Protect Charter School Teacher Retirement Funds!

The Internal Revenue Service recently issued a Proposed Regulation titled “Determination of Government Plan Status.” This regulation would force states to prohibit charter school teachers from participating in state retirement plans. Presently, every single state that authorizes charter schools either requires or permits charter school participation in the state’s retirement system. Therefore, this regulation would negatively impact nearly all charter school teachers in the country.

In total, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools estimates more than 90,000 charter school teachers - more than 90% of our country’s charter school workforce - will be affected by the Proposed regulations. All of these teachers will be forced to either leave their charter schools or lose their accrued pension wealth. For this reason, we cannot allow these regulations to be adopted in their current form.

We encourage you to take action here. And for a more detailed analysis of the issue, check out the excerpted blog below that was co-authored by our Senior Director of Legal Affairs.

Flypaper Blog, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Michael Podgusrky, Stuart Buck, and Renita Thukral / January 23, 2012

Charter school teachers would be hit hard by new Treasury Department ruling on pensions

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, hundreds of public schools were put out of commission and their staff placed on leave. Many charters schools expanded to absorb the displaced students, and these charter schools hired teachers from traditional schools to meet the enrollment demand. A glitch, fixed by state legislation, was to allow the displaced teachers to remain in the state teacher pension plan since some of the charter schools did not participate in the state plan. In 2010 this temporary law expired. Many of these transplanted teachers remain employed in charter schools and wished to continue to participate in the state teacher plan. Legislation was passed to allow these transplanted teachers to remain permanently in the state retirement plan, if—and this is a very big if—the Treasury Department approved.

The Treasury Department held off ruling on the Louisiana case while it worked on regulations that would provide new guidance on what it meant for a plan to be a "governmental plan." In November, the Treasury Department issued proposed regulations on the subject, and the news is not good for charter school teachers in Louisiana, or anywhere, since these new rules would affect charter schools in all states.

The legal issues are complex, and in a forthcoming study, two of us (Buck and Thukral) will attempt to sort them out. However, the nub of the matter centers on whether charter school teachers are considered government employees. In particular, are charter schools sufficiently “governmental” that they can participate in state and local pension plans?...Click here to read the full analysis.

Seeing is Believing

Charter Law Rankings Demonstrate Significant Progress in State Policy across the Country

This week, we released the third edition of Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws.  Notwithstanding the positive response the report has received, there were two criticisms of it worth addressing.

The first came from Diane Ravitch: “This is a national advocacy group that wants more charter schools. It speaks for the charter industry,” says Diane Ravitch, a prominent education historian and critic of charters. “Asking them to judge your charter law is like asking Philip Morris whether your state is doing enough to regulate tobacco.”

We doubt Dr. Ravitch actually read the report because it hardly reflects her critique. We plead guilty to wanting more charter schools, but we also want those that open to be high quality. That’s why this ranking places significant weight on quality-control provisions such as transparent application and renewal processes as well as performance-based charter contracts, while also valuing provisions that support growth such as autonomy, funding equity, facilities provisions and no caps.

The second came from the Center for Education Reform (CER), which criticized our report for ranking Maine’s new law at the top.  We acknowledge the complexity of evaluating the strengths of state charter school laws, and understand that the ranking process should undergo scrutiny.  We note, for example, that CER ranks the District of Columbia’s generally good law as #1.  Yet there is a 40 percent funding gap between D.C.’s traditional public schools and public charter schools – the largest such gap in the country according to this study.  This hardly represents true educational justice and equality for kids, which is why Friends of Choice in Urban Schools and the D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools are fighting to remedy this significant inequity (and a major reason why D.C. is ranked #11 in this year’s report). By highlighting this point, we believe this report can drive policy makers towards rectifying this inequity.

The NAPCS model law, which was developed by a broad group of individuals with deep expertise in public charter school law and is the basis of our rankings report, is grounded in two decades of experience about how good legislation supports successful charters. Maine enacted a law that is well aligned with many of the NAPCS model’s 20 components, receiving the highest scores possible on eight of the 20 components including those related to autonomy, operational and categorical funding equity, and performance-based charter contracts.  Maine's law is far from perfect – it received 158 points out of a possible 208 – and we will assist state leaders in pressing ahead to strengthen it.  Also, Maine’s law is brand new – which means its impact on Maine’s charter school sector needs close monitoring.

This year's rankings demonstrate the positive momentum for the movement in state capitols across the country. Sixteen states strengthened their charter laws this year, leading to an increase in their scores in our report. Nine states lifted caps, seven strengthened their authorizing environments and 10 improved support for funding and facilities. Indiana, for example, overhauled its charter school law last year, lifting its caps, allowing for multiple authorizers, providing facilities access and increasing flexibility and accountability. As a result, its overall score increased from 97 points to 132 points and its ranking catapulted from #25 to #6 – the largest leap for any state on record.

Many states based new legislation on the experiences of those with stronger laws such as California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York. Some states fell in the rankings simply because other states made positive strides by enacting stronger laws.  These developments represent progress for the movement, not black eyes for any set of states.

In addition, four states saw their scores in our report drop this past year.  For example, Georgia’s Supreme Court invalidated its statewide charter school authorizer, causing the state to slip from #7 to #14.  This was a tremendous setback for Georgia’s charter movement, and this report serves as a reminder to Georgia’s policy makers that they need to act boldly to rectify it.

Strong laws matter.  They allow good educators to create quality opportunities for more kids.  Weak laws prevent these opportunities from happening.   NAPCS welcomes healthy discussion about what constitutes a good charter law (and how to evaluate them) and will continue to work with charter leaders to drive positive changes in charter school laws across the country – from actually getting them on the books in states like Alabama and West Virginia to significantly improving them in states like Mississippi and Missouri.

Charter School "Hopes, Fears, & Reality" in 2011

Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Public Charter School Laws

Today, we released the third annual edition of Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Public Charter School Laws.  This report evaluates, scores, and ranks each of the country’s 42 state charter school laws against the 20 essential components from the NAPCS model law.

2011 was a significant year for charter school policy across the country, as evidenced by the shifts in this year’s report.  Here are the major takeaways from the report:

• Sixteen states saw their charter school law scores increase, 22 states’ overall scores remained the same, and four states fell in their overall score. 
• In the 2011 rankings, the average score of all states with a charter school law was 100 (out of a maximum possible 208), and in this year’s rankings the average state score rose to 107, demonstrating that state charter laws are improving. 
• By aligning their recently enacted charter school law with the NAPCS model law, Maine’s law landed at the top spot on this year’s list.  Mississippi’s law remains at the bottom of the list.
• Additionally, as a result of positive policy changes made over the past year, New Mexico made a big jump in the rankings, moving from 20th to fourth; Indiana went from 25th to sixth; and Rhode Island from 37th to 26th.
• Conversely, Georgia fell from seventh to 14th.  In addition, South Carolina fell six spots from 19th to 25th.  And four states dropped five places:  Missouri (13th to 18th), Oklahoma (22nd to 27th), Connecticut (24th to 29th), and New Jersey (26th to 31st).
• The top 10 states with laws best positioned to support the growth of high-quality charter schools are Maine, Minnesota, Florida, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Indiana, Colorado, New York, California and Michigan.

What’s most encouraging about the charter school movement’s legislative efforts is that they’re more frequently marrying growth and quality.  As we’ve long argued at NAPCS, the long- term viability of the charter school movement is primarily dependent on the quality of the charter schools that open.  It’s critical that state lawmakers recognize the importance of charter school quality – and the impact that their laws have on it.  We are glad to see that they are increasingly doing so.

Notwithstanding this progress, much work remains to be done to ensure that charter school laws support the promise of the charter school concept.  From lifting arbitrary caps on growth to providing full autonomy to ensuring accountability for performance to providing equitable funding and facilities support, more states than not have work left on their to-do list with regard to establishing a strong charter school law.

Holding Charter Schools to a Higher Standard Is a Good Thing!

Why Failing Charters Must Be Closed
By JAMES MERRIMAN

At their core, public charter schools are about one simple trade-off: a charter school receives more autonomy to operate in the way its staff thinks will provide the best results for students.

In return, it accepts greater accountability for the results it achieves academically and operationally — with the understanding that if a school fails, it will be closed. That is why charters get a license to operate for five years at a time — and have to make the case that they should be renewed.

Because accountability and autonomy are what charters are about, the decisions this week to close one poorly performing charter school, only conditionally renew another and provide notice to three others that they will be closed shortly unless they clean up their acts, is exactly the right move to ensure charters fulfill their promise to students and their role in the larger public education system.

The decisions also show not just what chartering is at its heart, but also how complex, and even difficult, chartering actually is. …To read the full editorial, click here.

Actual Autonomy

In advance of the release of our 2012 rankings of state charter school laws against our model law, we are going to chronicle some of the most critical aspects of the model law currently playing across the country.  The second installment focuses on charter school autonomy.

To truly be an “independent” public charter school, there are three key components of autonomy measured in the NAPCS Model Public Charter Law:

1. Charter schools must be fiscally and legally independent entities, with independent governing boards that have most powers granted to other traditional public school district boards.
2. Charter schools must receive automatic exemptions from many state and district laws and regulations, except for those covering health, safety, civil rights, student accountability, employee criminal history checks, open meetings, freedom of information requirements, and generally accepted accounting principles.
3. Charter schools must be exempted from any outside collective bargaining agreements, while not interfering with laws and other applicable rules protecting the rights of employees to organize and be free from discrimination.

When state law does not explicitly grant these autonomies to charter schools, it fails to set up public charter schools for success.  In fact, it is likely setting them up for hardship, if not failure.

An example from Virginia brings this issue to head. As the Virginia law currently stands, charter school personnel are considered employees of the local school board granting the charter and are granted the same employment benefits in accordance with the district's personnel policies.  In other words, a charter school has little control over one of the key factors that will determine whether it is successful or not:  its employees.  These provisions help make Virginia's law among the weakest in the nation for creating public charter schools with a high level of autonomy to set their own policies.

In a positive sign, the Richmond Public Schools (RPS) has joined the chorus of charter school advocates (including us) that are calling on the state legislature to change the law to allow people who work in a charter school to be employed by the school instead of the district.  RPS has taken this step because of confusion over who oversees the employees at the Patrick Henry School of Science and Arts, a charter school authorized by RPS.  Patrick Henry’s principal Pamela L. Boyd has taken three months of paid administrative leave as well as numerous personal days off amid questions about her leadership. Yet Patrick Henry is unable to take meaningful action to resolve the issue because Boyd is an employee of RPS, not the school.

When a school is not afforded the autonomy to make its personnel decisions, accountability for its performance is also compromised.  Among several changes that need to be made to Virginia’s weak charter school law, NAPCS urges the state to amend its law in 2012 to strengthen charter school autonomy.  These changes will not only help existing schools like Patrick Henry succeed.  They will also lay a strong foundation for the growth of high-quality public charter schools in Virginia in the future.

Research Rewind: Back to Basics, Quality Matters

It’s no secret that the performance of charter schools varies quite a bit. With over 5,000 charter schools and wide variety in mission, vision and instructional focus, examining charter schools as a whole will lead to a mixed bag of results. Research is moving in the direction of identifying the educational conditions that may lead to differences in results, but there is still much to learn about effective practices.

As the year comes to a close, let’s step back and ask a very basic school choice question: what happens when students choose high quality schools?

A series of studies on a district-wide open enrollment school choice policy in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina provide some answers. The studies are sophisticated by design, but offer straightforward results:

• Families who selected schools based on academic quality (higher school performance), rather than by the proximity of schools or the student demographic make-up of schools, experienced significant gains in test scores as a result of attending the higher quality school.
• Students zoned to low-quality neighborhood schools who won lotteries to attend higher quality high schools were more likely than students who lost the lotteries and attended lower quality neighborhood schools to graduate from high school, attend a four-year college, and earn a bachelor’s degree. Moreover, these students were twice as likely to attend an elite university.
• Families who received direct and easy-to-read information on school test scores selected higher-scoring schools for their children. And again, the researchers found that attending higher performing schools led to better academic outcomes for the students.

These studies should motivate the charter school sector. The studies do not support school choice for school choice’s sake. And the studies don’t suggest that school choice is very effective when families choose schools for non-academic reasons. Rather, the studies provide concrete evidence that when families use school choice to select higher performing schools, their children perform better.

The charter sector has to use evidence like this to ensure quality and uphold the charter school bargain—autonomy in exchange for accountability. Consistently low performing charter schools should not be allowed to stay open. Instead, the sector should be working to provide more high quality options to families. If the charter sector can define what academic quality looks like and guarantee that every charter school is a very good option for students, widespread results will follow.

Are Charter School Students Worth Less?

In advance of the release of its 2012 Model Public Charter School Law rankings, NAPCS will chronicle some of the most critical—and contentious—aspects of the model law that played out in the past state legislative cycle. This guest blog by Eileen Sigmund, President and CEO of the Arizona Charter Schools Association, examines issues with funding equity (Model Law Component 18).

Are some students worth less or worthless?  When it comes to Arizona's antiquated school funding system, students are treated differently. Charter students are funded, on average, $1,500 less per student than their district peers.

These funding disparities are unjust, and an Arizona lawsuit seeks a basic American principle: that all children in public schools receive an equally good education, backed by similar, adequate resources. A recent ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court in the lawsuit Craven et al. v. State of Arizona et al. confirmed that Arizona's public charter school students are Arizona public school students entitled to the Arizona Constitution's educational privileges just like the state's public district school students.  

This ruling came after the State and others argued that public district school students and public charter school students are not members of a similarly situated group of citizens. The State has maintained that Arizona's pubic charter school students occupy an inferior, secondary supplemental level in Arizona's public school hierarchy. The recent ruling rejects that argument. 

In light of the ruling, the remainder of this litigation will focus on the determination of whether Arizona's K-12 student finance scheme is constitutional. To be upheld, the system must be rational, reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory or capricious. Trial is set for Fall 2012. 

We cannot treat some students as if they are worth less than others. For more information, visit www.studentequitynow.org.

Charters can ‘TUDA’ their own horns

The recently released NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) includes breakouts for charter public schools and traditional public schools in six out of 21 districts assessed. The table below shows that charter schools outperformed traditional public schools in the majority of districts in both subject areas and grade levels. In all of the other instances, charter schools performed as well as traditional public schools (e.g., the differences in scores were not statistically significant). In both the 2009 and 2011 NAEP TUDA, charter schools never underperformed against traditional public schools.

Others have pointed to the limited number of districts in NAEP with both charter and traditional public school data to compare. A larger sampling of charter schools in big districts like DC, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Diego could allow for further analyses of NAEP performance trends at the district level.

The NAEP assessment does have limitations, as we have discussed in previous blogs. Moreover, comparing a snapshot of student performance between charters and traditional public schools does not control for the potential bias of students selecting to attend charter schools. However, the large differences below deserve attention and further analysis.

2011 NAEP, Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)  for Charter and Traditional Public Schools

Data compiled by NAPCS from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx
Note: CPS – Charter Public School; TPS – Traditional Public School; N/A – insufficient data to compare CPS and TPS; ↔ – no statistically significant difference in the scores