Charter School Appeals in Colorado

I've been going through the list of charter school appeals to the State Board of Education and came across some interesting findings.

First, Denver Public Schools (DPS) has the most appeal cases with 19. To put that into context, Jeffco has 17, Aurora seven, and Adams 12 five. This is out of 132 appeal cases.

Second, there were two years, 1994 and 2006, when there were the highest number of appeals: 14. The high number of appeal hearings in 1994 makes sense because that's the first year the Charter Schools Act was in effect and there were numerous charter school applications that year. The high number in 2006 is harder to explain. It was the year after the Legislature adopted the Charter School Institute Act, which created the state's alternative authorizer. However, probably the most noteworthy piece in the data is that the number of appeal hearings dropped precipitously after that so that in 2008 there were only three hearings and in 2009 only one. This can easily be explained by the state's development of the standard application and model contract language. Both of these documents, for the first time, explained what was acceptable practice for charter school applications and charter contracts.

Another interesting point is the number of charter schools that never open even after a successful appeal to the State Board. The vast majority of appeal hearings are from brand new charter applicants; however, the law also allows an existing charter school to appeal "gross imposition of conditions" or issues with which the two parties disagree. Further, the vast majority of appeals are only heard once by the State Board. Even if the charter school wins a remand, most of the time the parties settle their differences and it doesn't go to the State Board for a second appeal. But when there is a second appeal and the State Board orders a local district to open a charter school, only a small number of those schools actually open.

It's also interesting to note that in 1994 there were more appeal hearings than charter schools that were approved to open. There were 14 appeals, but only 11 charter schools opened. Again in 1995, when there were 10 appeals, only 10 charter schools opened. In the early years of the Charter Schools Act, there was a high number of appeals and not many schools opening. But the law was also under pilot status until 1998 when the sunset provision was lifted.

This year there have been four charter school appeal hearings and none others scheduled for hearing at this time. Of the four, three of the cases are from Denver. The State Board ruled in favor of Northeast Academy and Monarch Montessori in February. However, the March hearing of Life Skills High School went in favor of the district on a 4-3 vote.

The appeal provision of the Charter Schools Act is one of the tenets that makes Colorado's law rank strong on national studies of charter school laws. It allows any applicant that has been denied, to bring their case to the State Board of Education for a quasi-judicial proceeding. In Colorado, the State Board has historically ruled with the district about half of the time and with the charter school half the time.

DPS Gives Green Light to Two Charter Schools After Appeals to the State Board

The Denver Public Schools (DPS) Board of Education voted 4-3 to let Monarch Montessori open this fall after every board member expressed their distaste for the State Board of Education ruling against them at the February charter school appeal hearings. The board met in Executive Session for almost an hour before coming out and receiving public comment on the appeal remands and then voting.

Monarch Montessori plans to open K-2 in the old Samsonite building along I-70 in northeast Denver. The school is already open as a preschool and will add a grade level until they serve grades K-5.

The DPS board also approved Northeast Academy to operate as a K-5 next year, this after an appeal to the State Board when the DPS board voted to take away K and 6th grade for the 2012-2013 school year. The Superintendent said earlier in the day that his board would be voting to close Northeast Academy entirely and the charter school responded with a counter proposal.

Northeast Academy was deemed a Turnaround school in 2009 after several years of poor test scores. They operated under a management company for the 2010-2011 school year and test scores fell even further. In May 2011 the governing board hired Jere Pearcy, with a strong Core Knowledge background to lead the school. While significant changes have been made at the school this year, the DPS board continued to express doubt that the school could improve. Northeast Academy faces renewal in the fall.

Life Skills of Denver Loses Appeal to State

Yesterday the State Board of Education on a split vote, 4-3, decided to affirm the Denver Public Schools' refusal to renew the contract for Life Skills of Denver. Life Skills serves 100% at-risk students qualifying for an Alternative Education Campus (AEC) designation. There are 160 students in Life Skills at present and the average student has attended 5 other schools before choosing Life Skills.

Life Skills also appealed a DPS decision to close them back in 2007. At that time, the State Board voted to remand the decision and DPS allowed the charter school to remain open. Numerous changes were made at the school, including a wide array of wrap-around services for students, many of whom were over age and under credit.

At yesterday's hearing the primary point of disagreement was whether or not Life Skills' contract required them to make "reasonable progress" or, as Supt. Tom Boasgberg asserted the contract stated if they committed a material breach of ANY provision the contract could be terminated. The Life Skills contract had 12 provisions in the contract and the school contended they made 9 of those provisions. Legal counsel for the State Board, Nick Stancil, responded to a question from Board member Paul Lundeen by pointing out that "makes reasonable progress" is language in the Charter Schools Act, and in the Life Skills contract. He disagreed with the claim that any breech of contract provisions was enough reason to revoke a charter school, however.

Students, teachers and family members attending the hearing were visibly upset with the Board's decision. The school, operated by White Hat Management out of Ohio, has not decided their initial next steps.

Monarch Montessori Wins Appeal

The founders of Monarch Montessori won their appeal before the State Board of Education on a 6 to 1 vote. Only Elaine Gantz Berman, from Denver, voted against the charter school. Monarch Montessori applied for a charter from Denver Public Schools and were denied.

Monarch Montessori is also a private preschool that's been in operation for two years. Now they want to add an elementary school as a charter school. Some of the issues of the appeal were if they would be able to operate a private preschool in conjunction with the charter school. Legal counsel assured the State Board that all the details had been worked out.

This case was argued by Denver Public Schools (DPS) by the head of the Office of School Reform and Innovation (OSRI) Alyssa Whitehead-Bust. Supt. Tom Boasberg also spent a considerable amount of time at the microphone responding to questions. Both Tom and Alyssa said the Monarch Montessori application was deficient, but weren't able to provide specific examples. State Board Chairman Bob Schaffer said that the application was required to provide a description of, for example, their governance, but not a particular type of governance model. Schaffer asserted that the district had gone outside of their statutory responsibilities in having a higher standard for charter school applications.

In addition to the two charter appeal hearings in February, another DPS charter school is bringing an appeal to the March State Board meeting. Life Skills was not renewed by the DPS board and is appealing that decision.

State Board Hears Northeast Academy Charter School Appeal

Citing that Denver Public Schools (DPS) didn't have the authority to take away Kindergarten and sixth grade during the 2012-13 school year, Northeast Academy Charter School (NACS) appealed to the State Board of Education yesterday. The board backed the charter school on a 4-3 vote.

DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg took the unusual position of arguing the district's case before the State Board. He spent a good deal of time touting the accolades of the 83,000 student district, about 10,000 of which are in public charter schools.

DPS entered into a three-year contract with NACS in 2010 and the charter school asserted that imposing the condition that the two grade levels be eliminated was tantamount to unilaterally changing the contract. DPS cited that the charter school has never performed well since it opened in 2004. The NACS attorney, Barry Arrington, stated that the 2010 turnaround contract with the charter school, in essence, wiped the prior slate clean because the district acknowledged the school needed to improve and agreed to a three-year period to improve.

Chairman Bob Schaffer said he didn't understand the district's logic in eliminating only two specific grade levels. He stated that the district, if it were true to that argument, would need to close the school. Supt. Boasberg did call the plan a "phased closure."

George Sanker, who led the turnaround effort from January 2010 to May 2011 testified at the hearing that DPS wasn't clear on if the school were in transformation or turnaround and therefore made the improvement process extremely difficult for the charter school's leaders. Further, while other district schools in similar situations were given significant funding for improvement, NACS did not receive a comparable level of funds.

In the end, the State Board backed the charter school along a party line vote. Board members stated they believed the charter school had made their case that the three-year contracted needed to be honored. Before walking out of the hearing room before it was adjourned, Supt. Boasberg gave the NACS Principal a veiled threat about the school's future, implying that he would see that the school closed.

DPS now has 30 days to make a decision on the State Board's remand order. If the charter school disagrees with that decision, they can appeal to the State Board for a second time. At a second hearing, the State Board's directive is mandatory.

Why Charter Schools Close in Colorado

Eddie wants to know more about charter school closures in Colorado after writing about a report from the Center for Education Reform (CER) about charter school closures. According to the report, about 15% of public charter schools have closed for a variety of reasons.

The CER report says that most charter school closures are within the first five years of existence. This brings up a number of issues:

1. Should the charter school application have been approved in the first place? Was there a solid plan in place that was led by competent individuals?

2. Was the educational model based on success in other schools or was it an experiment in process?

3. Did the school's financial situation cause failure?

Sometimes charter school authorizers approve a new charter school application for all the wrong reasons. It could be political pressure or simply wanting to give the applicant a chance. Whatever the motivation, there are two key issues to consider and that is 1) is the plan a good plan? and 2) are the founders capable of carrying off the plan?

This is why the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) recommends interviewing the founders to ensure they have the capacity to start a new charter school. This includes both the passion to put in the daunting hours and the expertise to either know, or be willing to learn, what's required. Many capable parents have started charter schools in Colorado, but that doesn't mean anyone can do it. It takes a very high level of commitment and often the rewards are minimal.

The second key consideration in why charter schools fail is their educational program design. One of the most common mistakes is designing an educational program that doesn't match the needs of the students the school ultimately serves. Many founders have over-estimated what their students will be able to do upon entry and were overwhelmed with the amount of remediation that was required in order to accomplish the curriculum. Almost every new charter school teacher has been faced with the dilemma of what level to teach to and how to deal with the myriad of ability levels within a grade level classroom. Charter school authorizers need to ensure the applicant's plan is solid and covers all ability levels. Especially in the early years, the wide variety of needs is the most taxing on a charter school staff.

Third, the "death spiral" can hit a charter school at any time. This comes when enrollment slips about 10-20 students causing cut-backs in the budget and probably less programming and fewer teachers. The following year it's a little worse and at some point, either the authorizer or the charter school leaders say it's time to close the school. This is often attributed to being a financial cause for school closure, but it's more than just financial reasons. Finances and enrollment are very closely tied together since schools are funded on a per student amount.

In Colorado, 27 charter schools have closed to date. Of those, 16 have closed for financial/enrollment reasons. A handful (including Clayton, Ute Creek, and Sojourner) closed voluntarily. In other words, their governing board made the decision to close. Most are forced closures. Colorado Visionary Academy and Colorado Distance and Electronic Learning Academy are two examples of charter schools that closed after unsuccessful appeals to the State Board of Education.

Closing a school is never easy. Over the years, I've personally wrestled with when a charter school should close because I agree with the philosophy that a public school (regardless if it's a charter school or district-operated school) should close if it isn't serving students well. I've seen schools like Life Skills Center of Denver change dramatically with a little assistance. And I've watched Northeast Academy in Denver undergo major changes since it was identified in Turnaround Status.

From years of wrestling with these issues of what factors indicate a charter school should close, I've taken away two essential questions: 1) who carries the heart of the school? and 2) do they have the capacity to make the needed changes? Detailing that is a blog post in itself!

Getting back to charter school closures in Colorado, charter school contracts must be at least five years in order to see if the data supports a new charter school's closure. Many charter schools struggle in the formative years as they remediate students and coalesce around a new staff. There should be at least three consecutive years of data examined before a decision to close is made. Further, there must be a fair and transparent process. Authorizers need to have frank and honest discussions and document the process and discussions in order to ensure that everyone is effectively communicating. Annual Performance Reviews (APRs) are an "annual report" and an ideal place to document lack of academic progress.

Charter school closures need to happen in order for the charter school philosophy that "a charter school should only remain open if it's serving students well and able to operate in a fiscally sound manner" can play out.

Management Companies and the State Board of Education

You'll notice that I've always been objective in writing about charter school appeal hearings before the State Board of Education when I was an employee of CDE. Now that I'm no longer an employee, I feel compelled to write about the appeal hearing heard by the State Board earlier this month.

Disclosure: I have organized a company, Charter School Solutions, LLC, with Brad Miller, the Falcon School District attorney and Dave Martin, the former Board President of the Falcon 49 School Board. I did not participate in the appeal case, however; Brad has his own law practice.

I was at both appeal hearings. The first appeal hearing was largely about management company issues, specifically:

• has the charter school governing board done due diligence in selecting a management company based on their merits;
• does the charter school board have their own legal counsel, separate from the management company's legal counsel;
• are there any "poisonous pills" in the management agreement, for example a provision that the board is left with a "charter in name only" if the two parties separated; and
• does the charter board have say in the selection, evaluation or termination of the principal.

The second appeal wasn't heard within the statutory timeline as both parties agreed to waive the deadlines. The Falcon board didn't ever hold a public hearing and vote on the State Board's remand order because they contended there was never a party to negotiate with, meaning the charter school board wasn't credible since they didn't have their own legal counsel and were still operating under the auspices of Imagine, Inc.

I thought Ed News' Todd Engdahl, who was also at the hearing, had a shallow understanding of the dynamics of what transpired during the appeal hearing. In his article, he wondered why the Falcon school board was taking issue with Imagine, Inc. when they already had one Imagine charter school in the district and had previously approved Pioneer Imagine. What changed within that time period?

Everything! Colorado now has a Standard Application, Checklist for Completeness and Review Rubric and Sample Contract Language, both documents shed a wealth of information on management company issues that weren't available even two years ago. In particular, the sample contract language publication has an "ESP Guidelines" (Education Service Provider, the generic term for all management companies) that details what should, and should not, be in management company contracts with the charter school board. Both of these documents were created through a collaboration of the state Charter School Institute, Colorado League of Charter Schools and the Colorado Department of Education.

The world of charter schools is ever-evolving. Another important factor in the case was that the charter school board wanted to also govern the new school, Pioneer Imagine. Since they're also the governing board for Imagine Classical at Indigo Ranch (the other Imagine charter school in Falcon) the plan was to govern both simultaneously.

A number of charter school governing boards in the state have multiple charters: Denver School of Science and Technology, West Denver Prep, SOAR, KIPP, James Irwin Charter Schools, Jefferson Academy Charter Schools, and Compass Montessori, just to name a few. But during the Pioneer Imagine appeal hearing, State Board member Elaine Berman said she'd never heard of a charter school board overseeing more than one charter. Interesting question, given that Denver (her district) has numerous situations where a single governing board oversees multiple charters. Moreover, having multiple charters has become increasingly common because school district authorizers can approve a "known commodity" when they know the educational program and the charter school's leaders.

Colorado is truly in a different place in regard to charter schools. Two years ago the state was dealing with the Cesar Chavez Academy fiasco and the charter school community responded with improving its own systems. Now charter school authorizers routinely ask for information about management companies in charter school applications. Because this application component was absent in the statute, many districts had to go back and ask for information or simply do without, in making a decision on the charter school application. Now authorizers are encouraged to fully research the company's financial standing, operations and academic accomplishments before a charter school application is approved. Further, the Sample Contract Language and ESP Guidelines stipulate that the authorizer needs to approve of the management company's performance agreement before the charter contract is executed and that the provisions must be in alignment with the state-recommended ESP provisions.

Yes, Colorado is in a different place now that we have state-level model documents that establish a standard for what is acceptable in charter school applications and contracts. Since these documents were created through a variety of expertise and representing a variety of interests, it's time the State Board translates these new standards to their appeal hearing decision-making.

What is Quality Authorizing?

The State Board of Education has been considering what makes a quality charter school authorizer in their consideration of principles and standards for authorizers in state board rule. It's probably safe to say that everyone agrees that charter schools can be better if they're in an environment that allows them to flourish rather than a contentious environment where the charter school is continually fighting for autonomy.

It's also probably safe to assume that everyone agrees it's appropriate to set a high bar for charter school performance and expect student academic achievement to be the top priority for evaluating charter school performance.

But when does that high bar go too far? And is having those high expectations realistic if it impacts students who are being served better than if they were in district-operated schools? It's not fair to look at what is quality authorizing without also looking at what is NOT quality. Too much of a "good" thing isn't always a good thing!

And now that the State Board of Education is considering the adoption of rules regarding charter school authorizing, who decides if an authorizer is being fair or not? It's easy to know there are going to be differing opinions about what is "quality."

The state rules under consideration don't come with a regulator. There isn't going to be anyone going around and evaluating authorizers. It's up to each authorizer to rate themselves on the new standards and principles and make their own case.

What can charter schools do to improve their situation in light of these authorizer standards? First, engage in discussion with the authorizer. Using the standards, discuss each one and talk about what is the evidence that the authorizer is, or is not, demonstrating quality. Talk about what "quality" means in these discussions. Second, use this platform to improve practices. If, through discussion, both the authorizer and the charter school leader decide transparency is a key to quality, then the charter school leader should show a good faith effort by being more transparent and engaging in more communication. Sometimes that can be accomplished simply by copying the authorizer on an email.

What should charter school authorizers do with these new standards? Take an honest look at how practices -- and people -- in the district send a message to the district's charter schools. Sometimes the entire environment can change simply by a focus on professionalism (rather than contention) and the demeanor of the staff member that communicates with the schools. Most contentious environments could be alleviated with a few simple changes. That's not to say that everyone will agree on how situations should be handled, but there isn't any need to be deceptive, retaliatory or just plain mean -- ever!

Throughout the state, these new charter school authorizer standards should drive meaningful discussions about the role of authorizers in the charter school environment. Historically, several school districts in Colorado haven't really understood what proper oversight and monitoring included. These standards will drive discussions that are likely to change things dramatically. But everyone involved should keep in mind that decisions should be made based on the needs of students, not adults!

State Board Begins Process to Adopt Charter School Rules

Next Wednesday, Sept. 14th at 10:30 the State Board of Education will hear a report on the state evaluation of online schools and the final report from the HB 10-1412 advisory committee on charter school authorizer and charter school standards. The presentation begins the process for the State Board to act on the 1412 recommendations.

The meeting is audio streamed and available here.

In October the board will consider the first draft of rules and HB 1412 mandates they must be adopted by January 15, 2012.

There will be a meeting at the Department of Education on Monday, Sept. 26th, 9:00 a.m. for anyone with comments or questions about the proposed rules.

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.

Kristin Kipp Honored by State Board of Ed

Kristin Kipp, Online Teacher of the Year for both Colorado and nationally, was recognized by the State Board of Education at this morning's meeting. Left to right in the photo: Commissioner Robert Hammond; Kristin Kipp; Judy Baurenschmidt, Principal of Jeffco Online and Elaine Gantz Berman, State Board of Education, District 1.

National Online Teacher of the Year From Colorado

Kristin Kipp was recognized by the State Board of Education last year for being one of two Colorado Online Teacher of the Year. Now the 21st Century Virtual Academy (Jeffco) teacher is the National Online Teacher of the Year and will be recognized by the State Board again next Wednesday at their monthly meeting.

Kristin Kipp recently spent a day at the U.S. Department of Education shadowing the Director of the office of Educational Technology. In her blog, she talks about the unique discussions she was a part of during her day at ED. For example, "teacher heavy" programs that rely more heavily upon the teacher's role over the technology-based curriculum.

Congratulations to Kristin Kipp!

Robert Hammond Named Sole Finalist for Commissioner of Education

This afternoon in a unanimous vote, the Colorado Board of Education voted to name acting-Commissioner, Robert Hammond, as the sole finalist for the Commissioner's position. Hammond has been acting as Commissioner since December 2010 when former Commissioner Dwight Jones left to be the Superintendent for the Las Vegas School District.

Hammond has been at the CO Dept of Education for three years where he served as Deputy Commissioner before being named the Acting Commissioner. According to statutes regulating the hiring of public officials, the State Board is expected to name Hammond as Commissioner when it meets next Wednesday for its regular monthly meeting.

Parents Deserve to Know

The State Board of Education has adopted new rules that will require school districts to notify parents when an employee is charged with a felony or a misdemeanor sex crime. The board has been considering this change for quite some time. Chairman Bob Schaffer, Fort Collins, noted the Poudre School District failed to inform parents when two former employees were arrested for crimes involving children. The new rules also cover any adult who transports students when arrested for a DUI.

YAFA Wins Remand from State Board

The Youth and Family Academy (YAFA), of Pueblo, won an appeal heard by the State Board of Education this afternoon. The decision remands the matter back to the Pueblo 60 School District for further consideration. The vote was 6-1 with Elaine Berman being the sole dissenter.

Much of the debate centered on the charter school's contention that their growth data showed them doing as well or better than the other 60 Alternative Education Campuses (AECs) in the state. The school, which has been open since 1996 has consistently scored at the very bottom of achievement measures throughout its history. The related concern about student attendance was another area receiving a fair amount of discussion. The district stated the charter school doesn't send any students to truancy hearings even though the service provided by the district, doesn't have any cost for the school.

The board's discussion after both sides presented their cases was about there being an alternative that was a credible place for the students to attend if it weren't for the charter school. Currently the district has an administrator at the charter school and the charter school is operating without a contract or waivers. The district stated they were prepared to take over the school and even pay rent to the charter school's leaders in order to continue to use the facility.

Lotus Loses Appeal to State Board

On a 6-1 vote, the State Board of Education upheld the district's decision to deny the Lotus School of Excellence-Longmont charter school application.

The Lotus board operates a school in the Aurora School District and planned to replicate its program in Longmont. The St. Vrain Valley School District denied the application due to concerns about conflicts of interest, comingling of funds, governance not being local, projected enrollment, facility issues, and it not being a unique choice within the district. The district hit hard on what it considered inappropriate financial transactions by the Lotus board in Aurora, which was that board members secured personal loans to cover facility costs. Loans from two former board members are still outstanding.

The charter school developers explained their intentions for board governance that included parent representation on the board and a School Accountability Committee at each location.

After little discussion the State Board voted for a motion brought by Marcia Neal to uphold the local school district. State Board Chair, Bob Schaffer, was the lone nay vote for the motion. Both Paul Lundeen and Marcia Neal expressed their desire to support charter schools, but were uncomfortable in supporting this particular charter school given concerns that had been raised during the hearing.

Bob Schaffer Addresses Charter School Conference

State Board of Education chair, Bob Schaffer, addressed the League of Charter Schools' 17th annual conference. In his remarks, Mr. Schaffer spoke about the struggles he and his wife, Maureen, encountered with enrolling their own children in public school before helping to start Liberty Common School.

Mr. Schaffer also told about the origins of the charter school movement in the state, when he was a State Senator. In 1992 Rep. John J. Irwin, of Loveland, introduced a charter school bill that died in the House. The following year, in 1993, then-State Senator Bill Owens (R-Aurora) introduced the Charter School Act, which was co-sponsored by Rep. Peggy Kerns (D-Denver). The bill ultimately passed by a narrow margin in the Senate and went on to be signed by then-Gov. Roy Romer. Mr. Schaffer reminded everyone that initially charter schools were viewed as an experiment and that only 50 charter schools were permitted in the first legislation. In 1998 when the sunset provision was lifted, the cap on the number of charter school was lifted.

Mr. Schaffer also spoke about proposed budget cuts for K-12 public education. He said that because of charter schools having control over their own budgets, their nimbleness and flexibility to respond to budget cuts will afford charter schools a better opportunity for creativity. He noted that the State Board of Education grants waivers to public schools, in addition to charter schools, and suggested that more districts may look at the waiver process as a way to handle drastic budget cuts. Schaffer noted that the Governor's proposed budget cuts meant about $470 per student in the Poudre School District, where he's the Principal of a charter school.

Schaffer also talked about national assessments and their impact on public school choice, especially in regard to academics. He noted that standards drive assessments and then those assessments can become the only measure to determine if a charter school is successful. Instead, Schaffer said that the success of a charter school should be determined by the cash flow generated because parents choose the school for their children.

Loveland Classical Schools Supported by State Board of Ed

In a 6-1 vote, the State Board of Education voted to remand the Loveland Classical School charter school appeal back to the Thompson School District for further consideration.

Thompson has only one charter school -- New Vision Charter School - and it also had to appeal before being approved by the local district. The district has less than 2% of its students enrolled in the charter school. The state average is 8.97%.

The district used the new charter school application review rubric and pointed out deficiencies in the application based on that review. Attorney for the charter school, Barry Arrington, pointed out that no charter school application is perfect and with a 1,000 page application, the charter applicants had certainly provided everything necessary to be approved to open a new charter school.

A couple of State Board members raised concerns about the short timeline in which to open a new school and Chairman Bob Schaffer pointed out that Liberty Common School in Fort Collins (which he helped start) was approved in June and opened two and a half months later. He also noted that most of the charter school either have just as short a timeline, or even shorter.

Loveland Classical School plans to open with grades K-11 in the fall. They already have almost 1,000 students already expressing an interest in attending.

Charter School Appeal History in Colorado

It's widely believed throughout the state that "the State Board of Education always supports charter schools" in appeal hearings. The facts say different. Of the 155 appeal cases that have been filed, 100 have been heard. Of those 100 hearings, the State Board backed the district 57 times on first appeal. The other 43 times the State Board remanded the matter back for further reconsideration, thereby supporting the charter school applicants.

Supporting the school district the majority of the time was also true in the early years of charter schools in Colorado. Before 2000 there were 53 charter appeal hearings and 32 times the State Board supported the district's decision to deny the charter application.

From 2004 to 2007 there were 44 appeal hearings filed. It was during this period that the State Board members began searching for another way to conduct appeal hearings. Members Randy DeHoff and Karen Middleton convened a couple of meetings to discuss alternatives which included expert reviewers, a rubric for reviewing charter applications and as different type of hearing process.

This discussion led to the creation of the standard charter school application, checklist for completion and review rubric in 2008 and then charter school appeal hearings dropped dramatically. In 2007 there were 10 appeal hearings and that dropped to one in 2008 and none in 2009.

The development of the standard applcation by the CDE, Colorado League of Charter Schools and the Charter School Institute was revolutionary in that it was the first time the "three C's" collaborated on a project. And it was only the beginning.

Following the standard application, charter school authorizers asked for sample contract language. That was developed in 2009 and just recently revised. The sample contract has something for everyone to love or hate. Some of the provisions are tougher than districts currently use. The contract delineates the responsibilities of both the charter school and the charter school authorizer; a first for many Colorado charter school authorizers to consider.

There has been eleven times that the State Board of Education ordered a district to open a charter school. However, that has only resulted in one charter school actually opening (Imagine Charter School at Firestone).

The first time the State Board took this type of action, the case was taken to the state Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall Charter Middle School was proposed by an African-American teacher in Denver -- Cordia Booth. The Supreme Court ruling declared that while the State Board did have authority to order a district to open a charter school, it could not dictate the provisions of the contract.

When the Charter Schools Act was adopted in 1993 it was a pilot program with a sunset of 1998. When the sunset provision was lifted, almost half of the charter schools in the state were open due to the appeal process.