Building on "What Works" in Charter Schools (House Committee on Education and Labor)
The purpose of this document is to provide an intial analysis and summary of key issues raised during the House Education and Labor Committee's recent hearing regarding strategies for expanding and replicating successful charter school models. The memorandum identifies key learnings from the hearing and attempts to highlight important remarks made by the witnesses and committee members.
Analysis/Key Take Aways: Although some Members of Congress remain unconvinced about the charter school movement's ability to promote systemic traditional public school change, the Obama Administration's support for innovative charters and the backing of key members - such as Education and Labor Committee Chairman Miller – suggest that federal charter supports (financial and policy) will increase during the next few years.
Such changes to federal charter policy will likely emerge through both the legislative process (e.g. ESEA reauthorization, other K-12 authorizing legislation, or the annual appropriations process) and U.S. Department of Education administrative action (e.g. leveraging Race to the Top to influence state charter policies or using the Secretary's ESEA waiver authority to maximize the effectiveness of existing charter programs). Given that charter legislation is very unlikely to move as a free standing vehicle, and given that Congress is unlikely to move ESEA reauthorization or other significant K-12 legislation until at least next year, U.S. Education Department administrative action is more likely than congressional action over the near term.
Key issues likely to be addressed by federal legislative and executive policy makers include: (1) state charter school caps; (2) limited flexibility in existing federal charter school grant programs; (3) accountability; (4) access to facilities; and (5) strategies for scaling successful models, while maintaining quality.
Hearing Context: President Obama and Secretary Duncan strongly support leveraging high quality charter schools as an innovative approach for improving the country's lowest performing schools. The President's FY10 budget request proposes to increase the Charter School Grant program by $52M to $268M and the Administration has pointed Recovery Act investments in school improvement grants ($3B) and district innovation funds ($650M) as sources of support for state and disrict efforts to scale-up and replicate successful charter models. Additionally, President Obama has called on states to lift restrictions that limit the growth of successful charter schools and encourage rigorous accountability. In light of the Administration's interest, and broad support on Capitol Hill, the House Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing on June 4, 2009 to examine how the federal government can support the expansion/replication of successful charter models, with an eye toward using reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as an opportunity for strengthening supports for effective charter schools.
Testimony Snapshot: The Committee invited leading charter organizations and practictioners to testify about how the federal government could better support effective charter schools. The witnesses included Jim Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement; Colorado Lt. Governor Barbara O'Brien; Steve Barr, Founder and Chairman of the Green Dot Public Schools; John King, Managing Director, Uncommon Schools; Jim Goenner, Central Michigan University; and David Dunn, Director, Texas Charter School Association.
Chairman Miller's opening remarks focused on the positive results charter schools have achieved and the need to reward successful charters and replicate them across the country. Chairman Miller noted the success of the KIPP program and Harlem Children's Zone and cited the need for state legislators to allow for additional charters in their states. Ranking Member McKeon expanded on Chairman Miller's comments by focusing on barriers to charter growth, including charter school caps that exist in 26 states and the District of Columbia.
The first half of hearing centered on the challenges charter schools face in expanding and replicating successful models, with a focus on two main barriers: (1) state charter school caps; and (2) lack of adequate facilities.
Charter School Caps: Of the forty states, and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with charter school laws, twenty-six states and D.C. limit the number of charters allowed to operate within their borders. Many committee members and witnesses cited legislative tradeoffs for this condition and the resulting long waiting lists of students and parents hoping to enroll in a charter school.
While charter caps hinder charter school growth and replication, however, the witnesses indicated that reasonable caps can help promote quality. The panelists remarked on the difficulty of preserving quality as a challenge in replicating successful charter models and noted that charter schools need to be held accountable for high performance similar to traditional public schools. Responding to Rep. Biggert's question regarding stategies for ensuring quality control, Jim Goenner responded that four controls are necessary to ensure quality:
- Performance contracts between the charter school and the authorizing entity;
- Academic results;
- Financial audits; and
- Ongoing monitoring
Note, Secretary Duncan testified last week before the House and Senate Labor HHS Appropriations Subcommittees and said that charter caps could be a strike against states applying for Race to the Top funds.
Lack of Adequate Facilities: Dr. King of Uncommon Schools asked the committee to encourage school districts and states to provide facilities at no cost to charters and provide other incentives, so that charters can access school building construction funds that are currently unavailable. Jim Shelton commented on the need for the Department to ensure that charter schools are first in line in receiving credit enhancement funds and other facilities funds in order to scale up successful models. Another suggestion made by David Dunn was to incent traditional schools to cohabitate with charter schools, not only to provide facilities, but also to encourage the transfer of knowledge and innovation between the two.
Another suggestion made to the committee for federal support of charter school enhancement is to encourage states to allow multiple entities to authorize new charters, and for charter schools to have performance contracts with their authorizing body to ensure accountability and oversight.
Jim Shelton said he hopes Congress will give the Department flexibility to make direct grants through the federal Charter School Program to charter management organizations and other entities as a way to help scale-up successful models. Funding is another barrier to expansion, and suggestions were made to take advantage of the current landscape by leveraging states' eagerness for federal dollars to ensure that they utilize Recovery Act funds for innovative reforms such as charter schools.
The committee focused the second part of the discussion on how to take lessons learned and best practices from successful charter schools and apply them to the larger context of traditional public schools. Some committee members expressed concern over providing additional funding to expand and replicate charter schools rather than using new resources to assist traditional public school students.
In response, witnesses remarked on the lack of traditional public school autonomy and flexibility as a hindrance to translating charter school successes. Autonomy and flexibility issues include time management, management of staff, budgeting, school and class size, and extension of the school day and/or school year. Witnesses, however, acknowledge the importance of utilizing charter schools as research and development labs for building a system of excellence for traditional public schools.
Conclusion: This hearing is among of series hearings, which began last month, that are designed to help the committee begin laying an evidentiary foundation for ESEA reauthorization and other key education legislation, which may be considered by the 111th Congress. The testimony may also impact the FY10 education appropriations process, which will provide funding for the 2010/2011 school year. We will provide further updates as Congress continues discussion about this important issue. If you have any questions about the hearing or charter school policy, please contact Reg Leichty or Nina Salomon.