Charter Schools Update

1
Charter Schools Update

• Kate R. Kaminski
• VSBA School Law Conference
• June 4, 2004

2
Current Status of Charter Schools

• United States
• 41 out of 50 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico have
  charter school enabling legislation.
• Between 1999 and 2003 charter school enrollment
  has increased 40.
• AZ has the largest number of charter schools at
  495.
• CA has the highest charter school enrollment at
  170,000 students.
• Good and Bad Results.

3
U.S. Charter School Program

• Purpose To increase the national understanding
  of the charter school model by
• Providing financial assistance for the planning,
  program design and initial implementation of
  charter schools
• Evaluating the effects of such schools
• Expanding the number of high-quality charter
  schools available to students across the Nation
  and
• Encouraging the State to provide support to
  charter schools for facilities financing in an
  amount more nearly commensurate to the amount the
  States have typically provided for traditional
  public schools.
• Who can apply?
• Virginia BOE applied in February 2004.
• Charter schools (if the State does not receive
  the grant).

4
Current Status of Charter Schools

• Virginia
• 7 Charter Schools in the 2003-2004 Academic Year
• Albemarle
• Chesterfield
• Gloucester
• Greene
• Hampton
• Roanoke City
• York
• About 685 students enrolled in charter schools.
• Two charter closings
• Franklin County New Opportunity for Winning
  (2003).
• Victory Academy (the first charter school in
  Virginia) will close at the end of this year.

5
Current Status of Charter Schools

• Application fees vary.
• Range from 0 to 5,000 and everything in
  between.
• 5 of total proposed charter school budget.
• Not cost prohibitive.
• Application and review timelines vary.
• One year minimum (conversions).
• 18 month minimum (start-ups).

6
Charter Schools A legislative history

• 1998 HB 543/SB 318
• Initial charter school enabling legislation.
• Local school boards choose whether to accept
  applications.
• Local school board sole chartering and review
  authority.
• 2000 HB 785/SB 411
• Established December 30, 2000 deadline by which
  school boards must make election to accept or not
  to accept charter school applications.
• Added explicit requirement that charter schools
  are subject to the SOA and SOL.
• 2001 HB 2439 and SB 1393
• Clarified that the local school board can change
  its decision to accept or not to accept charter
  school applications.

7
Charter Schools A legislative history

• 2002 SB 625/ HB 734
• REQUIRES local school boards to accept and review
  charter school applications.
• Requires local school boards to report the denial
  of any charter school applications.
• Clarifies that institutes of higher education may
  apply to start charter schools.
• Provides immunity.

8
What is the trend in these legislative changes?
9
Trend

• The legislation is chipping away the local
  control or discretion in charter school
  decisions.
• 2000
• Established deadline because not all boards were
  making declaration.
• 2002
• Must accept and review any applications.
• 2004?

10
Charter School Excellence and Accountability Act

• 2004 HB 380
• Charter School applicants may submit their
  applications to the Virginia Board of Education
  for review and comment.
• If applicant receives a State Board review, then
  the results must be part of the application to
  the local school board.
• Extend the potential term of a charter school
  from three to five years.
• Removes the limit on the number of charter
  schools that may exist in any school division.

11
Charter School Excellence and Accountability Act

• 2004 HB 380 (contd)
• Requires disclosure of conflicts of interest.
• Adds evidence of support from school division
  residents to the charter application.
• Clarifies that a charter school may negotiate and
  contract with public AND private institutions of
  higher education.
• Requires local school boards to report the reason
  for any denial of a charter school application to
  the State Board.

12
Charter School Excellence and Accountability Act

• 2004 HB 380(contd)
• Requires priority for charter schools designed to
  increase opportunities for at risk students
  particularly those at-risk students served by
  schools that have not achieved full
  accreditation.
• BOE must report to the GA the number of
  applications granted, denied and the reasons for
  any denial.
• Sunset clause. The Act expires on July 1, 2009
  (unless other action taken).

13
State Board Review and Comment What does this
mean?

• What it DOES mean
• Examine applications for
• FEASIBILITY
• FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS
• CURRICULUM
• OTHER OBJECTIVE CRITERIA
• Purpose to ensure the applications conforms
  with the criteria.
• Great opportunity for technical assistance for
  applicants.
• Helps local school boards with minimal resources
  (time and money).

• What it does NOT mean
• Not include consideration of whether the
  application shall be approved by the local school
  board.

14
DRAFT BOE Review Process

• Quarterly review of applications

15
DRAFT BOE Review Process

• First month
• DOE Charter School Specialist ensures application
  is complete and distributes copies to review
  committee members.
• Second month
• Applications reviewed by committee.
• Third month
• Committees comments presented to BOE for first
  review.
• Fourth month
• Final review, if necessary.

• Review Committee
• BOE member appointed by President.
• Individuals from the education community with
  expertise in budget, curriculum, NCLB and special
  ed.
• Local representative from a charter school
  division.

16
DRAFT BOE Review Process

• Three Review Areas
• Feasibility
• Curriculum
• Financial Soundness.
• Follow the VSBA sample application.
• Stay tuned.this process currently under review
  and then will be presented to the State Board at
  its June 23, 2004 meeting.

17
Practical Implications

• How does my school board use the State Board
  review process?
• Require applicants to use it?
• Require submission to the State Board before the
  local school board.
• Cannot prohibit applicants from using it!
• What weight is it given in the final decision to
  accept or reject the application?
• Add to the school boards policies, regulations
  and exhibits how you will use the review.
• Involvement with the State Board?

18
Practical Implications

• Provide for mechanism of continuing COIA
  disclosures for charter school management
  committee and employees.
• Disclosure of any ownership or financial interest
  in the public charter school, by the charter
  applicant and the governing body, administrators,
  and other personnel of the proposed charter
  school.
• Successful applicant shall have a continuing duty
  to disclose such interests during the life of the
  charter.

19
Practical Implications

• A potential growth area for charter schools is
  the conversion of existing public schools that
  have not achieved full accreditation.
• Individual School Accreditation Plan
• Available for charter schools that increase the
  educational opportunities for at-risk students.
• Local school board must request this alternative
  evaluation plan from the State.

20
Political Implications

• Remember the trend?
• Think about legislation for the next few years
  based on your school boards action or inaction.
• What if school boards and/or applicants do not
  use the State Board review?
• VSBA Resolution 4.38 Innovative Schools/Programs
• Decisions to create or not to create charter
  schools are the sole prerogative of local school
  boards.
• No appeal of that decision.
• Oppose any effort to vest final authority for
  establishing charter schools in any other body
  than the school board.

21
FOIA Update

• Beck v. Shelton (March 2004).
• Distinguished electronic communication that is
  functionally similar to a letter from
  electronic communication which exchanges text
  in the nature of a discussion where the
  communication is virtually simultaneous.
• Virtually simultaneous interaction.
• Was there an assemblage?
• The quality of simultaneity.
• Implicitly rejects 2001 Advisory Council opinion
  on list serv issue.
• Implications.
• Chat rooms or IM between more than two board
  members about public business are likely
  prohibited.
• Listservs probably ok.

22
FOIA Update

• Does the exchange of e-mails between members of a
  public body constitute a meeting subject to the
  provisions of FOIA?
• Letter vs. simultaneous communication.
• In the e-mails at issue, there was no virtually
  simultaneous interaction. Rather, they were more
  like traditional letters sent by mail or fax.
• Shortest interval between sending a particular
  e-mail and receiving a response was more than
  four hours.
• Trial court held this was a meeting in violation
  of the FOIA.
• Supreme Court held it was not a meeting.
• Was there an assemblage?
• Simultaneity MAY be present in a chat room or
  instant messaging but it is not present when
  e-mail is used a the functional equivalent of
  letter communication by ordinary mail.