Jessica M. Johnson, Esq.Director of Advocacy Programs

Colorado League of Charter SchoolsDecember 2011

Role of the Charter School Facilities Initiative

• The Charter School Facilities Initiative (CSFI) will improve policy and practice by collecting and disseminating comprehensive state and national level data regarding the landscape of charter school access to quality facilities.

Background

• Charter school laws across the country place the burden of obtaining and paying for facilities on the charter schools themselves.

• As a result, charter schools often struggle to find suitable and affordable facilities.

• Charter leaders routinely identify facilities as one of the top challenges of running a school.

Goals

• Support improved policy and practice through industry leading data

– National dataset allowing cross state analysis.

– State level reports allowing for localized policy changes.

History: How it Began

• In 2007, the Colorado League of Charter Schools launched a Facilities Task Force.

• The goal of the Task Force was to advocate for removal of barriers to adequate and equitable access to public school facilities and financing for Colorado charter schools.

• A key missing piece was reliable data on the condition and cost of charter school facilities.

History: How it Began

• The League developed a comprehensive survey to gather objective, reliable facilities data from Colorado’s charter community.

• The League published the results of the survey in a 2008 report entitled, “Shortchanged Charters: How Funding Disparities Hurt Colorado’s Charter Schools.”

• The Report, and the data the survey revealed, provided the League’s Task Force with the necessary information to build its policy framework.

Colorado Success

• Colorado has gained legislative and local support for charter school access to quality facilities. Since the release of Colorado’s facilities survey data in 2008, total state facilities funding to charter schools in Colorado = $20 Million. In addition:– Colorado charters are included as eligible applicants in a

state capital construction grant program passed in 2008. Total charter school funding from this grant program:

$60.7 Million! – In 2009, legislation passed that increased the obligations for

school districts to include charters in bond elections. Total charter school bond funding since 2008: $24.6 Million.

– Better charter school access to local land and facilities.

History: How it Evolved

• Seeing the success of the Colorado facilities initiative, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (“the Alliance”) partnered with the League to use the Colorado facilities survey model in other states to assess those states’ charter facilities landscape.

• The League and the Alliance partnered with three pilot states in 2010-11 to collect state-specific data similar to what was collected in Colorado.– Georgia, Indiana, and Texas.

History: How it Evolved

• The League recently completed the facilities survey in New York and Tennessee.

• Thanks to funding from the U.S. Department of

Education, the League and the Alliance are currently implementing the facilities survey Idaho, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

• Soon, the findings will be compiled into a national database as empirical evidence of national trends around charter school access to facilities and financing.

Participating States

2007Colorado

2010Indiana GeorgiaTexas

*not yet analyzed

2011New York*Tennessee

2012IdahoMassachusetts*Michigan*New Jersey

State Reports (Sample)

11

National Database

• Ultimately, the CSFI will support individual state efforts and serve to build a national database of charter school facility data.– Establish nationally reliable figures about key

measures related to charter facilities.– Cross reference state specific data against National

Alliance Model Law sections on facilities to measure the impact various policy measures have on facility costs and adequacy.

– Cross reference facility quality against student performance data.

Preliminary Findings

Trends Thus Far

Common Findings to Date• Charter schools must spend significant operating dollars

on buildings.• Local and state capital funding programs are not a

significant source of funding for charter school facilities.• Too few charter school facilities and classrooms meet

industry standards.• More than half of charter schools do not have kitchen

facilities that are compliant with NSLP guidelines.• Common amenities such as library, sports fields, gyms,

etc. are limited for charter school students.• Few charters have access to unused or underutilized

public school facilities, despite their availability in some states

• Problems likely to get worse without change

Charter schools must spend significant operating dollars on

buildings

Figures based on annual budgets and facility costs

Percentage of Annual Per Pupil Operations Budget as a Function of

Ownership Type

Local and state capital funding programs are not a significant source of funding for charter school facilities.

• Four of the seven states analyzed do not have access to local tax revenue, by law.

• In the 3 states where charters are permitted to access local tax revenue, fewer than 5 percent have benefitted.

• Only two of the seven states, thus far, allow charter schools access to state facilities grant or assistance programs.

Too few charter school facilities meet industry standards

Percent of Facilities to Meet or Exceed Standard

Too few charter school classrooms meet industry standards

Percent of charter school classrooms to meet or exceed standard

More than half of charter schools DO NOT have kitchen facilities compliant

with NSLP guidelines.

Percent of charter schools that responded NO to having aFederally compliant kitchen in their facility.

Common amenities such as library, sports fields, gyms, etc. are limited for

charter school students.

No Library

Elementary Charter Schools Reporting no Playground

No Gym

No Music AND No Art Room

Few Charters Have Access to Unused or Underutilized Public School

Facilities, Despite their Availability in Some States

Problems may worsen if nothing changes

• Growth: Between 51 and 100 percent of schools surveyed in each state identified plans to grow enrollment over the next several years

• 52 percent of schools in each state report that their current facility is not large enough for their desired growth.

Problems may worsen if nothing changes

• Demand: Thousands of students on wait lists in every state surveyed--from1500 in TN to over 20,000 in NJ.

• Adequacy: Between 20 and 62 percent of charter schools in each state were built prior to 1970.– Between 25 and 71 percent of charter

schools are in facilities that were NOT constructed as schools.

Problems may worsen if nothing changes

• Cost: Between 45 and 86 percent of charter schools in each state are paying rent for their facility.

Policy Implications

Facilities Related Model Laws

Facilities Related Model Laws

1. A per-pupil facilities allowance that annually reflects actual average district capital costs.

2. A state grant program for charter school facilities.

3. A state loan program for charter school facilities.

4. Equal access to tax-exempt bonding authorities or allow charters to have their own bonding authority.

.

Facilities Related Model Laws

5. A mechanism to provide credit enhancement for charter school facilities.

6. Equal access to existing facilities funding programs available to traditional public schools.

7. Right of refusal to purchase or lease at or below fair market value a closed, unused, or underused public school facility or property.

8. Prohibition of facility related requirements that are stricter than those applied to traditional public schools

Contact Information

Joni MalliColorado League of Charter Schools303-989-5356, ext. 115jmalli@coloradoleague.orgwww.facilitiesinitiative.org

Todd ZiebarthNational Alliance for Public

Charter Schoolstodd@publiccharters.org