Скачать презентацию A Look at the Charter School Landscape 1 Скачать презентацию A Look at the Charter School Landscape 1

5e154687cdaf052daf6e60eaca0dc1c8.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 76

A Look at the Charter School Landscape 1 JULIA MARTIN, ESQ. JMARTIN@BRUMAN. COM BRETTE A Look at the Charter School Landscape 1 JULIA MARTIN, ESQ. [email protected] COM BRETTE KAPLAN, ESQ. [email protected] COM STEVEN SPILLAN, ESQ. [email protected] COM BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC WWW. BRUMAN. COM SPRING FORUM 2013 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Agenda 2 Spotlight on Charter Schools 101 National Trends Recent Legislation Equity Issues ESEA Agenda 2 Spotlight on Charter Schools 101 National Trends Recent Legislation Equity Issues ESEA Flexibility Civil Rights Charter School Program Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Spotlight on Charter Schools 3 Charter schools gained prominence during the Bush Administration, following Spotlight on Charter Schools 3 Charter schools gained prominence during the Bush Administration, following passage of the No Child Left Behind Act Obama Administration continues to support public charter schools Conservatives see charters as an avenue for “school choice” Congress is poised to increase the attention and spotlight on charter schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charter Schools 101 4 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Charter Schools 101 4 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

What is a Charter School? 5 Independent public school designed and operated by parents, What is a Charter School? 5 Independent public school designed and operated by parents, educators, community leaders, education entrepreneurs and others. Operates under a contract, or charter, from a public agency, such as a local or state education agency, an institution of higher education or a municipality. Must meet standards set forth in their charters for students and for the school as a whole, or else the chartering agency can close the school. Source: https: //www 2. ed. gov/nclb/choice/charter-faq. html Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

What is a Charter School? 6 Nonsectarian, publicly funded school of choice exempt from What is a Charter School? 6 Nonsectarian, publicly funded school of choice exempt from certain State and local regulations. In return for reduced governmental regulation, charter schools agree in charter to be held accountable for academic and financial performance. May operate as its own LEA, or as part of another LEA Source: The Office of Innovation and Improvement’s Oversight and Monitoring of the Charter Schools Program’s Planning and Implementation Grants, ED/OIG Final Audit Report (September 2012) Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

What is a Charter School? 7 According to ESEA, Section 5210(1), a charter school What is a Charter School? 7 According to ESEA, Section 5210(1), a charter school is a public school that is: Per State CS authorizing laws, exempt from significant State or local rules inhibiting flexible operation & management of public schools; Created or adapted by developer, & operated under public supervision & direction; Operates to pursue specific educational objectives determined by school’s developer & agreed to by authorized public charter agency; Provides elementary or secondary education, or both; Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

What is a Charter School? 8 ESEA, Section 5210(1) -- (continued) Complies with civil What is a Charter School? 8 ESEA, Section 5210(1) -- (continued) Complies with civil rights laws (ADA, Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, IDEA); Complies with Federal and State audit requirements; Complies with Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements; Operates according to State law; Has written performance contract with authorized public charter agency describing how student performance will be measured for State assessments required by other schools and assessments mutually agreeable to authorizer and charter school; Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

What is a Charter School? 9 ESEA, Section 5210(1) -- (continued) Nonsectarian in all What is a Charter School? 9 ESEA, Section 5210(1) -- (continued) Nonsectarian in all operations (programs, admissions, employment, etc. ); Not affiliated with sectarian school or religious institution; Does not charge tuition; School parents choose to send child to or admits students based on lottery when necessary. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charter School Authorizers 10 State charter school laws assign authorizers National Association of Charter Charter School Authorizers 10 State charter school laws assign authorizers National Association of Charter School Authorizers identified 6 types of authorizers: IHEs 2. Independent chartering boards 3. LEAs 4. Mayors/Municipalities 5. Not-for-profit organizations 6. SEAs Authorizers: Approve charter applications Oversee and ensure compliance Review and renew contracts Close charter schools 1. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charter School Authorizers 11 After approving application, authorizer drafts charter contract outlining: Time period Charter School Authorizers 11 After approving application, authorizer drafts charter contract outlining: Time period of CS contract; Requirements for governing board & bylaws; Exemptions to traditional school legal obligations; Performance goals; Number of schools allowed under charter; Fiscal goals; and Reporting requirements Authorizers responsible for monitoring school progress and compliance Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charter Schools are Autonomous 12 Despite detailed contracts, charter schools usually have more freedom Charter Schools are Autonomous 12 Despite detailed contracts, charter schools usually have more freedom and flexibility than traditional public schools Charter schools can: Extend school day/week Extend school year Increase instructional time in a particular subject Make independent staffing decisions Try a new curriculum Try a new instructional method Pay for performance Offer extensive tutoring Etc. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charter Schools & Public Funds 13 How are public charter schools funded? Money follows Charter Schools & Public Funds 13 How are public charter schools funded? Money follows student If a student transfers from a traditional public school to a public charter school, the funding associated with that student follows him or her to the public charter school Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charter Schools & Accountability 14 Are charter schools accountable for state educational standards? YES! Charter Schools & Accountability 14 Are charter schools accountable for state educational standards? YES! Required to meet all Federal and State education standards Charter documents and chartering contracts establish student achievement goals that must be met Accountable to supervising entity (LEA or SEA) Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charter Schools & Financial Accountability 15 How are charter schools held financially accountable? Funded Charter Schools & Financial Accountability 15 How are charter schools held financially accountable? Funded with public dollars Audits If applicable, conduct single audit Single Audit Act: expend $500 K or more per year in Federal funds Ongoing reviews from authorizing entities Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

National Trends in Charter Schools 16 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC National Trends in Charter Schools 16 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

State Charter School Laws 17 Minnesota passed first charter school law in 1992. As State Charter School Laws 17 Minnesota passed first charter school law in 1992. As of November 2012, 42 States and DC have laws specifically authorizing and governing charter schools Two States made changes to charter school law in November 2012 elections: WA approved charters for the first time GA changed state constitution to clarify availability of charters 8 States don’t have charter school laws AL, KY, MT, NE, ND, SD, VT, WV Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

State Charter School Laws: Differences 18 Charter school laws differ greatly from State to State Charter School Laws: Differences 18 Charter school laws differ greatly from State to State Common differences: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The types of charter schools that can operate in the State; The limit, if any, on the number of charter schools that can operate in the State; The type & number of authorizing entities in the State; The level of legal autonomy & requirements charter schools are exempt from; and The level of fiscal autonomy & funding a charter school receives Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Increasing Numbers 19 Overall, huge growth in number of charters and number of charter Increasing Numbers 19 Overall, huge growth in number of charters and number of charter students in recent years In 2009 -10: More than 1. 6 million students In 2011: More than 5000 charter schools nationwide Serving 2. 3 million students (about 3% of total) There are 100 cities where charters serve 10% of students or more (25 cities where it’s >20%) Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Measuring Charter Growth 20 Development of charter schools began in 1990 s to provide Measuring Charter Growth 20 Development of charter schools began in 1990 s to provide expanded educational options within the public school system Since 2007 -08: 1, 700 new public charter schools (almost 50% increase) Serving additional 1 million students (80% increase) From 2011 -12 to 2012 -13, an estimated additional 200, 000 to 275, 000 students attending public charter schools In 2012 -13 school year alone, over 500 new public charter schools Source: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Dashboard Data from 2012 -2013, http: //www. publiccharters. org/publication/? id=929 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

By the Numbers 21 Students enrolled in charter schools nationwide: 63% = Students of By the Numbers 21 Students enrolled in charter schools nationwide: 63% = Students of color 52% = Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 16. 5% = LEP 11. 9% = Have IEP Charter school geography: 54% in large cities 22% in suburban communities 9% in towns 15% in rural areas Source: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, March 2013 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Push to Remove Caps 22 Currently, 25 States (including DC) have caps on the Push to Remove Caps 22 Currently, 25 States (including DC) have caps on the number of charter schools Different types of caps: Number of schools chartered/number of active charters Number of students in charter schools Limits to annual growth in number of schools or % of students in charters Why remove caps? Allows growth of good models, competition in charter “market” BUT caps incentivize closure of unsuccessful models/problem schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Push for More Authorizers 23 According to 2011 survey by National Association of Charter Push for More Authorizers 23 According to 2011 survey by National Association of Charter School Authorizers: 1000 chartering authorities nationwide 850 are LEAs authorize 52% of charters Why more authorizers? More charters Process moves more quickly Less bias? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Increase in State/Local Voucher Programs 24 Basic idea: “funding portability” In 2011, 15 States Increase in State/Local Voucher Programs 24 Basic idea: “funding portability” In 2011, 15 States had some kind of voucher/tax credit program 42 more were considering legislation Some cities have similar programs E. g. , Los Angeles, Rochester, Newark, Boston Support from members of Congress Specifics of programs – and degree of “portability” varies Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

National Trends: Parent Trigger Laws 25 Generally, parent trigger laws allow parents to petition National Trends: Parent Trigger Laws 25 Generally, parent trigger laws allow parents to petition to transform a failing public school Transformations can include conversion to a charter Requests not always granted Most States require that school is first designated as lowperforming for two to three years Proponents say triggers give parents a voice Critics say: Triggers work to privatize and corporatize public schools (charters can be run by for-profit corporations) Can allow schools to circumvent union protections for teachers Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

National Trends: Parent Trigger Laws 26 20 States have or are currently considering parent National Trends: Parent Trigger Laws 26 20 States have or are currently considering parent trigger bills First parent trigger law: CA, passed 2010 Existing parent trigger laws in: LA, MS, CT, TX, IN, OH, CA CA, IN, TX considering revisions to trigger laws CA is only State where parent trigger petition has been used (twice) Both requests blocked by legal challenges Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Recent Legislation 27 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Recent Legislation 27 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Democrats and Charters 28 Seen as an option in healthy school ecosystem Generally supportive Democrats and Charters 28 Seen as an option in healthy school ecosystem Generally supportive BUT not a solution for all students Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Republicans and Charters 29 Charters as part of “school choice” system “Market”-based approach to Republicans and Charters 29 Charters as part of “school choice” system “Market”-based approach to e Charters as viable option that drive competition for other schools Money should follow the child Romney: “linked to the student” Cantor (R-VA): funding portability Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 30 H. R. 2218 (112 th Congress) Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 30 H. R. 2218 (112 th Congress) Sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Goal is to “streamline and modernize” the Charter School Program Current program “outdated” and “not meeting the needs of the charter school community” Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 31 Consolidates existing funds into State grant Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 31 Consolidates existing funds into State grant program With additional flexibility on State level to support new startups and expansion/replication of successful models States must describe how they will include ELLs, students with disabilities Expands current Charter School Program grant period from 3 years to 5 years Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 32 Gives priority in funding to States Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 32 Gives priority in funding to States that: Repeal charter school caps Allow other entities to be charter authorizers (not just SEA/State board) Provide charter financing comparable to traditional public schools Support “full-blended” or “hybrid-online” models Are using charter transformation as a form of intervention for low-performing schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 33 Consolidates Credit Enhancement Grant and Facilities Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 33 Consolidates Credit Enhancement Grant and Facilities Incentive Grant into CSP, with the option for the Secretary to award funds for facilities Option for Secretary to provide funding directly to individual charters In States that don’t get CSP grants Support TA, dissemination of best practices Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 34 Support Passed House Committee 6/22/11 Bipartisan Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act 34 Support Passed House Committee 6/22/11 Bipartisan support (34 -5) including George Miller (D-CA) and Jared Polis (D-CO) Passed House of Representatives 9/13/11 Bipartisan support (365 -54) Included in text of Harkin ESEA bill (marked up October 2011) Introduced as stand-alone in Senate 9/15/11 Future This legislation or something similar is likely to pass in next large education bill Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Race to the Top Act of 2013 35 H. R. 426 Sponsored by Rep. Race to the Top Act of 2013 35 H. R. 426 Sponsored by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) Designed to boost “comprehensive reforms” and “innovative strategies” Would create a competitive grant program for applicants that agree to implement one or more specific innovations, including “creating or maintaining successful conditions for highperforming charter schools” Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

21 st Century Charter School Act 36 S. 88 Sponsored by Sen. David Vitter 21 st Century Charter School Act 36 S. 88 Sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) Would amend ESEA Charter School Program Would makes public & private nonprofit entities eligible for grants (currently only SEAs) Would allow grantees to award subgrants to developers or charter support organizations Prioritizes applicants in States with no cap, high degree of charter autonomy Creates 2 new grants for: Charters and operators to disseminate best practices Developing credit enhancement initiatives that help with costs Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charter Schools & Equity Issues 37 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Charter Schools & Equity Issues 37 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Geography 38 More than half of all charter schools are located in major cities Geography 38 More than half of all charter schools are located in major cities Not an option for many students, especially those from rural areas Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Segregation? 39 2012 University of Wisconsin study 43% of black charter school students attended Segregation? 39 2012 University of Wisconsin study 43% of black charter school students attended schools that were 99% minority Compared with 15% of black student population in traditional public schools Minneapolis: 44% of charter schools were 80% or more non-white 2012 Civil Rights Project at UCLA study: Higher percentage of charter schools than traditional public schools are “racially isolated” Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Segregation? 40 What are causes? Self-selection? Intentional segregation? Geography? Schools prioritizing growth over equity? Segregation? 40 What are causes? Self-selection? Intentional segregation? Geography? Schools prioritizing growth over equity? Charter advocates say schools comply with all applicable civil rights requirements Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Students with Disabilities 41 Attend charter schools at much lower rates 2012 GAO Report Students with Disabilities 41 Attend charter schools at much lower rates 2012 GAO Report to Congress found that in 2009 - 10, student with disabilities made up: 11. 1% of total school-age population 11. 2% of traditional public school population 8. 2% of charter school population (up from 7. 7% in 2008 -9) Varies by State In NH, students with disabilities make up 6% of charter school population; 13% overall In IA, MN, NV, NM, OH, PA, VA, WY, about the same as % of total population Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Students with Disabilities 42 Why? GAO doesn’t know Possible explanations: Placement by charter/LEA Location Students with Disabilities 42 Why? GAO doesn’t know Possible explanations: Placement by charter/LEA Location of schools Parent preference/student need School capacity/resources Funding Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Recommendations to States on Equity 43 ED’s Equity and Excellence Commission: Ensure funding equity Recommendations to States on Equity 43 ED’s Equity and Excellence Commission: Ensure funding equity Ensure access to publicly reported data for all public schools including charters Work with Congress to promote research and evaluation of the effect of charter schools on equity and access to public education University of Colorado National Education Policy Center: Explicitly require that charter schools "enhance equitable educational outcomes for all students, particularly those who have historically struggled. " Ensure that charter schools are in compliance with all federal laws, including civil rights laws Employ increased federal-level data collection and accountability measures. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

ESEA Flexibility 44 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC ESEA Flexibility 44 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charters & ESEA Flexibility 45 From ED’s ESEA Flexibility FAQs ESEA flexibility principles apply Charters & ESEA Flexibility 45 From ED’s ESEA Flexibility FAQs ESEA flexibility principles apply to charter schools SEA must include charters in its plan for transitioning to CCR standards and assessments; differentiated accountability system; teacher and principal evaluation & support systems; all AMOs must apply to charters Title I-participating public charters can be labeled “reward, ” “priority, ” or “focus” schools Charter school authorizer’s decision to close a charter overrides SEAs labeling of a charter http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/eseaflex/esea-flexibility-faqs. doc Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charters & ESEA Flexibility 46 Which State entity is responsible for ensuring CS- LEA Charters & ESEA Flexibility 46 Which State entity is responsible for ensuring CS- LEA or charter school complies with State’s accountability system? ESEA requires State charter school law governs Generally means authorizer is responsible for accountability BUT under ESEA flexibility, SEA establishes AMOs and accountability system, authorizer (or entity under State CS law responsible for accountability) should maintain close contact with SEA to ensure receiving current and accurate information Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charters & ESEA Flexibility 47 Is a CS-LEA included in SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, Charters & ESEA Flexibility 47 Is a CS-LEA included in SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system as an LEA or school? CS-LEA is subject to recognition, accountability, and support provisions applicable to schools. For flexibility purposes, SEA treats ALL charter schools, regardless of LEA status, as schools SEA includes CS-LEAs when identifying reward, priority, and focus schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charters & ESEA Flexibility 48 Can authorizer impose more rigorous accountability requirements on CS Charters & ESEA Flexibility 48 Can authorizer impose more rigorous accountability requirements on CS than SEA’s differentiated system requires? YES ESEA flexibility does not prohibit charter contracts exceeding SEA’s minimum requirements Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charters & ESEA Flexibility 49 Caution: Each State’s approved waiver varies, so be sure Charters & ESEA Flexibility 49 Caution: Each State’s approved waiver varies, so be sure to consult the waiver/appropriate staff regarding any new or modified requirements! Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Civil Rights 50 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Civil Rights 50 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Civil Rights Laws 51 Charter schools must comply with federal civil rights laws, including: Civil Rights Laws 51 Charter schools must comply with federal civil rights laws, including: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Title II of the Americans with Disability Act Age Discrimination Act of 1975 If charter is part of LEA responsible for civil rights compliance If charter receives federal funds from SEA or its designee SEA also responsible Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Civil Rights Data Collection 52 CRDC collects data from public schools nationwide Enrollment Services Civil Rights Data Collection 52 CRDC collects data from public schools nationwide Enrollment Services disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, LEP, & disability Used by OCR for enforcement and monitoring Used by other offices, agencies, policymakers & researchers Charter schools must comply with OCR’s data collection efforts Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Helpful Resource 53 Applying Federal Civil Rights Laws to Public Charter Schools, Questions and Helpful Resource 53 Applying Federal Civil Rights Laws to Public Charter Schools, Questions and Answers ED/OCR guidance, May 2000 Reviews civil rights requirements applicable to charter schools, including: recruitment, admissions, lotteries, desegregation, services to LEP students and students with disabilities Archived online at: http: //www 2. ed. gov/offices/OCR/archives/pdf/charter. pdf Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Resource for Charter Schools Serving ELLs 54 NAPCS Serving English Language Learners: A Toolkit Resource for Charter Schools Serving ELLs 54 NAPCS Serving English Language Learners: A Toolkit for Public Charter Schools (April 2013) Provides key federal laws & policies; examples of state laws; and framework for developing, implementing and monitoring ELL instructional program Discusses charter schools serving ELLs School opening, recruitment, admissions, identification, assessment, program requirements, teacher qualifications, exiting students from ELL program, monitoring and parental communication http: //www. publiccharters. org/data/files/Publication_doc s/NAPCS_ELL_Toolkit_04. 02. 13_20130402 T 114313. pdf Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Case Study: Food Allergies 55 Mystic Valley Regional Charter School State Hearing Officer decision Case Study: Food Allergies 55 Mystic Valley Regional Charter School State Hearing Officer decision required school to ban all peanut products from child’s classroom due to life threatening allergy School failed to make undue hardship/burden argument Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Case Study: Diabetes Care 56 University Legal Services and American Diabetics Association filed complaint Case Study: Diabetes Care 56 University Legal Services and American Diabetics Association filed complaint with ED 13 DC charter schools enrolled diabetic students and failed to provide enough staff trained to give insulin shots and other medical care CS did not have written plans to provide diabetic students with accommodations (ex: eating and drinking when necessary) As of December 2012, all but 2 CS corrected problem Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Charter School Program 57 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Charter School Program 57 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Generally 58 Designed to support the planning, development, and initial implementation of charter CSP Generally 58 Designed to support the planning, development, and initial implementation of charter schools during their first three years of existence Provides dissemination grants to facilitate the sharing of practices between charter schools and other public schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Generally 59 ED awards grants to SEA or to “eligible applicants” If SEA CSP Generally 59 ED awards grants to SEA or to “eligible applicants” If SEA does not apply, “eligible applicants” can apply directly to ED Program requires a State charter school law, and charters must meet a 12 part definition in Section 5210(1) (no waivers permitted for the definition of a charter school) Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Start-Up Grants 60 May not exceed period of 3 years Post-award planning and CSP Start-Up Grants 60 May not exceed period of 3 years Post-award planning and design of the educational program (18 month limit) Refinement of educational results, methods for measuring progress, professional development of teachers who will work in school Initial implementation of the charter school (24 month limit) Informing community about school, acquiring necessary equipment and other educational materials, other initial operational costs that cannot be met from State or local sources So, if 18 months on planning, only 18 more permitted for implementation Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Dissemination 61 2 year period Purpose: Helping charters overcome: Political conflict Variations in CSP Dissemination 61 2 year period Purpose: Helping charters overcome: Political conflict Variations in quality Challenges to meaningful collaboration/ experience sharing Difficulties to “scaling-up” effective approaches Isolation of the charter school community, to share experience with traditional public schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Dissemination 62 Only qualifying charter schools are eligible for the dissemination grant: In CSP Dissemination 62 Only qualifying charter schools are eligible for the dissemination grant: In operation for 3 consecutive years, and Shown substantial improvement in student achievement Have high levels of parental involvement Include management and leadership that have overcome start-up issues and are thriving SEA may reserve up to 10% of CSP grant to support dissemination activities Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Dissemination 63 Dissemination grants have not thrived Challenges remain: Between 2000 - 2005, CSP Dissemination 63 Dissemination grants have not thrived Challenges remain: Between 2000 - 2005, few States had considerable charters meeting the minimum eligibility requirements Charters had difficulty identifying noncharter schools that were interested in participating in dissemination activities Few States conducted evaluations of their statewide dissemination grant programs Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP and Private Schools 64 Private schools do not meet the definition of a CSP and Private Schools 64 Private schools do not meet the definition of a charter school under the ESEA Cannot receive CSP funds Can’t make the switch to get CSP funds: ESEA does not recognize conversions of private schools into public charter schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP and For-Profits 65 A for-profit entity does not qualify as an eligible CSP CSP and For-Profits 65 A for-profit entity does not qualify as an eligible CSP applicant A non-profit charter school receiving CSP funds may enter into a contract with a forprofit entity to manage the charter school on a day-to-day basis The non-profit entity must directly administer or supervise the administration of the CSP project Non-profit recipient is directly responsible for CSP compliance Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP and Religious Schools 66 Public charter schools must be non-religious in programs, admissions CSP and Religious Schools 66 Public charter schools must be non-religious in programs, admissions policies, governance, employment practices and all other operations. The charter school’s curriculum must be completely secular. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Assurances 67 New assurances added to CSP application Language in FY 2010 Consolidated CSP Assurances 67 New assurances added to CSP application Language in FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Assurance 3 A 68 Each authorized charter school in the State operates under CSP Assurance 3 A 68 Each authorized charter school in the State operates under a legally binding charter or performance contract between itself and the school’s authorized public chartering agency which must: Describe the obligations and responsibilities of the school and the public chartering agency; Conduct annual, timely, and independent audits of the school’s financial statements that are filed with the school’s authorized public chartering agency; and Demonstrate improved student academic achievement. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Assurance 3 B 69 Authorized public chartering agencies use increases in student academic CSP Assurance 3 B 69 Authorized public chartering agencies use increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students as the most important factor when determining to renew or revoke a school’s charter Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

CSP Assurance 3 B 70 Increased student achievement across all subgroups: Economically disadvantaged students; CSP Assurance 3 B 70 Increased student achievement across all subgroups: Economically disadvantaged students; Students from major racial and ethnic groups; Students with disabilities; and Students with limited English proficiency Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

OIG Report on CSP Oversight 71 Released September 2012 Findings: ED did not conduct OIG Report on CSP Oversight 71 Released September 2012 Findings: ED did not conduct sufficiently effective oversight; ED’s process for ensuring States effectively monitor subgrantees is in need of improvement; and ED did not ensure that States have adequate monitoring procedures for handling charter school closures. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

OIG Report – SEA Findings 72 Did not adequately monitor charter schools receiving the OIG Report – SEA Findings 72 Did not adequately monitor charter schools receiving the SEA grant; Did not have adequate methodologies to select charter schools for onsite monitoring visits; and Did not monitor the authorizing agencies. Insufficient procedures for closing charter schools and recovering SEA grant funds from the institutions. No written State requirements for how unspent funds can be given back by closed charter schools. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

OIG Recommendations to ED 73 Develop and implement policies and procedures “issuing and tracking OIG Recommendations to ED 73 Develop and implement policies and procedures “issuing and tracking corrective action plans for each monitoring finding or specific recommendation made as a result of monitoring reports produced, and monitoring grantee fiscal activities; ” Establish and implement requirements for SEAs to develop a monitoring plan explaining the extent of monitoring that will be conducted during an SEA grant cycle; Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

OIG Recommendations (Cont. ) 74 Provide necessary guidance and training to SEAS for the OIG Recommendations (Cont. ) 74 Provide necessary guidance and training to SEAS for the development and implementation of procedures to ensure SEAs have effective monitoring and fiscal controls for tracking the use of funds; and Ensure SEAs have procedures to properly account for SEA grant funds spent by closed charter schools and for disposal of assets purchased with SEA grant funds in accordance with Federal regulations. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Questions? ? ? 75 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Questions? ? ? 75 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

Disclaimer 76 THIS PRESENTATION IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PROVIDE GENERAL INFORMATION AND DOES NOT Disclaimer 76 THIS PRESENTATION IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PROVIDE GENERAL INFORMATION AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. ATTENDANCE AT THE PRESENTATION OR LATER REVIEW OF THESE PRINTED MATERIALS DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC. YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING LEGAL COUNSEL FAMILIAR WITH YOUR PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC