National Charter School Study Legislative Analysis PDF Free Download

National Charter School Study Legislative Analysis 2013

Introduction 2

Introduction Authorizing We reviewed provisions in states statutes that addressed roles and responsibilities of Authorizers and Schools Scope Reviewed statutes for 26 states (out of 43 states with charter schools) Reviewed statutes from the states first year they had a charter law and all the amendments they added through 2010 Reviewed only statutes (not regulations, not codes, not how statutes were implemented by states) 3

Introduction Multiple Sources LexisNexis & West Law Coding We started with The National Alliance for Public Charter School s (NAPCS) Model law components related to Authorizing. When we found language in the statute that satisfied a particular CREDO defined variable, we would mark that variable as 1. If no matching language in the statute could be found we marked the variable as a 0. Code as you go, if a state s statute had language that didn t match our CREDO variable we split variables out more specifically so all provisions could be coded as a either a 1 or 0 for each CREDO variable. 4

Research Questions Is there a common starting point, a fundamental architecture, in states first year provisions? If so what did it look like? Does We found the a essential framework evolve over time? If so in preponderance what ways? of states focusing on provisions Do states related learn to from each other? process instead of Does outcomes. the absence or presence of certain statutory provisions correlate with a state s charter effect size? We had the expectation that states are motivated to change legislation if it will impact quality but we found a mismatch between legislative language and the actual intent of the law. 5

Introduction These are the 16 CREDO Buckets: CREDO Buckets # of Provisions 1 Cap 3 2 Authorizer Types 13 3 Pre Application 3 4 Application 6 5 Contract 9 6 Enrollment 20 7 School Reporting 7 8 School Reporting Requirements 6 9 Authorizer Reporting 10 10 Authorizer Power 4 11 School Reviews 8 12 Measures used in School Reviews 6 13 Authorizer Accountability Funding 4 14 Termination/Renewal 9 15 Criteria Used for Renewal 9 16 Criteria Used for Termination 8 Total 125 6

Introduction This is the crosswalk between the Alliance Model Law s 10 Components and the CREDO Buckets: NAPCS 1 No Caps Cap 3 Multiple Authorizers Available 10 Educational Service Providers Allowed 4 Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability System Required CREDO Buckets Authorizer Types Authorizer Reporting Authorizer Accountability Funding 6 Transparent Charter Application, Review, and Decision-making Processes 7 Performance-Based Charter Contracts Required 8 Comprehensive Charter School Monitoring and Data Collection Processes 9 Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal, and Revocation Decisions 12 & 17 Clear Student Recruitment, Enrollment, and Lottery Procedures Clear Identification of Special Education Responsibilities Pre Application Application Contract Authorizer Power School Reporting School Reporting Requirements School Reviews Measures used in School Reviews Termination/Renewal Criteria Used for Renewal Criteria Used for Termination Enrollment 7

Introduction These are 10 Components of the Alliance s Model Law that the CREDO Buckets did not look at: NAPCS 2) A Variety of Public Charter Schools Allowed 5) Adequate Authorizer Funding 11) Fiscally and Legally Autonomous Schools with Independent Public Charter School Boards 13) Automatic Exemptions from Many State and District Laws and Regulations 14) Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption 15) Multi-School Charter Contracts and/or Multi-Charter Contract Boards Allowed 16) Extra-Curricular and Interscholastic Activities Eligibility and Access 18) Equitable Operational Funding and Equal Access to All State and Federal Categorical Funding 19) Equitable Access to Capital Funding and Facilities 20) Access to Relevant Employee Retirement Systems 8

Introduction Pre- Application Caps Application Authorizer Types Authorizer Reviews Framework Related Buckets Authorizer Reviews Contract Measures Used in Authorizer Power Termination and Renewal Essential? Enrollment A School Related Accountability Buckets School Reporting Measures Criteria for Renewal Criteria for Termination Authorizer Accountability Funding Authorizer Accountability Performance 9

Introduction What is the Essential Framework in states first year charter statutes? We counted how many states had a provision in their first year statute that fell within each of our CREDO buckets. Those buckets that had ½ of the states are what we consider to be the essential framework. For states first year statutes, there are 11 buckets that at least ½ of the states have one provision in. 10

The 11 blue & yellow Introduction buckets below are the Essential Framework Measures Used in Reviews Authorizer Reviews Authorizer Power Termination and Renewal Criteria for Renewal Authorizer Related Buckets Caps Authorizer Types Application Pre- Application Contract School Accountability Enrollment School Related Buckets Essential Framework First Year Statutes School Reporting Measures Criteria for Termination Authorizer Accountability Funding Authorizer Accountability Performance Number of States 19-26 14-18 10-13 8-9 3-7 11

The 15 blue & yellow Introduction buckets below are the 2010 Essential Framework Measures Used in Reviews Termination and Renewal Authorizer Related Buckets Authorizer Reviews Authorizer Power Criteria for Renewal Caps Authorizer Types Application Pre- Application Contract School Accountability Enrollment School Related Buckets Essential Framework 2010 School Reporting Measures Criteria for Termination Authorizer Accountability Funding Authorizer Accountability Performance Number of States 19-26 14-18 10-13 8-9 3-7 12

The top 3 provisions Introduction Within in each this bucket are there procedural is (blue) vs. content (magenta). quite This variability. is a trend we saw across other buckets too. Contract Bucket Number of States 1 st Year Law Number of States 2010 Contract Bucket Authorizer Defines Length of Term in Charter Contract 23 24 Contract Defines Responsibilities of School 19 22 Authorizer Required to Have a Charter Contract Beyond Charter Application 16 18 Academic Performance Contract Required 10 12 Operations Performance Contract Required 9 9 Contract Defines Responsibilities of Authorizer 5 10 Minimum Term Length Defined 4 8 Financial Performance Contract Required 4 5 Authorizer Freedom to Set Term Length Based on School s Operational Performance 1 5 Authorizer Freedom to Set Term Length Based on School s Academic Performance 1 1 The state counts reveal there is a strong bias toward procedural provisions over content related provisions. 13

Description of Landscape 14

Description of Landscape Essential Framework for Charter Statutes Roles, responsibilities, and critical milestones Good faith that authorizers would operate fairly and use due process Accountability for charters defaults to NCLB States did not state clearly that authorizers should close failing schools 15

Description of Landscape Most Popular Provisions are Procedural Total Procedural Provisions Total Transparent Provisions Most Popular Provisions States First Year 10 3 7 States Amendments 20 9 3 States Statues by 2010 11 8 8 Total Content Provisions 16

In states first Most Popular are year, First there are Year Most Most Popular Provisions In 2010, even provisions more states in at have least added the most popular first year provisions. 20 popular half of the states. provisions. In 2010, there are 8 more popular provisions added. Number of Number States of States 1 st Year Top Provisions 2010 Law 1 Authorizer Top Provisions may close a school due to violation of charter 23 2 1 Authorizer defines defines length length of term of term in charter in charter contract contract 24 23 2 Authorizer may close due to violation of charter- 24 3 Contract defines responsibilities of school 19 3 Clear guidelines for what is required application materials 24 4 Required application components are clearly specified 19 4 Contract defines responsibilities of school 22 5 Authorizers required to provide schools with criteria for termination/revocation in advance 18 Schools must report independent fiscal audit to state- State requires school to submit 6 5 Authorizer annual fiscal may close report due to to state violation of fiscal accounting measures 2118 7 6 Authorizers may required close due to violation provide of schools law with criteria for renewal in advance 2118 8 7 Schools Authorizer must report may close annual due performance to violation to authorizer of fiscal accounting measures- 2117 9 Local Schools school must board report annual performance to authorizer- State requires schools to 17 8 annually report school-level performance results to authorizer 20 10 Authorizers required to have a charter contract beyond the charter application 16 9 Local school board- 20 11 Schools must report independent fiscal audit to authorizer 16 Criteria for termination- Authorizers required to provide schools with criteria for 1210 Authorizers termination/revocation may deny renewal in advance due to violation of charter 2016 1311 Criteria Schools for Renewal- must report Authorizers independent required fiscal to provide audit schools to authorizer with criteria for renewal in advance 2015 1412 Schools Authorizer must report required annual to conduct performance review to state of school looking at academic proficiency 1915 15 Percent School Cap required is below to 90% submit annual report to authorizer with academic proficiency 14 13 measures 19 Schools must report independent fiscal audit to state- State requires school to submit annual fiscal 14 Authorizer may close due to violation of law- 19 16 report to state 14 15 Authorizers required to have a charter contract beyond the charter application 18 17 Performance Measure in a school reviews is academic proficiency- 14 16 Authorizer may close due to academic general - 18 18 Authorizers may must deny renewal provide due charter to violation schools of law with due process for nonrenewal and 14 1917 Authorizer revocation may decisions deny renewal (e.g., due public to violation hearing, of fiscal submission accounting of measures evidence). 1814 2018 Authorizer may may close deny due to renewal academic due general to violation of charter- 1714 19 Schools must report annual performance to State 17 20 State has designated an entity to hear appeals 17 Application decision in writing- authorizers required to state reasons for denials in 21 writing 15 Criteria used for renewal review- State defines what criteria authorizers may use to 22 make renewal decisions 15 23 Authorizer may deny renewal due to violation of law- 15 24 Authorizer may deny renewal due to violation of fiscal accounting measures- 15 25 State board of education- 14 State provides more than one viable authorizer for each type of charter. State has multiple authorizers AND each type of school can apply to more than one of the 26 authorizers 14 Application evaluation criteria defined- law specifies criteria that may be used for 17

Description of Landscape Termination Bucket is Full of Mays Termination Bucket Number of States 1 st Year Law Number of States 2010 May Close Due to Violation of Charter 23 24 May Close Due to Violation of Fiscal Accounting 18 21 May Close Due to Violation of Law 18 19 May Close Due to Academic 15 18 Must Close Due to Violation of Fiscal Accounting 1 1 Must Close Due to Academic 2 2 Very few states say a school must be closed for any reason (DC and NY). 18

Description of Landscape States Place Burden of Reporting on Schools Number of States 1 st Year Law Number of States 2010 School Reporting Burden Schools Must Report Annual Performance to Authorizer 17 20 Schools Must Report Independent Fiscal Audit to Authorizer 16 20 Schools Must Report Annual Performance to State 15 17 Schools Must Report Independent Fiscal Audit to State 14 21 19

States 1 st Year Provisions Breakdown of Essential Framework Number States First Year Popular Provisions Types Provisions School Procedures 5 Authorizer Procedure 5 Transparency 3 Content 6 Driving Academic Quality 1 20

States Amendments States Have Decreased Confidence in Authorizers Increased Transparency for Authorizer Criteria for Charter Application and Charter Renewal Increased Due Process Removal of Authorizer Discretion Increased Review and Reporting Requirements for both Schools and Authorizers 21

States Amendments Transparency Number of States 1 st Year Law Number of States 2010 Transparency Clear Guidelines For What is required application materials 19 24 Application evaluation criteria defined 10 14 There is a renewal application 6 10 Renewal review Criteria Defined 8 15 Authorizers required to provide schools with criteria for renewal in advance 15 21 Renewal process is defined 7 12 22

States Amendments Due Process Number of States 1 st Year Law Number of States 2010 Due Process Authorizers Must Provide Charter Schools with Due Process for Nonrenewal and Revocation Decisions 12 18 State has Designated an Entity to Hear Appeals 12 17 If Charter is Not Renewed, Then School Has an Opportunity to Appeal 5 9 23

States Amendments Authorizer Discretion Removed Number of States 1 st Year Law Number of States 2010 Authorizer Discretion Limited State Board of Education- as Authorizer 9 14 State Provides More than One Authorizer for each type of school 9 14 State defines the criteria that is used for evaluation Applications 10 14 State restricts How Much Money Authorizers Can Take From Schools 2 10 24

States Amendments States Continued to Place Reporting Burden on Schools State requires authorizer or schools to report academic and financial status to state, authorizer, and/or public Authorizer may put school on probation or deny renewal based on academic status 25

States Amendments Reporting Buckets: School v. Authorizer Number of States First Year Number of States 2010 CREDO Provisions School Reporting Bucket 21 25 Authorizer Reporting Bucket 8 16 26

States Amendments Authorizer Reviews and Reporting Number of States 1 st Year Law Number of States 2010 Authorizer School Review & Reporting Authorizer Must Conduct Annual Performance Review 6 11 Authorizer Must Report School Academic Performance Annually to the State 1 6 Authorizer Must Report School Financial Status Annually to the State 3 8 Authorizer Must Review Performance Prior to Renewal 8 12 Many states added these provisions as amendments. 27

States Amendments Removal of Cap 4 states removed cap before 2006 4 states removed cap after 2006 28

States 2010 Statutes 2010 Essential Charter Law States Continued to Focus on Process-related Provisions By 2010 Many States Statutes Became More Comprehensive Spanning Across More Buckets States Statutes Begin to Look More Similar 29

States 2010 Provisions Breakdown of Essential Framework Number States 2010 Popular Provisions Types Provisions School Procedures 5 Authorizer Procedure 6 Transparency 8 Content 6 Driving Academic Quality 2 30

States 2010 Provisions Continued Focus on Procedures: Number of States First Year Number of States 2010 Academic Process Provisions School Must Report Annual Performance to Authorizer 17 20 Academic Proficiency is a Required Performance Measure Used in School s Report to Authorizer 14 19 Academic Proficiency is a Performance Measure Used in Authorizer s Review of Schools 12 19 Authorizer May Close School due to Academics 15 18 School Must Report Academic Performance to State 15 17 Authorizer May Deny Renewal Due to Academics 10 14 31

Findings Local School Board v. Multiple Authorizers Due Process Provisions in States First Year Laws If charter is not renewed, then school has an opportunity to appeal There are 5 states that have There Local are School 21 states Board that as have the Multiple only Authorizers. (CA, PA, OR, TN, NM) LEA 2010 3/5 Multiple Authoriz er 2010 2/21 Authorizers must provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions (e.g., public hearing, 3/5 9/21 submission of evidence). State has designated an entity to hear appeal 4/5 8/21 Authorizers required to state reasons for denials in writing 4/5 9/21 Those states with LEAs as the only Authorizer, were more likely to have due process related provisions in their first year statutes than those states with Multiple Authorizers. 32

Findings Local School Board v. Multiple Authorizers Authorizer Oversight Provisions in States Amendments There are 5 states that have There Local are School 21 states Board that have as the Multiple only Authorizers. (CA, PA, OR, TN, NM) LEA 2010 Multiple Authorizer 2010 Contract defines responsibilities of authorizer 0/5 13/21 Authorizer must conduct annual performance review of school 0/5 5/21 Authorizer must annually report school performance to the state 0/5 5/21 Authorizer must annually report school financial status to the state 1/5 4/21 State restricts how much money Authorizers can take from schools. Authorizer must review performance prior to renewal 0/5 4/21 Those states with LEAs as the only Authorizer, were less likely to have due process related amendments than those states with Multiple Authorizers. 33

Charter Statutes General Non-Findings No Evidence of Exogenous Shock No Evidence of Follow the Leader No Evidence That Specific Provisions Are Drivers of Student Achievement No Evidence That Having Multiple Authorizers is Associated with Larger Effect Sizes 34

Summary of Findings 35

Summary of Findings Charter Law Statutes States operate independently Bad Acts By a Few Result in Burden on All States have decreasing confidence in authorizers Authorizers have decreased autonomy Authorizers regulated to increase due process & transparency Schools have an increased reporting burden 36

What Helps, What Hurts, and What Doesn t Matter?

Outline Analytic Approach Causal Findings Correlational Findings Implications 38

Analytic Approach Goal is to find provisions that lead to higher quality charters (causal relationships) Practical Challenges Simultaneous adoption within states a big problem Specificity of provisions is another problem Led to search for correlations/patterns of provisions and charter quality 39

Analytic Approach What we want to see in the data (multiple states changing the same provision, no sweeping changes, consistent effect on charter growth) Causal relationships tell us that if we change a provision, it will lead to a quantifiable change in growth Correlational relationships tell us that certain provisions are more common in high performing states Policymakers want causal findings Higher bar of evidence and harder to achieve 40

Things That Help (Causal) Positive and significant in every model for both math and reading X: Academic proficiency used in review process (32* days) Auth. or school may have preferences for sped students (29 days) Authorizer must conduct mid-term performance review (21 days) X: May deny renewal due to academics (20 days) X: May close due to academics (18 days) Auth. and school may have preferences for at-risk students (15 days) * This is the marginal charter growth effect expressed in days of learning. 41

Things That Hurt (Causal) Negative and Significant in every model for both math and reading Note: Direction of relationship unclear X: Clear Guidelines for Required Application Materials (-26 days) Authorizers can be placed on probation (-14 days) State restricts $ authorizers can take from schools (-36 days) X: Authorizer must conduct mid-term financial review (-45 days) School may have enrollment preferences for students at risk of academic failure (-39 days) 42

X Pack Findings Only 5 of 28* most common provisions in 2010 have causal impact, 3 positive and 2 negative States with higher % of X-pack in original law don t have higher charter growth Proportion of a state s law composed of X pack is also not related to charter growth The most common laws are not popular because they are necessarily the strongest drivers of charter growth * 21 X-pack provisions had sufficient variation to test their causal effect. 43

Amendments States that added most amendments had lower charter growth Note: These findings are based on correlations! Exceptions are states that made mainly proactive amendments (e.g MI, MO & LA) MI, MO & LA had an average of 39% reactive amendments & 35 days more growth in charters than TPS AR, AZ, NV, OH & UT had an average of 54% reactive amendments & 42 days less growth in charters than TPS 44

Cherished Beliefs Testing some popular provisions with a new lens Findings are correlational. If you don t have correlation, you probably don t have strong causation Charter growth if state: Always has provision / Added it / Never had it Multiple Authorizers: 7 days -15 days 14 days School Ability to Appeal: 12 days -15 days 34 days Due Process for School: -3 days -4 days 33 days Performance Reporting: 0 days 0 days 0 days Performance Monitoring: -5 days 11 days 0 days 45

Cherished Beliefs (cont.) What is the effect of charter caps on student growth? Average Charter Growth* 9 States Always Had Charter Cap: 28 days 6 States Never Had a Cap: -5 days 10 States Had a Cap and Removed it: 4 days 1 State Started With No Cap and Added it: -24 days * Average charter growth effect displayed in additional days of learning vs. matched students in local TPS 46

All About Authorizers Correlational Finding: Big difference between proactive and reactive legislative intervention into authorizer behavior Charter growth if state: Always has provision / Added it School can be placed on watch/probation 15 days -10 days Preference for schools serving at risk pupils 12 days -13 days School has opportunity for appeal 12 days -15 days Legislature defines authorizer responsibilities 12 days -8 days Auth. can modify terms based on school performance 11 days -4 days Clear guidelines for application components 7 days -12 days 47

Authorizers (Cont.) Correlational Finding: Legislatures should be wary of taking sides against authorizers on behalf of schools. Charter growth if state: Always has provision / Added it Due process for non-renewal 33 days -4 days Opportunity to appeal non-renewal 10 days -15 days Renewal process clearly defined by state 3 days -7 days States that don t allow multiple authorizers perform better (14 days) than states that did from the beginning (7 days) which perform better than states that add it (-15 days) 48

Implications Challenging to use rigorous empirical evidence to guide charter law Too much law is focused on process, not outcomes Proactive guidelines for authorizers good, reactive intervention is not Causal findings suggest active, evidence-based authorizing is good Essential framework is driven by professional judgment, little basis for quality improvement Get it right the first time, or chase your tails as charter quality suffers 49

Appendix Additional Slides 50

Limitations Scope 26 states out of 42 states Analysis through 2010 Reviewed only statutes (not regulations or codes) Analysis Implementation Fidelity did not account for what States are doing in practice Endogeneity- Political realities make it hard to identify the causal impact of changes to charter statutes, given their tendency to be adopted "en masse." We found many challenges to drawing causal inferences, including many laws being adopted in the same state in the same year (simultaneous treatment causing either perfect collinearity or multi collinearity) 51

Descriptive Landscape Top 7 CREDO Buckets Number of States First Year Number of States 2010 Top 7 CREDO Buckets 1 Contract 26 26 2 Cap 26 26 3 Authorizer Types 25 26 4 Termination/Renewal 23 26 5 Criteria Used for Termination 23 26 6 School Reporting 21 25 7 Pre Application 19 25 52

Descriptive Landscape Top 7 CREDO Buckets Count of Procedural Provisions Count of Transparent Provisions Count of Content Provisions Top 7 CREDO Buckets 1 Contract 7 0 3 2 Cap 3 0 0 3 Authorizer Types 8 0 0 4 Termination/Renewal 8 0 1 5 Criteria Used for Termination 0 8 0 6 School Reporting 7 0 0 7 Pre Application 0 3 0 Total 33 11 4 53

Descriptive Landscape Top 8-11 CREDO Buckets Number of States 1 st Year Law Number of States 2010 Top 8-11 CREDO Buckets 8 Application 17 24 9 School Reporting Requirements 17 20 10 Criteria Used for Renewal 17 19 11 Measures used in School Reviews 17 19 54

Descriptive Landscape Top 8-11 CREDO Buckets Count of Procedural Provisions Count of Transparent Provisions Count of Content Provisions Top 8-11 CREDO Buckets 8 Application 0 5 0 9 School Reporting Requirements 7 0 0 10 Criteria Used for Renewal 0 9 0 11 Measures used in School Reviews 0 0 6 Total 7 14 6 55

Descriptive Landscape Process Provisions Procedures Reporting Reviews Transparency/ Due Process Provisions Clear criteria prior to application/ renewal Opportunity for charter applicants to appeal Content Provisions State defines specific criteria not allowing authorizer or school freedom to define own policy 56

Findings 57

States Amendments Reporting Buckets: School v. Authorizer Number of States First Year Number of States 2010 CREDO Provisions School Reporting Bucket 21 25 Authorizer Reporting Bucket 8 16 64

States Amendments Removal of Cap 4 states removed cap before 2006 4 states removed cap after 2006 66

Findings Local School Board v. Multiple Authorizers Multiple Due Process Provisions in States First Year Laws LEA 2010 Authoriz er 2010 If charter is not renewed, then school has an opportunity to appeal 3/5 2/21 Authorizers must provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions (e.g., public hearing, 3/5 9/21 submission of evidence). State has designated an entity to hear appeal 4/5 8/21 Authorizers required to state reasons for denials in writing 4/5 9/21 70

Findings Local School Board v. Multiple Authorizers Authorizer Oversight Provisions in States Amendments LEA 2010 Multiple Authorizer 2010 Contract defines responsibilities of authorizer 0/5 13/21 Authorizer must conduct annual performance review of school 0/5 5/21 Authorizer must annually report school performance to the state 0/5 5/21 Authorizer must annually report school financial status to the state 1/5 4/21 State restricts how much money Authorizers can take from schools. Authorizer must review performance prior to renewal 0/5 4/21 71