colorado charter facilities report 2008

8/6/2019 Colorado Charter Facilities Report 2008

1/16

The Colorado League of Charter School s 2008

The Colorado League of Charter Schools

Shortchanged charterS:

howFunding diSparitieS

hurt coloradoS charterSchoolS

april 2008


2/16


The Colorado League of Charter SchooLSis excited to be publishing the

attached report entitled Shortchanged Charters: How Funding Disparities Hurt Colorados Charter

Schools about the state o charter school acilities in Colorado.

This past summer the League launched its Facilities 2010 Initiative to develop a long-term blueprint

or charter school acilities in our state. In order to ensure that the policy recommendations o

this eort were research-based and supported by reliable data, the League contracted with Hutton

Architecture Studio to undertake the nations most comprehensive assessment o a states charter

school acilities. The ollowing report is based on survey data collected during the 2007-08

school year.

Key fndings include:

Charter schools are orced to spend operating unds on their acilities.

On average, charter schools in Colorado spend $480 per student rom designated

per-pupil operating revenue on acilities costs. For a school o 400, that translates

into $192,000, enough or at least our additional teachers.

Every year tens o thousands o Colorado students are denied a seat in a charter

school because o a lack o available space.

An estimated 41,000 students are on waiting lists to get into Colorado charter

schools. A majority (55 percent) o charters would like to serve additional students

but since most o these schools (79 percent) do not have sucient space, thousands

o children each year do not have this opportunity.


3/16

2008

Mostcharterschoolshavelimitedcapacitytoservefederally-subsidizedmealsfor

studentsfromlower-incomefamilies.

Only 28 percent o charter schools have kitchen acilities that qualiy them to provide

ederally-subsidized ree and reduced-price meals or students rom lower-income

amilies, putting many charter schools at a disadvantage when trying to meet the

needs o these students.

Charterschoolfacilitiesaretoosmall.

More than 71 percent o charter school students in Colorado spend their days in class-

rooms smaller than local standards or new public school classroom space. About

80 percent o charter school students are in acilities where the total square ootage

per pupil is smaller than national and local new school standards when adjusted or

school size.

Physicaleducationandrecreationaloptionsarelimitedforcharterschoolstudents.

More than a third (39 percent) o charter schools do not have a gym to hold regular

physical education classes and a ull third (33 percent) o charter schools do not have

a unctional athletic eld.

Stategrantfundingforpublicschoolfacilitieshasprovidedlittlebenet

or charters.

Only 5 out o 138 charter schools (4 percent) have received state unding or acilities

through grant programs.

Localbondelectionsarenotareliablesourceoffundingforcharterschoolfacilities.

Only 19 percent o charter schools have received bond proceeds through their

authorizing school district.


4/16


1

Table of Contents

Background ..............................................................................................................................................2

Key Findings:

Charter schools spend operating dollars on acilities ................................................................ ..3

Students are denied seats because o lack o space ..................................................................... ..4

Schools have limited capacity to serve meals to lower-income students ....................................5

Charter school acilities are too small .................................................................. .........................6

PE and recreation space is limited ............................................................. ....................................7

State grant unding has little benet to charter schools .............................................................. .8

Local bond elections are not a reliable unding source ...............................................................9

Appendices:

Methodology ................................................................................................................................10

School acility standards .................................................................. ............................................ 11


5/16


2

Background

CharterSchoolsinColorado

Colorados charter school statute became law in 1993 and the states rst charter schools opened

that same year. In response to parent and community demand, the numbers have grown to 1381

schools currently serving nearly 57,000 students (just over 7 percent o Colorados K-12 public

school enrollment). Charter schools operate in communities across the state, including urban, rural

and suburban areas. These schools are authorized by 48 dierent districts and the Colorado Charter

School Institute.

CharterSchoolFacilities

As with charter statutes across the country, Colorados law essentially puts the burden o obtaining

and paying or acilities on the charter schools themselves. As a result, schools have struggled to

nd suitable and aordable acilities. Charter schools routinely identiy acilities as their top

challenge in an annual charter school needs assessment conducted by the Colorado League o

Charter Schools.

Charter schools occupy all sorts o acilities a handul have access to surplus school district

buildings but the vast majority must venture into the commercial real estate market to nd make-

shit space. The typical progression or a charter school begins with leasing some sort o convertedcommercial space (supermarkets, oce space, or modular acilities) at considerable expense rom

operating costs. Ideally, ater a ew years, some schools are able to purchase or construct their own

buildings, oten consuming an even larger part o their operating expenses. Even then, charter

schools make many compromises like smaller acility size and ewer amenities.

In the summer o 2007 the Colorado League o Charter Schools launched its Facilities 2010 Task

Force, established to identiy prominent shortcomings in the current capital landscape and develop

a blueprint o public policy and private sector changes leading to a comprehensive, long-range

system o adequate public school acilities.

1Three charter schools operate exclusively on-line, bringing the total number o charter schools in Colorado to 141.


6/16


3

Key Findings

Charter schools are orced to spend operating unds on their acilities.

Charter schools are among the ew public schools in Colorado that spend per-pupil operating

revenue to cover the costs o their acilities. Since statehood, Colorados public school nance

system has relied on local property taxes to pay or public school acility needs. In recent years, the

shortcomings o that arrangement have been exposed. Numerous school districts across the state

with inadequate tax bases are sending their students to school in crumbling buildings. Both the

settlement o the Giardino lawsuit and proposed BEST legislation (House Bill 08-1335) address

the core problem by providing state unds where local property tax dollars are unavailable to pay

or acilities needs.

Similarly, the property tax base to support charter school acilities is inadequate and as a result,

charter schools across Colorado must spend operating dollars on their acilities needs. In many

cases, this results in a drop in the unding available or operating expenses to a level signicantly

below comparable district unding. And in some cases, charter schools are let with operating und-

ing that is, per student, lower than the state minimum per pupil operating revenue (PPOR).

On average, charter schools in Colorado spend $480 per student rom designated per-pupil

operating revenue (PPOR) on acilities costs.

For schools renting space that gure is $536.

However, or schools that have bought or built buildings they now own, the gure increases

to $650.

About a quarter (28 percent) o charter schools have access to school district buildings

or land. These schools have lower acilities expenditures than charter schools that rent or

pay debt service or acilities they own. These charters spend about $189 per student on

acilities.

In other words, charter schools are put into a position o spending less on their operations than

what the state denes as the minimum required to meet educational program needs.


7/16


4

Average state PPOR o $6369.Average charter schoolper-pupil expenditureor acilities o $480. Average PPOR

$6369

$480

Charter schools spend an average o $480 out o operating expenses or acilities.

Every year tens o thousands o Colorado students are denied a seat in a charter school

because o a lack o available space.

Every year tens o thousands o Colorado amilies pursue enrolling their children in charter schools,

but are denied enrollment because o a lack o space in charter school acilities. Unmet demandor charter schools is substantial an estimated 41,000 students are on waiting lists to get into

Colorado charter schools.

A majority (55 percent) o the schools surveyed would like to serve more children than they

currently can, but since most charter schools (79 percent) are limited by acilities constraints,

they cannot.

0

5000

5250

5500

5750

6000

6250

Average revenueor operating expenses

Per Pupil Operating Revenue

State average: $6369

State minimum: $5986

Charter schools average ateracilities expenditures: $5889


8/16


5

Mostcharterschoolshavelimitedcapacitytoservefederally-subsidizedmealsforstudentsfromlower-incomefamilies.

Caeteria acilities are commonly considered a given in public school buildings. In the world o

charter schools, however, kitchen acilities are a luxury. Because charter schools requently have to

nd existing acilities that can be converted into unctional educational space, or most schools, it is

dicult and costly, i not impossible, to renovate a space to include a suitable kitchen and caeteria

that meets ederal standards. Whether a charter school is building a new acility or renovating an

existing one, it is cost prohibitive to spend operating unds on a kitchen and caeteria that meets

appropriate standards.

The ederal government subsidizes the cost o providing school lunches to low and moderateincome amilies. However, in order or a school to qualiy to receive these subsidies, meals must be

prepared in a kitchen acility that meets ederal standards. Only 28 percent o charter schools have

kitchen acilities that meet those ederal standards. This puts many charter schools at a disadvantage

when trying to meet the needs o low-income amilies. Schools without adequate acilities are let

with limited options. Some oer ree and reduced lunches through district ood service programs

that prepare meals osite. Others purchase higher-priced meals or eligible students rom private

ood vendors and cover the dierence with operating unds, while some cannot oer meals to

eligible students.


9/16


6

Charterschoolfacilitiesaretoosmall.While Colorado has not identied standards or minimum square ootage per pupil or classrooms

or buildings, many Colorado school districts do have applicable standards (as do many states across

the country). When measured against any o the standards reviewed or this study, charter school

buildings and classrooms are considerably smaller. This is true even or charter schools that have

recently built new school buildings.

About 80 percent o charter school students are in acilities where the total square ootage

per pupil is smaller than local school district standards when adjusted or school size.

More than 71 percent o charter school students in Colorado spend their days in classroomssmaller than the applicable local school district standards.

Three quarters o charter school

studentsareinschoolssmallerthan

applicable district standards.


10/16


7

Physicaleducationandrecreationaloptionsarelimited.Physical education and opportunities to participate in sports, both in extracurricular activities and

during school time, are an important component o any students educational program. According

to the Presidents Council on Physical Fitness and Sports,Physical education in school provides

the best opportunity or a child to learn and develop lielong health and tness skills. Without

opportunities or school physical education, many children have no access to sae, supervised

physical activity o any kind.

However, gymnasiums dedicated to physical education and sae, unctional athletic elds are, or

many charter schools, an extravagance they must do without.

Only 61 percent o charter schools in

Colorado have a gym on-site or access to

a gym, and only 49 percent have a dedicated

gym rather than gym-lunchroom

combination.

Only 67 percent o charter schools have an

athletic eld. O those with athletic elds, 48

percent report that the eld is inadequate or

normal activities or is not covered by grass.


11/16


8

Stategrantfundingforpublicschoolfacilitieshasprovidedlittlebenetforcharters.In 1998, the state o Colorado reached a settlement with plaintis challenging Colorados school

nance laws who claimed that the existing system led to inadequate public school acilities in

mostly rural, poor school districts (commonly reerred to as the Giardino case). The settlement

agreement or that case, reached in 2000, established a unding stream to provide grants and loans

or capital improvements to public school acilities that is administered by the State Board o

Education.

Although charter schools are technically eligible or Giardino unding, only ve o the 30 charter

schools that have applied or unding actually received any unds. O the total unding awarded

under Colorado Department o Education acilities grants, only one percent has gone to charterschools.

Total unding awarded:$123,406,060

Charter school unding: $959,127(less than one percent)

ColoradoDepartmentofEducation

FacilitiesGrants


12/16


Localbondelectionsarenotareliablesourceoffundingforcharterschoolfacilities.Many local school districts are able to nance construction o new school acilities and renovations

o existing acilities through voter-approved bond nancing. These bonds have provided additional

tax revenue to help support local district acility and other capital needs. Voters have approved over

$2.73 billion in bonds in the last ve years or school district capital construction in Colorado

school districts with charter schools.

In the last ve years, some Colorado charter schools (19 percent) have beneted rom district bond

money, but most (81 percent) have not. O that 81 percent, approximately hal are in districts that

have had a bond election pass in the last ve years, and the other hal are in districts that have not

passed a bond election in the last ve years or are authorized by the Charter School Institute.

Conclusion

The results o the analysis o data provided by 64 charter schools across Colorado demonstrate what

schools have reported anecdotally or years. Current sources o unding or charter school acilities

and many o the acilities themselves are inadequate. Unlike most district schools, charter schools

are orced to spend a large portion o operating unding on acility costs.

And were charter schools to operate out o acilities that were comparable to district acilities in

terms o quality, space and resources, the loss o operating unds would be even greater.

As waiting lists continue to grow and as charter schools that operate in modular classrooms (almost

30 percent) seek more durable, long-term acilities, the need or a reliable revenue source or charter

school acilities will become even more serious.

9


13/16


Appendix A

Methodology

A critical rst step in our analysis o charter schools was to develop the best possible set o data and

inormation about charter school acilities and their needs.

To accomplish this, the League commissioned Hutton Architecture Studio. The rms lead architect,

Paul Hutton, has designed a variety schools and is known or his creative, cost eective and envi-

ronmentally conscious acilities. He has designed numerous new charter schools and charter school

additions. Mr. Hutton chose Wayne Eckerling and Allen Balczarek, who together have more than 60

years o experience in public school teaching and administration, to help him with the project.

Dr. Eckerling is a ormer assistant superintendent in the Denver Public Schools with responsibilities

or supervision o charter schools, planning and research. Mr. Balczarek was a planning and research

director or the Denver Public Schools with responsibilities or new school and program implemen-

tation. Both have experience with general obligation bond planning and implementation.

The questionnaire distributed to all charter schools in the state included more than 230 items.

Some items required multiple responses meaning that, or each charter school, more than 1500

pieces o inormation might be provided, depending primarily on school size. The questionnaire

addresses topics that include the ollowing:

Demographic inormation including grades served, year o inception and number o

students on any waiting lists;

Future acility plans;

Facility inormation including year o construction and site size;

Facility ownership, nancing and annual payments;

Facility and classroom size and inormation technology resources;

Facility amenities such as gyms, lunchrooms, libraries and playgrounds;

Facility adequacy, condition and maintainability; and

General obligation bond elections and requests or state acility unds.

Questions were reviewed by the League acility task orce, League sta and others with expertise in

school construction and educational policy. A drat questionnaire was then eld tested with a small

group o charter schools to ensure clarity and comprehensiveness o the items. Based on this, as well

as visits to a number o charter schools, urther revisions to the questionnaire were made.

10


14/16


Demographic inormation rom schools that completed the questionnaires was compared todemographic inormation rom all charter schools statewide. Schools that completed the question-

naires were comparable to all charter schools in the percentage o student body qualiying or ree

or reduced-price lunch (a poverty indicator) and per pupil unding, as well as other actors.

Completed questionnaires were reviewed at least twice to check or accuracy and completeness.

Follow-up was done with the schools as necessary. While the completed questionnaires are the

primary source o inormation or this study, inormation rom the Colorado Department o

Education was used to provide data on membership, per pupil unding, general obligation bond

elections, ree and reduced price lunch eligibility, Capital Construction Expenditure Reserve

requests and awards, and School Construction and Renovation Fund requests and awards.

Overall, o the 138 charter schools that are not on-line schools, 46 percent were included in the

preceding analyses.

Appendix B

SchoolFacilityStandards

As part o our analysis, we compared charter school buildings and classrooms to standards

developed by three metro-area school districts (Denver, Douglas County and Jeerson County) and

national standards developed by the Council o Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI)

where available. Standards or total building square ootage per student are shown below.

SchoolBuildingStandardsbySquareFootageperStudent

SchoolLevel Douglas JeersonCounty

Denver CEFPI StandardUsed orComparison

Elementary 107 94 110 111 94

Middle 135 132 151 154 132

High 121 143 157 160 121

For each school level, we selected the smallest o the our standards or our comparisons to charterschools. The metro-area standards are based on enrollments o about 600 students at the elementa-

ry level, 900 students at the middle school level, and 1500 to 2000 students at the high school level.

11


15/16

Typically, small schools need more square eet per student because some spaces, like a gym, can-not be reduced proportionately as enrollment decreases. We calculated small school adjustments in

square oot standards based on the methods used in Wyoming to adjust or small enrollment. These

enrollment-based adjustments to the Denver metro-area standards are shown in the table below.

Enrollment-AdjustedSchoolBuildingStandardsbySquareFootageperStudent

StudentCapacity

SchoolLevel


16/16


The Colorado League of Charter Schools

The Colorado League o Charter Schools is a membership organization working on behal

o the states charter schools and the students they serve. The League is committed to

demonstrating higher levels o student perormance and school success.

The League o Charter Schools serves three broadly dened unctions:

1. As a clearinghouse or inormation and resources

that charter school groups can draw upon;

2. As a technical support group, providing everything rom legal advice

to assistance in writing a charter proposal; and

3. As an advocate or the overall charter schools movement

whether through contact with the media, maintaining a presence in the political realm,

or improving community exposure we serve the needs o charter schools in areas where

their interests are best served by collective action.

This report was prepared with support rom the

Piton Foundation, the Daniels Fund and the Walton Family Foundation.

colorado charter facilities report 2008

Documents