Can the SCCOE Do More to Insist on Changes to BCS Enrollment?
April 22, 2020
Santa Clara County Board of Education
Dr. Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools
1290 Ridder Park Drive
San Jose, CA 95131
RE: Upcoming Changes in California Law on Oversight of Charter Schools
Santa Clara County Board of Education
Dr. Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools
1290 Ridder Park Drive
San Jose, CA 95131
RE: Upcoming Changes in California Law on Oversight of Charter Schools
Dear Board Members and Dr. Dewan:
We are entering a new moment in the oversight of California charter schools. Last fall, after a long process engaging all stakeholders, Governor Newsom signed the most overarching revisions to the authorization and oversight of charter schools since the creation of the Charter Schools Act. Upon signing the legislation, he stated: “This is historic legislation that marks a new chapter of collaboration between charter and traditional schools in California.” (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2019/10/03/governor-newsom-signs-charter-school-legislation-10-3-19/)
Portions of the new law became effective in January (e.g. the changes broadening the obligation to serve English Language and disabled students to be reflective of the local district). Other portions become effective July 1. The new law addresses several critical issues that have long been challenging for charter schools and their authorizing/overseeing school districts and county offices of education. These issues include how a charter school functions within and relates to the entire community where it is located, the extent to which a charter school serves a student population reflective of the community, including racial/ethnic, special education, and English learner populations, and the financial effects a charter school has on the local school district. County offices of education, school districts, and charter schools have been navigating these issues for years with difficulty, and the new law clarifies requirements and considerations. As Governor Newsom stated: “We now have the framework for charter and traditional schools to work together collaboratively in service of their communities and neighborhoods.”
Over the past several months, I have appreciated opportunities to communicate with you on these very issues as they pertain to a fragile situation in our Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View communities involving Bullis Charter School, our local Los Altos School District, and Santa Clara County Office of Education. I have gathered and presented significant data and questions related to shortcomings in the obligation of BCS to serve a student population representative of the entire community and how BCS functions within the framework of our local public schools. It has been helpful to discuss these issues with you and a wide range of community stakeholders. It has also been helpful to research what is happening around the country to address related issues. These discussions have often found common recognition of challenges and items that need to be addressed as shown by the data, and we have often returned to the overarching question: What can we do?
Toward the goal of furthering these discussions and finding concrete solutions consistent with identified challenges and oncoming changes in the law, I have drafted a series of policy options for the SCCOE to consider. In presenting them, I have referenced both new language in California law effective this July as well as information gathered in my research. I believe there are steps the new law provides that we can, and must, take to see that charter schools serve a vital role in public education with regard for the interests of the entire communities where they locate.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I would welcome an opportunity to sit down with you to discuss these items, any questions you may have, and discuss how we can move forward to address these critical issues for our community. I will contact your office to arrange a time at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
26120 Rancho Manuella Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
stevebrown94022@gmail.com
cell: 650-996-4895
cc:
Grace H. Mah, Area 1
Kathleen M. King, Area 2
Rosemary Kamei, Area 3
Joseph Di Salvo, Area 4
Anna Song, Area 5
Peter Ortiz, Area 6
Claudia Rossi, Area 7
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools
Michelle Johnson, Ed.D., Interim Director Charter Schools Department
Gavin Newsom, California Governor
Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General
Christine Chuang, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Garrett Lindsey, Deputy Attorney General
Tony Thurmond, California Superintendent of Schools
Linda Darling-Hammond, President of California State Board of Education
Jerry Hill, California State Senator, 13th District
Marc Berman, California State Assembly, 24th District
Connie Leyva, Chair of California State Senate Education Committee
Patrick O’Donnell, Chair of California State Assembly Education Committee
Vernon M. Billy, CEO & Executive Director, California School Boards Association
Dr. Wesley Smith, Executive Director, Association of California School Administrators
ATTACHMENT
Do Charter Authorizers Have the Oversight Tools Required to Achieve the Intent of the Charter Law?
Recent changes to the California Education Code, related to charter schools, effective July 1, 2020, suggest the Legislature and the Governor are placing more emphasis on the relationship between a charter school and the entire community where a charter school operates. In addition, changes to the code clarify requirements on the groups charter schools are expected to serve in the local community.
Statewide organizations, such as the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), are surely considering the implications of the changes to the code. They will likely recommend revisions to oversight policies for local (county and district) charter authorizers.
These changes in the broader educational community and legal environment represent an opportunity for the SCCOE Board to revise, adapt, and implement its own charter school oversight policies.
For example, previously the tone of the answers to questions 7 and 8 in the Q&A section of the SCCOE website (Attachment A) suggested the SCCOE Board members, and the staff, were essentially powerless in oversight of the elements of the charter act related to enforcing charter schools’ enrollment of a student population reflective of the race, ethnicity, economic status, special education and English learners of the local school district.
The tone of these answers probably did not reflect the attitudes, values or efforts made by individual board members and staff to help charter school enrollment better reflect the community. The individual board members and staff efforts may not be publicly disclosed but should be acknowledged and appreciated.
Since the legal requirements and public expectations of oversight responsibilities are changing, the following oversight options are potential tools and approaches worthy of exploration and innovative implementation.
Options Available to an Authorizing Entity to Assist Charter Schools in Achieving Enrollment Reflective of the Local School District
Option 1: The SCCOE Board could adopt and/or revise SCCOE Charter Oversight Policies which support high-performing charters serving student populations which reflect the local school district where a charter school is located.
Setting clear expectations, and sticking with the expectations, is core to successful governance of both public and private organizations. Laws, regulations and policies establish expectations.
Does the SCCOE Board maintain its own set of charter oversight policies and procedures? Is it reasonable for the Board to consider modifications to its own policies to better serve all groups? Is it appropriate for an oversight entity, particularly one located in the geographic center of technological innovation, to seek out oversight benchmarks and adopt best practices?
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, a prominent pro-charter organization, notes that “[m]uch of the best accountability work being done across the country was originally created in practice by charter authorizers rather than in state law. Notable examples include the work of the Chicago Public Schools, the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board, the Indianapolis Mayor’s office, and the State University of New York.” (page 27 of A Model Law for Supporting the Growth of High-Quality Charter Schools)
The report also indicates best practices include:
An assurance that the authorizer will fulfill “the expectations, spirit and intent” of the law and will fully adopt standards of quality charter school authorizing.
A strategic plan for the role/value-add that a specific charter school provides in a specific community.
In a recent report, The Slowdown in Bay Area Charter School Growth: Causes and Solutions prepared by the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), indicates “[c]ities that have been successful in cooling down race and class politics – similar to issues seen in the Bay Area – have done deep community engagement work so that the drive for better schools is owned by the community and not done to the community.”
Option 2: Embrace in the SCCOE Charter Oversight Policies the original legislative intent of the charter act and focus on the results achieved from the “special emphasis” to enroll and retain pupils eligible for FRPM. If, after a decade, results/data clearly demonstrate that the portion of FRPM eligible students is not at least equal to the district, then the legislative intent has not been achieved and corrective action is required.
Existing Law - California Education Code - EDC § 47601 (b) on Legislative Intent:
Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving.
There is a great deal of research done by academics, think tanks, policy institutes, and political advocacy groups which concludes the number one predictor of academic test scores is the economic circumstances of a student’s household. The higher the economic circumstances, the better the test scores. If accepted as true (a research based factual statement), if a school wants to have high academic scores, one category of students to under enroll are the economically disadvantaged. Clearly, this would be fundamentally at odds with the legislative intent behind the creation of charter schools.
The California Department of Education uses FRPM as a key indicator of economic status, and the legislative intent of the Charter Schools Act in 47601(b) is unequivocal: “Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving.”
Establishing, monitoring, and enforcing the expectation of meeting the legislative intent is particularly important in a school district which spans both one of the wealthiest communities in the country and a community which has approximately one in six students who are eligible for FRPM.
Option 3: Embrace the SCCOE Charter Oversight Policies’ “will achieve” expectation and evaluate concretely the “description of the means” to balance charter school enrollment to reflect the local school district’s racial and ethnic, special education, and English learner population.
The California Education Code section referenced below indicates that the charter school will both describe and achieve:
“contain reasonably comprehensive description … of the means” and
“the charter school will achieve a balance … that is reflective of the general population of the … school district…”
New Law - California Education Code - EDC § 47605 (c) (5) (G)
(5) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all of the following:
(G) The means by which the charter school will achieve a balance of racial and ethnic pupils, special education pupils, and English learner pupils, including redesignated fluent English proficient pupils, as defined by the evaluation rubrics in Section 52064.5, that is reflective of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the school district to which the charter petition is submitted.
If, after over a decade, the results/data clearly demonstrate that the reflective balance has not been achieved, then the content and execution of the “described means” have not been achieved, and corrective action is required.
Option 3a: Focus on “racial and ethnic pupils” relative to the district
Option 3b: Focus on “special education pupils” relative to the district
Option 3c: Focus on “English learner pupils” relative to the district
Students with disabilities and English learners have been added to the new law, as well as noted in the existing law, for example:
Existing Law - California Education Code - EDC § 47605 (e) (2) (B)(iii)
Preferences shall not result in limiting enrollment access for pupils with disabilities, academically low-achieving pupils, English Learners, neglected or delinquent pupils, homeless pupils or pupils who are economically disadvantaged, as determined by eligibility for any free or reduced price meal program, foster youth, or pupils based on nationality, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
Option 4: Develop a hands-on SCCOE Charter School Oversight Policy, with deep community engagement, that provides for the SCCOE Board member representing an area (there are seven geographic areas and seven board members) to review personally the strategic plans of both the charter school(s) and districts in their area. The SCCOE Board member must then publicly articulate how the charter and local school district will serve all of the in-district students.
For example, each SCCOE Board member would request each local school district to submit a three-year strategic plan to the area board member. Similarly, each SCCOE Board member would request a strategic plan for the charter school. In coordination with the local charter school, and the local school district, the SCCOE Board member would then publicly articulate how the collective schools will serve all of the in-district students.
It is vital to set the expectation that public officials are responsible to plan community education needs in a rational manner that takes account of the entire community. This requires community engagement by elected leaders (SCCOE Board members and local district board members) and the not elected leaders (charter school board members).
New California Education Code - EDC § 47605 (c) (7)
[A finding for an agency's denial of a new charter includes:]
(7) The charter school is demonstrably unlikely to serve the interests of the entire community in which the school is proposing to locate. Analysis of this finding shall include consideration of the fiscal impact of the proposed charter school. A written factual finding under this paragraph shall detail specific facts and circumstances that analyze and consider the following factors:
(A) The extent to which the proposed charter school would substantially undermine existing services, academic offerings, or programmatic offerings.
(B) Whether the proposed charter school would duplicate a program currently offered within the school district and the existing program has sufficient capacity for the pupils proposed to be served within reasonable proximity to where the charter school intends to locate.
A strategic plan for the role/value-add that a specific charter school provides in a specific community is also a best practice suggested by The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
Developing a strategic plan to cooperatively (the local school district and the charter school) serve all in-district students has many benefits related to costs, services, facilities and reducing polarization in the community. The CRPE has observed “deep community engagement works so that the drive for better schools is owned by the community and not done to the community.” Although the Legislature provided that the new code language referenced above is not intended to be a means for non-renewal of a previously existing charter school, this analysis should nonetheless apply for seeing that charter schools function appropriately within the contexts of the entire communities where they are located.
Option 5: Develop in the SCCOE Charter Oversight Policy a provision that the local school district and the charter school jointly present, with each charter petition, a financial impact assessment of the impact of the charter school on the local district.
A recent report, prepared by In The Public Interest, concludes with two strong recommendations. The first recommendation is an opportunity for the SCCOE Board to contribute to helping plan community education needs in a rational manner as described above in Option 4. The second recommendation was embraced by the Legislature, in revisions to the new law, California Education Code - EDC § 47605 (c) (7).
The report Breaking Point: The Cost of Charter Schools for Public School Districts, prepared by In The Public Interest, indicates:
Reasonable people may disagree about education policy. What reasonable people should not do, however, is pretend that unregulated charter school expansion comes at no cost. For public officials to plan community education needs in a rational manner, two policy innovations are critical:
1. First, each school district should produce an annual Economic Impact report assessing the cost of charter school expansion in its community, and more targeted analyses should be a required component in the evaluation of charter school applications.
2. Secondly, public officials at both the local and the state levels must be able to take these findings into account when deciding whether to authorize additional charter schools. Thus, the state’s charter authorization law must be amended to empower elected officials to act as effective stewards of the community’s education budget in balancing the political value of charter schools against the needs of traditional public schools.
‘https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/ITPI_Breaking_Point_May2018FINAL.pdf
Option 6: Develop in the SCCOE Charter Oversight Policy an expectation that the natural rate of student attrition is an ongoing opportunity for the charter to better reflect the community in each enrollment cycle. Typically, 45% to 60% of a school’s enrollment will be replaced with new enrollees during three enrollment cycles.
The natural turnover of between 15% and 20% of a school’s population represents a graceful, gradual opportunity to move toward a student population reflective of the local school district.
For example, if the enrollment does not reflect the economic status, English learner status, special needs status, race and ethnicity of a local school district, then develop a three-year plan, with annual benchmarks, to obtain enrollment to reflect the local district. The SCCOE Board has the right and obligation to expect results. The SCCOE could choose to vote to grant a charter renewal, with required annual benchmarks, established to achieve enrollment reflecting the local school district.
After a decade, a school serving K-8 students will have one grade graduate (1 of 9 grades or approximately 11% of the enrollment), and a typical school has an annual student attrition rate of 5% to 10% of students eligible to return, but who do not return. This natural turnover of between 15% and 20% of a school’s population represents a graceful, gradual opportunity to move toward a student population reflective of the local school district.
Over a three-year period, 45% to 60% of a school’s enrollment will be replaced with new enrollees.
Option 7: Consider ordering legally-allowable lottery preferences to achieve an enrollment reflective of the local school district.
Potentially, higher admission priorities might be offered to in-district economically disadvantaged students, in-district students with disabilities, and in-district limited English language students to achieve a student population reflective of the district where the charter school is located.
Option 8: Consider using a weighted lottery for a charter school to achieve an enrollment reflective of the local school district.
Definition - Weighted lottery means a random selection process that provides additional weight or increased chances to individual students who are identified as part of a specified set of educationally disadvantaged students but does not reserve or set aside seats for individual students or sets of students. ‘https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/weighted-lottery
U.S. Department of Education - The Washington Post January 30, 2014
‘https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/education-dept-allows-public-charter-schools-to-hold-weighted-lottery/2014/01/29/2fc0f1c8-892d-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html
“We’ve heard from states, school operators and other stakeholders across the country that weighted lotteries can be an effective tool that can complement public charter schools’ efforts to serve more educationally disadvantaged students,” said Dorie Nolt, a department spokeswoman.
Testimony - D.C. Charter Schools Should Use Weighted Lotteries to Promote Integration
‘https://tcf.org/content/commentary/testimony-d-c-charter-schools-use-weighted-lotteries-promote-integration-halley-potter/?agreed=1
Responses by States –
“https://www.publiccharters.org/latest-news/2015/07/08/new-report-provides-clarity-use-weighted-lotteries-schools-receive-federal
Few states have language that clearly permits weighted lotteries. A report released by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, State Laws on Weighted Lottery and Enrollment Practices: Summary of Findings, included California among states where weighted lotteries are not expressly authorized but appear allowable:
Four states expressly permit use of enrollment preferences beyond those authorized in their public charter school statutes, subject to authorizer approval. These states therefore leave the door open for potential preferences, and consequently weighted lotteries, for educationally disadvantaged students. These states are California, Connecticut, Hawaii and Oregon
‘https://www.publiccharters.org/sites/default/files/migrated/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NPC035_WeightedLotteries_Digital_rev.pdf
Groups of Students are Eligible for Extra Weighting in a Lottery
A very brief and random review of several state definitions of which groups might receive higher weights includes:
Nevada’s Legislative Commission approved a regulation that allows charter schools to use weighted admission lotteries, which give preference to students who are economically disadvantaged, have a disability, are learning English as a second language, are migrant students or are homeless, neglected or delinquent. The weighted lotteries approved last month will boost the number of students from low-income households by essentially giving them two tickets in an admission lottery where other students have one ticket.
Hawaii: "Educationally disadvantaged students" means students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, migrant students, limited English proficient students, neglected or delinquent students, and homeless students. “Weighted lottery" means any lottery that gives additional weight to individual students who are identified as part of a specified set of students but does not reserve or set aside seats for individual students or sets of students.
Georgia: “Educationally disadvantaged students” means all or a subset of the following: students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, limited English proficient students, neglected or delinquent students, and homeless students, as each such subset is defined by the State Board of Education in accordance with federal education guidelines and regulations.
A more thorough inventory would probably indicate that economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities and limited English language students would be commonly included.
Option 9: Develop a provision in the SCCOE Charter Oversight Policy that “strongly recommends” that a charter school’s academic performance should at least equal, and potentially exceed, the other public-school options in the local district.
Academic performance expectations and results, based on empirical data, should be reviewed based on the relative academic performance of the proportion of designated subgroups in the school (e.g. proportion of Asian students relative to Hispanic/Latino students, English learner students, etc.).
Achievement gaps show the economic status of the student’s household is probably the single best predictor of how a student will test. The second-best predictor is the ethnicity of a student. ‘https://reports.innovateschools.org/top-bay-area-public-schools/
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP)
Accordingly, charter schools should be evaluated in part based on their ability to achieve results with students most in-need.
Option 10: SCCOE oversight of charter schools should rigorously test the perceived/implied financial obligation from parents. Staff, consultants, and/or board members should conduct confidential, independently selected, one-on-one interviews with prospective, current and former parents (both those parents who choose to not continue enrollment and those whose children have graduated).
California Education Code - EDC § 47605 (c) (2) (d)(1)
(d) (1) In addition to any other requirement imposed under this part, a charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations, shall not charge tuition
School culture impacts enrollment and access. In the situation of Bullis Charter School, has access been effectively constrained by a fifteen-year track record of a school culture expecting annual financial contributions 5 to 10 times greater than occurring in the local school district? Does the data indicate de facto tuition has been charged?
Local School District Expectations
Over the same period, the data (1099 tax forms) for the foundation supporting the local school district indicates that the effective annual average voluntary donation, per student, averaged between $500 and $900 per year.
Parents in the local school district are not offered and do not experience the social pressure to fund expensive “Non-Program Field Trips.”
Charter School Expectations
If, over the last decade, the data (1099 tax forms) clearly demonstrate that the effective annual average donation, per student, was between $4,500 and $5,000 per year, then has there been a de facto tuition, as originally suggested in a national magazine, Bloomberg, article published in 2011?
Are optional, “Non-Program Field Trips”, which are not a part of the curriculum, not an educational activity and considered recreational, with an aggregate annual cost of between $300,000 and $430,000, another cost of participation in a charter school community?
This is a long-established practice. A 2011 article in Bloomberg Magazine noted:
A foundation set up to help fund the school asks Bullis parents to donate at least $5,000 for each child they enroll. Those who can’t afford to pay should discuss the reason with a foundation member, “recognizing that other school families will need to make up the difference,” the foundation said on its website.
In an interview, Anna Song, a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Education, said she received about 20 phone calls from parents who felt pressured to give because of repeated solicitation in school parking lots, e-mails and phone calls.
“They are very aggressive in asking parents for money,” said Laurie Uhler, a former Bullis parent. “If you don’t pay it, word gets out that you aren’t doing your part.” Parents often refer to the payments as “tuition,” she said in an interview.
Attachment A
FAQ from Santa Clara Office of Education Website
‘https://www.sccoe.org/supoffice/charter-schools-office/Pages/faq-2.aspx
Charter Schools FAQ - Admission Requirements - The information below relies heavily on the California Department of Education’s website at http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/re/cefcharterschools.asp, and, where applicable, Santa Clara County Board of Education policy. The California Education Code is referred to below as Education Code or EC. These FAQs will be expanded periodically to include additional questions and answers.
Question 7
Q: Are charter schools required to have enrollment demographics that match those of the district in which they operate?
A: The charter petition must include a description of “The means by which the school will achieve a racial and ethnic balance among its pupils that is reflective of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the school district to which the charter petition is submitted.”
This is understood to be an outreach and recruitment plan to encourage applications for enrollment that is reflective of the general population within the district. Charters are charged with developing and implementing effective outreach and recruitment plans; however, they are prohibited by law from implementing racial and ethnic enrollment practices, even with the purpose of achieving racial and ethnic balance reflective of the jurisdiction.
Ed. Code 47605
Question 8
Q: Can charter schools be required to enroll students according to their demographic characteristics in order to achieve specific targets or equity with district averages?
A: No. Enrolling students based upon their race, ethnicity or other characteristics is illegal. While charter schools may enroll pupils using legal preferences (i.e., previously enrolled, within district, etc.) racial/ethnic preferences are not legal.
Ed. Code 220 and 47605, Gov. Code 11135, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d-2000d-7), Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC 12101-12213), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794)
In addition, Education Code requires that all students be admitted unless there is limited enrollment space, and then they be admitted according to a random public lottery.
Ed. Code 47605