Charter School Autonomy, Part Two

This is a continuation of my comment on the Fordham report, "Charter School Autonomy: A Half-Broken Promise."

6. Law/Policy Waivers: Generally, Colorado's Charter Schools Act is favorable to charter schools. It typically earns a B from the Center for Education Reform. The State Board of Education allows for the automatic waiver of 13 state laws and more, upon request. The new sample contract language suggests districts provide a list of district policies that either do not apply to charter schools or could be waived to make the process easier.

7. Budget: The law specifically allows a charter school board to establish their own budget and have control over their finances. Charter schools cannot waive finance laws that pertain to all public schools.

8. Discipline Policies: Many charter schools have sought, and received, waiver from Suspension and Expulsion laws and even Truancy laws. These waivers allow the charter school board the authority that otherwise would rest with the local board of education. CSI requires all of its schools to do their own discipline.

9. Management Contracting: The new sample contract language has an appendix called, "ESP Provisions", which are a list of provisions that should be in the management contract. The authorizer isn't party to that contract, but does often express an interest in what the contract states. Many authorizers require both the charter school governing board and the management company to have separate legal counsels.

10. Staff Dismissals: All charter schools in Colorado employ at-will. This means that the employee relationship can be severed with or without cause at any time. Charter school administrators are careful to not enter into a performance plan with an under-performing employee that would alter the at-will nature of employment.

11. Program/Curriculum: The state law is very clear that a charter school has control over their educational program. The charter school application details how the school will be operated and what the curricula will be. Some charter schools use a packaged curriculum and others create their own from a variety of sources.

12. Procurement: Almost all charter schools in the state have their money in a bank not associated with their authorizer. At least one school district requires their charter schools to keep all their funds in district accounts. Charter schools get their funding monthly or quarterly, according to their contract. Charter schools must adhere to procurement laws, although they don't have to do it through their district (unless their district requires it). Many charter schools consider the League of Charter Schools' group purchasing arrangements in their research.

13. School Scheduling: Again, this is an area that totally up to the charter school operators. It's often reinforced in the charter contract and/or through a delegation waiver of the school calendar law.

14. Work Rules: While Colorado's charter schools use at-will employees, many other states do not. In some states the charter school must participate in the district's collective bargaining agreement. This is an area where Colorado's law has always been solid.

Charter School Autonomy, Part One

I just got done reading "Charter School Autonomy: A Half-Broken Promise," from the Fordham Foundation. (Yes, it sat in my "to read" stack for quite some time!) Colorado was included in the 26 states whose charter school laws were examined by the authors. This included four individual charter schools: Provost Academy and Thomas MacLaren, both authorized by the Charter School Institute (CSI) and W Denver Prep and Envision Charter School, both authorized by Denver Public Schools (DPS).

In comparing the report's findings on a national scale to Colorado, there are numerous reasons why Colorado's law is stronger than most. Below I will go through each of the report's criteria for autonomy and point out the relevance for Colorado.

1. Teacher Certification: The State Board of Education automatically waives teacher licensure laws and doesn't require a charter school to meet the federal "highly qualified" definition by licensure. Instead charter schools with the licensure waiver, can demonstrate in other ways that their staff is "highly qualified."

2. Contract Revisions: The state law says that charter schools can "negotiate" their contracts with their authorizer. The degree to which they actually can varies across authorizers (districts and CSI). Most districts that have more than one charter school already, tend to standardize their contracts so that they aren't, for example, paying for Special Education services in two different ways. The development of last year's "sample contract language" provides for the charter school to define their own characteristics. It also more clearly explains what is considered a "material change" to the contract whereas in the past this was often ambiguous and led to differing legal interpretations. Colorado's law also allows for a charter school, for the purpose of gaining a better financing package, to have a long-term contract. Many schools in the state have 30 year contracts, or even "ever-greening" contracts that automatically renew each year. It should be noted that these long contracts do not change the accountability provisions for academics nor does it prevent the annual renewal of financial terms.

3. Staff Compensation: This is another one of the statutes that are automatically waived for charter schools, upon request. In fact, many charter schools do not even use a salary schedule. Instead many use performance pay systems and negotiated salaries. All charter schools use at-will employees. The charter contracts explicitly state that the charter school employee is not a district employee.

4. Board Composition: Although this is somewhat vague in the law, authorizers have, for the most part, steered away from dictating who can and cannot be on a charter school board. There have been a handful of situations where the authorizer either closed a charter school due to their governance issues or mandated a clean sweep of the current board. The authorizer's legal ability to do this remains in question, however. The new sample contract language contains an appendix that is a Board Certification Form. The form is meant to provide disclosure for potential conflicts of interest. Almost all charter school contracts require board's to have, and adhere to, conflicts of interest policies. Further, some authorizers in the state frown on charter school staff (i.e., teachers) from being on a charter school board. This is the exact opposite of some other states.

5. Special Education: The entity that has the legal authority to deliver Special Education services, and ensure compliance, is the "LEA" or Local Education Agency. In our state this is the local school district. Some of the smaller districts have formed a cooperative, a Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES), for the purposes of delivering Special Education services. Charter schools must remain under their LEA and don't have the authority to join a BOCES unless their district participates in a BOCES. Charter schools have little autonomy in the area of Special Education in our state. For many charter schools their main source of contention with the requirement they adhere to whatever their district wants, is when district employees do not support the charter school's educational program or when the cost is very high for limited services.

To be Continued