased in favor of regular public
schools, and that reports results quickly.
III. In the absence of such help, the scarcity of assistance creates advantaged for well-capitalized
schools -- foundation-funded networks, franchises and for-profit providers.
IV. Based Qn these insights, the researchers recommend that the Department:
Promote local assistance infrastructure with start-up funds for:
1.
Incubators to help potential providers develop strong school plans;
2.
Charter school assistance networks;
3.
Local revolving loan funds:
4.
Fee-for-service providers of insurance, financial record-keeping, personnel and benefits;
5.
Local developers and brokers for school building space
V. In addition, the authors suggest that the Department sponsor the:
1.
Development of tests that fairly compare charter schools with regular public schools;
2.
Development of models for how local school districts can hold thools accountable; and
3.
Documentation of "good practices" examples of charter authorizer accountability
relationships.
An interdistrict magnet program would provide opportunities to create integrated schools
that in many instances are not possible within the confines of either urban or suburban
school districts, because the demographic make-up of one group tends to include
extremely large percentages of minority group students while the demographic make-up of
the other tends to include very small percentages of minority students.
With specific respect to the MSAP, an interdistrict approach has the potential of creating
viable joint programs for which neither party to the interdistrict project would have been
eligible if it attempted to apply seperately for its own intradistrict magnet schools.
With respect to the MSAP, an interdistrict approach would afford participating school
districts with new opportunities to create challenging and innovative educational programs
that they could not otherwise afford to develop. This may be as true for many more
affluent suburban school districts trying to either avoid tax increases or trying to cut taxes
as it is for urban school districts struggling to adequately fund basic programs.
-
An interdistrict magnet initiative or priority would also face several barriers and potential
liabilities:
Basic funding formulas in many States are driven by average daily attendance (ADA).
This creates a disincentive for schools and school districts to perinit or encourage their
students to enroll in a school that is not in their district and under their jurisdiction.
The development of an interdistrict program requires two (or more) school districts to
work together in ways that they are not accustomed to working. This involves making
mutually acceptable decisions regarding issues such as the location of magnet schools,
magnet school curriculum, student selection procedures, funding support for basic
operational costs (with or without Federal funding from the MSAP), and decision-making
authority with respect to the magnet school(s).
In many instances, school districts will incur additional costs for student transportation
which cannot be supported with Federal funds.
-
-
Many school districts are large county-wide systems, making it difficult to link their
schools with schools in other districts because of size and geography (e.g., the large
county-wide districts in Florida).
In instances where there is significant community concern or a perception that the location
of the magnet school is unsafe, that the magnet school will include or tolerate disruptive
students, or that academic standards will be watered down, building support for
interdistrict magnet programs, particulary among largely white suburban districts, will be
extremely difficult.
September 9, 1998
APPENDIX D
Interdistrict Magnets
A significant number of large urban school districts have high minority student enrollments (most
have student enrollments chat are 70% or greater minority). Minority enrollments are continuing
to increase in these districts.
In the ten largest school districts, students who are isolated on the basis of race also tend to be
isolated by poverty.
Student achievement in predominantly minority isolated and poor schools is well below the
national average.
During the last several years, reported incidents of racial violence and tension have increased. At
the same time, because schools are resegregating racially, students of all racial and ethnic groups
are experiencing fewer opportunities to interact with one another.
Magnet schools provide opportunities for students of different racial, ethnic, social and economic
backgrounds to study and learn together. This experience affects both minority and non-minority
students and results in these students gaining a better appreciation of people who are different
from themselves and in better skills in interacting with individuals from backgrounds other than
their own.
Magnet schools' high quality special curricular programs provide chall aging academic instruction
that also help raise student achievement levels for both minority and non-minority students with
various academic backgrounds. The special curricular programs provided by magnet schools are
not designed exclusively to meet the needs of the academically elite.
In a limited number of instances, interdistrict magnet programs are supported under the Magnet
Schools Assistance Program (MSAP), however these programs account for less than five percent
of MSAP funding.
In a large number of metropolitan areas, urban school districts with high and increasing minority
enrollments are bordered by suburban school districts whose enrollment is predominantly
non-minority. In these areas, interdistrict magnet programs could create or significantly expand
opportunities for social and academic growth for students that would otherwise not be available
to them in their current schools and districts.
Major advantages of a specific interdistrict magnet initiative or program include the following:
Like other magnet programs, participation on the part of students and their families would
be completely voluntary.
In some instances, school districts -- especially middle class suburban school districts --
may not believe that there are adequate incentives to justify what they perceive to be a
risky and burdensome venture that requires significant involvement and partnership with
other school districts that have less successful track records than their own.