The federal Charter Schools Program (CSP), which provides seed money for charter start-ups primarily through competitive state grants, got an upgrade in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December. Around the same time, CSP got a 32 percent funding boost from Congress. At its highest funding level ever, the program is primed to help states grow their charter sectors—a worthy goal considering that over a million students nationally wait for open seats in charter schools. The new program prioritizes strong authorizing practices and equitable funding for charters, and it attempts to influence state policies toward those ends.
Background
Formed just three years into the nation’s charter movement, CSP embodies Washington’s bipartisan commitment to charters and is responsible for helping launch or expand over 40 percent of today’s operational charter schools. CSP was first created in 1994 as an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 via the Improving America’s Schools Act. At its outset, it was a bare-bones initiative that made competitive grants available to states to host their own sub-grant competitions (for which new start-ups or conversion schools could apply). Requirements were minimal: State applicants merely had to have a charter law, and school applicants had to adhere to the basic definition of a charter school (be nonsectarian, free, enroll via lottery, etc.). Its initial appropriation was just $6 million (FY 1995), compared to $270 million in FY 2017 and 18.
CSP’s first attempt to influence state charter policy appeared when the program was reauthorized through the Charter School Expansion Act of 1998. Priority would go to states in which charter schools were evaluated at least once every five years against the academic goals outlined in their performance contracts. Such states also had to exhibit one or more of the following: 1) demonstrated progress in increasing the number of high-quality charter schools, 2) multiple authorizers and an appeals process if local education agencies were the only authorizer options, and 3) a guarantee that each charter school had a “high degree of autonomy over…[its] budgets and expenditures.” In short, the feds rewarded states that were serious about charter school growth and preserving schools’ autonomy—with an occasional check on performance.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 further expanded the CSP,[1] but its competitive priorities remained the same. While many changes have been made to CSP through congressional appropriations in the years since, the law authorizing the CSP was itself unchanged until just a few months ago.[2]
CSP under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
In some instances, ESSA codifies what had become commonplace under past appropriations acts, like making the CMO-level competition permanent. But it also makes several new changes, asking states to focus more on quality than they have in the past—a reflection of President Obama and other political leaders’ support for specifically expanding high-quality charter schools. More than its predecessors, it attempts to target funds to CMOs and schools with stronger track records (as reflected in its preference for proven charter school models over novice applications) and to states with climates conducive for long-term charter success. It does this specifically by placing a premium on authorizing quality and funding equity. The modernized CSP requires that a portion of state grants be spent on technical assistance for authorizers and that state applicants provide details about authorizers’ academic evaluations of schools, financial audits, and accountability decisions. It also looks especially favorably on states with strong authorizing practices. Finally, CSP gives priority to states that provide equitable financing and facilities support for charter schools.
The revamp expands applicant eligibility—reform-minded governors, state charter boards, and charter support organizations can now compete for state grants. And new flexibility is given to schools in how they spend sub-grants. These are all welcome updates that will push states to consider what is necessary to create a high-quality charter sector over the long term and ultimately maximize CSP funds. (For a more detailed look, see Table 1.)
In a few areas, the program’s guidance veers into overreach. Most notably, ESSA suggests that states provide technical assistance to schools to reduce disciplinary practices that “remove students from the classroom.” This is too in-the-weeds for the feds to be dictating. It also potentially undermines another grant requirement—that charter schools in winning states have full autonomy over operations. For the CMO-level competition, priority will be given to those with “racially and economically diverse student bodies,” and the grant competition more broadly allows charter schools to use weighted lotteries to give disadvantaged students an edge in enrollment. These provisions demonstrate a renewed focus by the feds on school integration that is well-intentioned but still unnecessary. Charter schools—and the parents driving demand—are best suited to determine whether integration is a worthy goal in and of itself.
Still, the new CSP builds on two decades of hard-earned experience and incentivizes at least two of the right things (authoring quality and better access for charters to funding and facilities) to improve the odds that charters will be viable over the long haul. Unlike some federal competitive grant programs, it prods states to pass better laws without manhandling them entirely. It’s up to each state to create strong legal frameworks within which CSP funds can be maximized, and the program’s focus on best practices in authorizing and funding will hopefully prompt policy upgrades in both areas. This will benefit charter schools—and ultimately their students—regardless of where CSP money lands.
Table 1: New Charter Schools Program provisions under ESSA
Replicating what works | CMO competition made permanent. In the past, the competition for charter management organizations (CMOs) to expand and replicate their schools was funded through appropriations. Now it’s embedded in ESSA. Focus on track record. Previously, a competitive priority was placed on novice CMO applicants (among other priorities); that was removed in ESSA. |
High-quality authorizing | Dedicated funding to promote high-quality authorizing. Winning states must use a small portion (not less than 7 percent, nor more than 10 percent) of their awards to provide technical assistance to authorizers, specifically to develop capacity to conduct fiscal oversight and audits of their schools. This technical assistance funding for authorizers is unprecedented. High-quality authorizing as part of state’s application. Applying state entities are required to show the extent to which authorizers annually assess the performance data of their schools; review independent financial audits; and hold charter schools accountable for the academic, financial, and operational promises laid out in their charter contracts. Priority for states with strong authorizing practices. The new CSP program considers whether states ensure authorizing best practices (among six priority areas) when determining awards. |
Funding equity | Priority for states with equitable funding. States that provide equitable financing for charter schools (compared to what traditional schools receive) and facilities support (e.g., facilities funding, assistance with facilities acquisition, ability to share in bonds or mill levels, right of first refusal to purchase school buildings) will be given priority over states that do not. Facilities Financing Assistance. The Credit Enhancement program and State Facilities Incentive Grant existed in prior rounds of CSP but are now given a dedicated percentage of funding: 12.5 percent of total CSP funds each year. |
Autonomy and flexibility | School-level autonomy. State applicants are required to assure that charter schools have autonomy over budgetary and operational decisions (including personnel). This was previously a priority area, but not required. Schools’ use of funds. Schools winning CSP funds through their state entities may use the grant money in several ways that were previously not allowed, including: hiring and compensating teachers, leaders, and staff during the school’s planning period; acquiring equipment (including technology); minor facilities repairs and renovations; one-time startup transportation costs (buying a bus); and recruiting students and staff. Pre-K and feeder patterns. ESSA updates the definition of a charter school, making it allowable for CSP-winning charters to serve preschool students and automatically enroll students based on feeder patterns. (Of course, state laws may still stand in the way.) |
Equity | Weighted lotteries. Unless otherwise prohibited by state law, awards may go to states where charter schools use weighted lotteries in order to prioritize the admission of disadvantaged students. Meeting the needs of all students. Among a list of several required assurances, state applicants must support charter schools in meeting the needs of all students, including students with disabilities and English language learners, and verify that any authorizer of a school winning CSP funds monitors its schools in recruiting, enrolling, and meeting the needs of all students. States must also commit to providing technical assistance to school applicants to promote the inclusion of all students, “including by eliminating any barrier to enrollment for educationally disadvantaged students (who include foster youth and unaccompanied homeless youth),” and to support students by improving retention and reducing the “overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom.” |
Other parameters | Frequency of state grants. State grants will be awarded each year (to a minimum of three states) rather than approximately every other year. Expanded eligibility for state grants. Previously, only state education agencies could apply. Under ESSA, state charter boards, governors, and charter support organizations may also apply and administer the grant. Increased federal oversight. ESSA allows the secretary of education to terminate or reduce the amount of a grant if a state entity isn’t living up to its application promises, based on a review prior to the third year of the grant (and prior to each succeeding year—a grant can last up to five years). The funds may be reallocated to other states. |
Sources: NAPCS summary and background document, text from the Every Student Succeeds Act
[1] NCLB expanded CSP in terms of funding ($200 million in FY 2002), eligibility (charter school “developers” could apply directly if their state SEA had not), and programming (by setting up the Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants Program as well as the Credit Enhancement program meant to help charter schools acquire facilities).
