New Legislation Proposed for Charter Schools

There are two bills this session that have already been introduced that will impact charter schools. They are SB 61, sponsored by Sen. Keith King and Rep. Tom Massey, concerning charter school authorizing. The other is Sb 67, by Sen. Evie Hudak and Rep. Chris Holbert, regarding the corporate status of charter schools.

SB 61 would add to the list of charter school application components, which matches the Standard Application and Review Rubric, the state model for applications. The bill also requires school districts to have a process for closing a charter school. A best practice for authorizers is also included, the stipulation that all authorizers provide each of their charter schools with an Annual Progress Report (APR). This would include Accreditation, but be broader and more specific in scope.

SB 67 is aimed at closing the ambiguous language that has been in the Charter Schools Act since its initial passage in 1993, which never defined who could be party to a charter school contract. The current law would allow even for-profit management companies to contract directly with an authorizer to operate a charter school. SB 67 would require all charter schools to incorporate, as a nonprofit, and restrict only nonprofits to being party to a charter contract.

Legislation can be tracked through the General Assembly's home page. Also, sign up for the Colorado League of Charter Schools' grassroots effort here.

What Nobody Talks About With Blended Learning

Blended learning, or using an online curriculum with face-to-face teacher contact, isn't talked about much in Colorado because state law doesn't allow for blended learning schools. Sure, schools could offer the blended learning model, but they wouldn't get paid for those students. Well let me clarify with a caveat: district-operated public schools can offer a blended learning model, but not charter schools.

Districts can use a blended model because they have more flexibility in how those students are counted. They could, for purposes of the funding paperwork, be brick and mortar (BAM) students with the online portion as supplemental. Or the students could be recognized as being fully online although they still come to a BAM school for a certain number of days each week.

Charter schools don't have that flexibility because they operate under contract with the district authorizer and have only a finite number of students. In other words, there's less places to hide students.

State policy was created (as much state policy is), in reaction to various situations that happened rather than sitting back and asking what was best for the individual student. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a blended model is better for most students. Whether students are young, high risk or simply extremely social, having the interaction of an adult to explain difficult lessons and help them stay committed to the task of independent learning is always a good thing.

So rather than acknowledge the benefits of blended learning, Colorado state policy provides for "learning centers." These are basically private schools that use an online curriculum. Online schools can also have "drop-in centers." Although this isn't defined in statute, it means that online schools have a physical location where students can come for additional assistance. There are even students who are "strongly encouraged" to come to the drop-in center on a regular basis for additional help. But they cannot be "required" to come to the center at a specific time or for a specific length of time. It's all in how it's worded for the student and a "wink-wink" from the teacher.

One of the best things about blended learning also makes it the most confusing. That's because there is no clear definition of what it is. It's a significant variety of models along a paradigm from fully online to fully BAM. But that's why it's so ideal: it meets the individual needs of students in a variety of ways.

It's certain that this year's General Assembly will be talking about online learning. If they were really interested in doing what's best for students, they'd be talking about how to provide for blended learning.

Get Involved in School Board Elections

The odd numbered years is when Colorado residents have the opportunity to vote for their school district's board members. Throughout the state many candidates are running for school board. Now is the time to talk to them about their position on school choice and charter school issues. There are more than 170 charter schools operating in Colorado, which means many of these candidates have at least one charter school in their district.

For more information on how to get involved, check out the Colorado Charter Advocacy Network.

HB 1412 Committee Releases Final Report

The advisory committee established by HB 10-1412 to make recommendations for charter school and charter school authorizer standards released its final report. In addition to the standards, the committee recommends other policy changes related to Education Service Providers (ESPs), the definition of "online program," blended learning, charter school waivers, and charter school accountability.

The 13 member committee worked for for ten months and held public hearings on online education, Education Service Providers and non-discrimination issues. The final report was completed with consensus from the committee.

The State Board of Education will adopt rules for charter school authorizer and charter school standards by January 15, 2012. The State Board will also determine the direction for the other recommendations in the report.

At the Sept. 14th regular State Board meeting, members of the HB 1412 committee will present the report to the board. The board received a copy of the report this week and Commissioner Hammond gave a brief update to the board at today's meeting.

HB 1412 Committee Wraps Up Its Work

The HB 1412 committee to recommend charter school and charter school authorizer standards wrapped up its work today by holding a public comment session and finalizing its draft report. Minor changes were made to the draft that had been widely circulated for public comment.

The final report now gets professionally formatted and then provided to the House and Senate Education committee members and the State Board of Education members by the August 1 deadline established in the legislation that created the committee.

The State Board is required to adopt rules for these charter school and charter school authorizer standards. For the authorizer standards, the committee adopted by reference the National Association of Charter School Authorizer (NACSA) standards. The committee recommended standards for charter schools in regard to executive compensation, nondiscrimination and conflicts of interest plus recognized processes already in place such as the Charter School Support Initiative process for school reform.

Administrator's Get Legislative Update from League of Charter Schools

Today at the Administrator's Mentoring Cohort (AMC) meeting, Vinny Badolato, from the League of Charter Schools, gave the following legislative update.

1. Win: HB 1089: Collaboratives. Allows charter schools to seek competitive grants within ESEA.

2. SB 188: Moral obligation program. Charter schools go through the State Treasurer’s office to get better bond financing ratings. The bill would have increased the $400 million cap, but that was removed. The bill removes application fees to enter the program. The manager will be the Treasurer’s office. In case of a default, the Treasurer will consult with a team of impacted entities to determine how to handle the potential default.

3. Loss: HB 1055: Improve charter school access to facilities. Passed the House, assigned to Senate State Affairs where it died. Will be reconsidered for next year.

4. HB 1277: Massey’s omnibus bill. Removes unnecessary reporting requirements including

a. Access to data. Designed to eliminate district’s not providing data to their charter schools in a timely manner.

b. Additional criteria for high risk student definition. Adds “over age and under credit” to the definition. This definition is used to define Alternative Education Campuses (AECs)

c. Grant collaborative. The State Board would be able to promulgate rules to allow collaboratives to be designated as the LEA.

d. School Food Authority. Adds charter schools to the entities permitted to be School Food Authorities. Currently charter schools must access the program through one lead school and that school carries all the liability. There are 18 charter schools under one SFA this year.

e. Online reporting requirements. Eliminates annual report to CDE, which has been replaced by requirements in the Financial Transparency Act and the Education Accountability Act.

5. Budget cuts. Cut proposed now is $22.5 million less. Plus a planned mid-year distribution if the June forecast is better. There will definitely be a cut in K-12 funding again next year.

6. New bill by Senator Keith King to be introduced next week. Proposes mill levy matching funds at a quarter of a percent (CVote). Requires districts to include charter schools if they run a mill levy ballot question.

HB 11-1089, Charter School Institute as LEA for Grants

For many federal grants, only an LEA, or Local Education Agency, can apply. LEAs are typically school districts. A new bill has just been introduced into the Colorado General Assembly that would permit the state Charter School Institute to act as an LEA for the purposes of applying for federal grants. The bill, HB 1089, sponsored by Rep. Conti and Sen. K King, was heard in House Ed on Monday afternoon.

The committee amended the bill to require charter schools to notify their school district if they intend to apply for a grant through CSI. The committee approved the amended bill on a 10-3 vote and sent it to the floor of the House for second reading.

Management Company Issues Discussed at Today's HB 1412 State Advisory Committee Meeting

Today the HB 1412 State Advisory Committee for quality standards for charter schools and charter school authorizers met at the Colorado Association of School Boards meeting room. The morning began with representatives from the charter school management company community providing public testimony and participating in a general discussion about key issues.

EMOs, or education management organizations, are generally for-profit. CMOs, or Charter Management Companies, are generally nonprofit and include schools that replicate, oftentimes under a single governing board. The discussion included both types of management companies.

Since Colorado has more grassroots startup charter schools and fewer management company operated schools than other states, there has been some negative perceptions created over the years. Many of those issues were raised today with very little consensus, if any, on what could be done to mitigate the misperceptions in the future.

Some of the issues were:

* How to prevent a charter school from getting into a contract with a management company that has a "poison pill" that makes it nearly impossible to "fire" the management company and still maintain a charter school.

* Which entity should hold the assets?

* Both the charter school governing board and the management company should have separate legal counsel and negotiate an "arms length" agreement.

* There needs to be more training information available for new charter school boards and charter school authorizers so that people are aware of what needs to be discussed because oftentimes people don't even know what questions to ask.

* Relationships are important and not just for the charter school and the management company, but also the authorizer and the management company.

* A certain level of academic achievement is required by the charter school contract and it implies that the management company is responsible for producing a certain level of academic results or else it's the company's responsibility to make necessary changes.

* Transparency is vital, especially as it relates to financial arrangements.

The next committee meeting will be on Feb. 2nd and there will be a public hearing on online education issues. Today's committee also established a timeline for its work, which primarily is a report to the legislature with recommended legislation or state board of education rule changes. The committee report will also outline a proposed implementation plan for the recommendations.

State Advisory Committee Considers LEA Status for CSI Charter Schools

The SB 111 advisory committee met for the last time today before providing the General Assembly with a report next month containing recommendations related to Charter School Institute (CSI) schools becoming their own Local Education Agency (LEA) for purposes of either Special Education funding (IDEA, Part B) or entitlement programs (No Child Left Behind).

The committee decided to recommend that CSI schools at least be given the opportunity to ask the CSI board to do their own Special Education services, but only after demonstrating they have the capacity to do it. This will probably be via contracting with a Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES) in a manner comparable to small school districts in the state. The agreement with a BOCES would need to transfer liability from CSI to the individual charter school in order for it to be approved.

In regard to entitlement programs, the committee agreed that managing the federal programs would probably be a greater burden than it would be worth. Individual charter schools would need to be substantially familiar with numerous federal requirements and the amount of money received from most of the programs would be a marginal amount. The additional burden on CSI charter schools would be prohibitive in comparison to the benefits.

Patricia Hayes, chair of the SB 111 committee, distributed an initial draft of the committee report and the recommendations were each discussed. The committee did a great deal of research and had lots of discussion on the specific issues. Two of the largest CSI schools were a part of the discussion and expressed concern about the burden associated with the federal programs.

Statute requires the report to be delivered to the House and Senate Education Committees by January 15th.

Annual Finance Seminar

On Friday more than 150 people attended the annual Finance Seminar hosted by CDE at the Adams 12 Training Center in Thornton. The morning plenary session featured panelists Sen. Keith King and State Board of Education member Randy DeHoff. Moderator Vinny Badolato from the League of Charter Schools asked questions about the future reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Randy DeHoff said he didn't think there would be many competitive grant programs in the next ESEA due to the controversy surrounding Race to the Top this year. Both panelists talked about the two assessment consortia in the country and funded through federal grants. Colorado is a partner in both consortia. Only one of the consortia has a writing component planned.

The afternoon plenary session featured Vinny Badolato; Russ Caldwell, DA Davidson; John Griego, Colo Springs 11; and Sen. Keith King, administrator of Colorado Springs Early College. Each of the panelists talked about what they thought would be in the next legislative session impacting charter schools. Russ Caldwell said he thought the moral obligation pool in the State Treasurer's office should be increased. Keith King talked about the formula used to project the School Finance Act and the specific figures used for next year. The Governor's office is projecting a slower economic recovery than was originally expected and so next year's School Finance Act will probably contain at least a 6.35% rescission, which is currently expected.