Charter Schools
To Enhance Education's Monitoring and Research, More Charter School-Level Data Are Needed Gao ID: GAO-05-5 January 12, 2005Charter schools are public schools that are granted increased autonomy by states in exchange for meeting specified academic goals. State law determines who approves the formation of a charter school, often the board of education. As public schools, charter schools are subject to the performance requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) as well. In this environment, states' systems for allowing charter schools flexibility and ensuring school performance and financial integrity assume greater importance. GAO examined (1) how states allow charter schools flexibility, (2) how states promote accountability for school performance and financial integrity for charter schools, (3) the implications of NCLBA for charter schools, and (4) the role the Department of Education (Education) plays in charter school accountability. GAO surveyed the 39 states and jurisdictions with operating charter schools in 2002-03 and interviewed charter school experts and Education officials.
In school year 2002-03, some states reported that they provided charter schools flexibility by allowing them to choose their authorizer. Authorizers--state education agencies, local education agencies, universities, and other nonprofit organizations--oversee the formation and operation of charter schools. Also, nearly all states provided flexibility by releasing charter schools from some traditional public school requirements, such as teacher hiring and termination practices, schedules, and collective bargaining agreements. To promote charter school performance and financial integrity, states reported that they took action to oversee charter schools and to oversee and provide assistance to authorizers. About half of the 39 states reported having primary responsibility for enforcing school improvement actions in charter schools not achieving annual school performance goals under NCLBA. Most states reported that they intervened when authorizers were not performing their responsibilities and conducted or required audits of authorizers' finances. About half of the states assisted authorizers with funding for their charter school oversight responsibilities or gave them fee collection authority. NCLBA requires charter schools to meet the same requirements as other public schools, but the law permits certain flexibilities where allowed by state law. Charter schools must be included in the statewide assessment system, and charter schools that receive NCLBA Title I funds must take school improvement actions if they do not meet state performance goals. However, NCLBA allows state law to determine the entity responsible for charter school oversight. In addition, while NCLBA requires certification for all other teachers to meet the highly qualified teacher requirement, the law exempts charter school teachers from this requirement where state law permits. As it does for all public schools, Education administers grant programs that provide funds to charter schools, monitors grant performance, and sponsors research on accountability for academic performance and financial integrity. Under NCLBA, the department and states must ensure that new and expanding charter schools receive timely payment of federal grant funds for which they are eligible and meet the act's academic achievement goals. However, in its monitoring and data collection, Education gathers little information on the timeliness of charter school grant payments or how well the schools perform. Moreover, Education's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported delays in states' Title I payments to charter schools. Education is in the process of developing new systems that are expected to provide both academic performance and financial reports for the department's major grant programs, but the ability of the new systems to provide financial reports for charter schools is uncertain.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-5, Charter Schools: To Enhance Education's Monitoring and Research, More Charter School-Level Data Are Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-5
entitled 'Charter Schools: To Enhance Education's Monitoring and
Research, More Charter School-Level Data Are Needed' which was released
on January 13, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Secretary of Education:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
January 2005:
Charter Schools:
To Enhance Education's Monitoring and Research, More Charter School-
Level Data Are Needed:
GAO-05-5:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-5, a report to the Secretary of Education:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Charter schools are public schools that are granted increased autonomy
by states in exchange for meeting specified academic goals. State law
determines who approves the formation of a charter school, often the
board of education. As public schools, charter schools are subject to
the performance requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) as
well. In this environment, states‘ systems for allowing charter schools
flexibility and ensuring school performance and financial integrity
assume greater importance. GAO examined (1) how states allow charter
schools flexibility, (2) how states promote accountability for school
performance and financial integrity for charter schools, (3) the
implications of NCLBA for charter schools, and (4) the role the
Department of Education (Education) plays in charter school
accountability. GAO surveyed the 39 states and jurisdictions with
operating charter schools in 2002-03 and interviewed charter school
experts and Education officials.
What GAO Found:
In school year 2002-03, some states reported that they provided charter
schools flexibility by allowing them to choose their authorizer.
Authorizers”state education agencies, local education agencies,
universities, and other nonprofit organizations”oversee the formation
and operation of charter schools. Also, nearly all states provided
flexibility by releasing charter schools from some traditional public
school requirements, such as teacher hiring and termination practices,
schedules, and collective bargaining agreements.
To promote charter school performance and financial integrity, states
reported that they took action to oversee charter schools and to
oversee and provide assistance to authorizers. About half of the 39
states reported having primary responsibility for enforcing school
improvement actions in charter schools not achieving annual school
performance goals under NCLBA. Most states reported that they
intervened when authorizers were not performing their responsibilities
and conducted or required audits of authorizers‘ finances. About half
of the states assisted authorizers with funding for their charter
school oversight responsibilities or gave them fee collection
authority.
NCLBA requires charter schools to meet the same requirements as other
public schools, but the law permits certain flexibilities where allowed
by state law. Charter schools must be included in the statewide
assessment system, and charter schools that receive NCLBA Title I funds
must take school improvement actions if they do not meet state
performance goals. However, NCLBA allows state law to determine the
entity responsible for charter school oversight. In addition, while
NCLBA requires certification for all other teachers to meet the highly
qualified teacher requirement, the law exempts charter school teachers
from this requirement where state law permits.
As it does for all public schools, Education administers grant programs
that provide funds to charter schools, monitors grant performance, and
sponsors research on accountability for academic performance and
financial integrity. Under NCLBA, the department and states must ensure
that new and expanding charter schools receive timely payment of
federal grant funds for which they are eligible and meet the act‘s
academic achievement goals. However, in its monitoring and data
collection, Education gathers little information on the timeliness of
charter school grant payments or how well the schools perform.
Moreover, Education‘s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported
delays in states‘ Title I payments to charter schools. Education is in
the process of developing new systems that are expected to provide both
academic performance and financial reports for the department‘s major
grant programs, but the ability of the new systems to provide financial
reports for charter schools is uncertain.
What GAO Recommends:
To enhance Education‘s charter school monitoring and research, GAO
recommends that Education help states track federal funds to charter
schools, require Charter School Program grant recipients to report the
number of charter schools started with program funds, and include
accountability in its planned charter school impact evaluation.
Education agreed to take actions related to all our recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-5.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie Shaul at (202) 512-
7215 or shaulm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Some States Provided Flexibility by Allowing Charter Schools to Choose
among Authorizers, and Most States Released Charter Schools from
Traditional Public School Requirements:
States Promoted Accountability for Charter School Performance and
Financial Integrity through State Actions and through Authorizers:
NCLBA's Provisions Apply to Charter Schools but Provide Some
Flexibilities:
Education Provides Support to Charter Schools Directly and Indirectly
through Several Federal Programs and Conducts Research on Charter
Schools:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Scope:
Methodology:
Appendix II: Selected Data Tables from Survey:
Appendix III: Summary of Selected Charter School Research Projects
Sponsored by the Department of Education:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Number of States with Various Responsibilities for NCLBA
School Improvement Actions for Charter Schools:
Table 2: Number of States with Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring
the Financial Condition of Charter Schools:
Table 3: State Actions to Monitor Authorizers' Financial Integrity:
Table 4: States' Assistance to Authorizers to Help Them Oversee Charter
Schools:
Table 5: Information States Required of Authorizers:
Table 6: Selected Grant Programs In Which Charter Schools Participate:
Table 7: Types of Authorizers in States with a Mix of Authorizers in
School Year 2002-03:
Table 8: Responsibility for NCLBA School Improvement Actions by State
and Authorizer Structure:
Table 9: Oversight Of Charter Schools' Achievement of the Academic
Goals Not Related To NCLBA Academic Performance Goals, by Authorizer
Type:
Table 10: Entities Monitoring Charter Schools' Financial Condition, by
Authorizer Type:
Table 11: Entities with Primary Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring
the Financial Condition of Charter Schools, by Authorizer Type:
Table 12: Charter School Closures during 2002-03:
Table 13: Actions Taken by States to Address Authorizers Not Performing
Their Responsibilities, by Authorizer Type:
Table 14: Charter Schools Achieving Annual State Performance Goals and
Taking School Improvement Actions under NCLBA, by State, in School Year
2002-03:
Figures:
Figure 1: Types of Authorizers Established in Charter School States:
Figure 2: State Distribution of Charter Schools, 2002-03:
Figure 3: Types of Authorizers Established in Charter School States:
Figure 4: Number of States with Various Percentages of Charter Schools
Achieving Annual School Performance Goals for 2002-03:
Figure 5: Number of States with Charter Schools Receiving Title I Funds
in School Year 2002-03:
Figure 6: Entities with Primary Responsibility for Developing School
Improvement Strategies and Enforcing School Improvement Actions:
Figure 7: In More Than Half of the States, Charter Schools Can Be
Separate LEAs:
Abbreviations:
BOE: Board of Education:
DOE: Department of Education:
GAPS: Grant Administration and Payment System:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
LEA: local education agency:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
PBDMI: Performance-Based Data Management Initiative:
SEA: state education agency:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 12, 2005:
The Honorable Roderick Paige:
Secretary of Education:
Dear Mr. Secretary:
In the 2003-04 school year, nearly 3,000 charter schools, representing
about 3 percent of all public schools, were in operation in the United
States. Charter schools are public schools established through
agreements between people or organizations granted permission to
establish schools--charter holders--and the entities that approve and
oversee them --authorizers. The agreement, or charter, specifies
certain academic goals and financial requirements that the charter
holders agree to meet in return for increased autonomy in school
management, usually including release from traditional public school
requirements in areas such as teacher termination practices and student
discipline. Since 1994, the federal government has provided over $1
billion of federal funding to encourage new and expanding charter
schools under the Education's Public Charter Schools and Credit
Enhancement for Charter School Facilities programs.
Forty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have enacted
charter school laws in an effort to increase school choice and improve
student outcomes, although not all states have operational schools.
Specifics of the laws vary from state to state; for instance, there are
variations in how many charter schools are allowed and what entity or
entities can authorize them. However, in every state, charter schools
are included in the statewide system for assessing school performance
and are expected to achieve the state annual school performance goal
requirements that apply to all public schools under the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA).
Proponents of charter schools believe that the increased autonomy given
charter schools and the expanded opportunities for parents to select
their child's school can result in improved student achievement.
However, there are many challenges associated with successfully
establishing and operating a charter school. Because of these
challenges, state systems for allowing charter schools flexibility and
ensuring accountability for school performance and financial integrity
assume greater importance. Moreover, NCLBA requirements for assessing
the status of annual school performance goals and the actions schools
must take if they do not meet academic performance goals have the
potential to expand or restrict the flexibilities and performance
agreements established in schools' charters. This report examines (1)
how states allow charter schools flexibility in design and operation;
(2) how states promote accountability for school performance and
financial integrity in their charter school systems; (3) the
implications of NCLBA for charter schools, and (4) the role the
Department of Education (Education) plays in charter school
accountability for school performance and financial integrity.
To determine how states allow flexibility and promote accountability
for charter school performance, we focused on actions taken by state-
level officials. We surveyed designated charter school points of
contact in 37 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico,[Footnote 1] with operating charter schools in school year 2002-
03. We collected data for school year 2002-03, rather than 2003-04, to
increase the likelihood that final, accurate data would be available
from state test administrations under NCLBA. We assessed the
reliability and validity of questions in our survey by interviewing
knowledgeable agency officials, and pretesting draft versions of the
survey. For selected questions, we confirmed the data with follow-up
telephone interviews of respondents and compared data provided with
information available from other sources. We analyzed these data to
identify the flexibility states grant charter schools and the actions
states take directly, and through authorizers, to help hold charter
schools responsible for both their academic results and their fiscal
practices. To examine the effect of NCLBA, we synthesized information
obtained from Education's charter school guidance on NCLBA, interviews
with state and federal officials and charter school experts, and our
survey of states with operating charter schools. We determined
Education's role by interviewing officials responsible for federal
grant and research programs applicable to charter schools and by
reviewing relevant laws and guidance. Appendix I provides additional
details about our scope and methodology. We conducted our work between
September 2003 and December 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
In school year 2002-03, some states reported that they provided charter
schools flexibility by allowing them to choose their authorizer. Also,
most states provided flexibility by releasing charter schools from some
traditional public school requirements. As shown in figure 1, about
half of the 39 charter school states reported a mix of authorizers,
including local education agencies (LEAs), municipal school districts,
public and private universities and other nonprofit organizations, as
well as a state agency. Of the states with a mix of authorizers, 11
offered charter school developers some degree of choice in selecting
their authorizer. Most of the 11 states offering choice allowed choice
among all of the state's authorizers, but some restricted choice to
designated geographic areas. About a quarter of the states established
only a state agency as the authorizer--usually the department or board
of education. Another quarter of the states allowed only LEAs to serve
as authorizers, and in general, these states did not allow charter
school developers to choose a different LEA than the one where the
school was located as their authorizer.
Figure 1: Types of Authorizers Established in Charter School States:
[See PDF for image]
Note: One state where a public university and LEAs served as
authorizers is included in the 7 states that offered no choice. Two
states where the board of education and LEAs served as authorizers did
not respond to our question about choosing authorizers.
[End of figure]
Nearly all of the 39 states released charter schools from some
traditional public school requirements. Most of those states provided
this release for areas of operation such as teacher compensation,
collective bargaining, teacher termination procedures, and local school
board requirements. While Michigan and Puerto Rico did not release
charter schools from requirements applicable to traditional public
schools, both said their charter schools differed from traditional
public schools in areas such as having appointed school boards or being
able to augment the curriculum.
States promoted charter school performance and financial integrity
through a variety of actions to oversee charter schools and by
overseeing and providing assistance to authorizers. About half of the
39 states reported having primary responsibility for enforcing school
improvement actions in charter schools not achieving annual school
performance goals under NCLBA. Of the 39 states, 28 reported collecting
information on the extent to which charter schools had achieved the
academic goals in their charters. A third of the states reported having
primary responsibility for monitoring charter schools' financial
condition. In overseeing authorizers, most states reported having taken
actions to determine whether authorizers were performing their
oversight responsibilities or to address authorizer oversight problems.
In addition to overseeing authorizers, states supported authorizers by
providing them with assistance to help them oversee charter schools.
Over half of the states provided state funds to help authorizers
oversee charter schools or allowed authorizers to collect a fee from
the charter schools they authorize.
Under NCLBA, charter schools are subject to the same performance
requirements as other public schools, but the act allows some
flexibilities that may be given by state law. Charter schools must be
included in the statewide assessment system, and charter schools that
receive funds from Title I under NCLBA must take certain actions if
they do not meet state performance goals. However, NCLBA specifies that
state law determines the entity with oversight responsibility for the
act's provisions. In addition, while NCLBA requires certification for
all other teachers to meet the highly qualified teacher requirement,
the act permits a charter school teacher to be highly qualified without
certification or licensure if the state law allows.
As it does for all public schools, Education plays a role in academic
and financial accountability for charter schools through the resources
it provides: it administers grant programs that provide funds to
charter schools and sponsors research on charter school accountability.
Education's role in funding includes an increased responsibility for
charter schools. Under NCLBA, the department must ensure that new and
expanding charter schools receive timely payment of federal grant funds
for which they are eligible. Education's Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) recently reported problems with the timeliness of some
states' Title I payments to charter schools. However, ascertaining the
timeliness of federal payments is difficult for Education because in
its monitoring and data collection, which focuses on state activities,
Education seldom identifies individual schools or distinguishes charter
schools from other public schools. Although Education monitors states'
oversight systems and visits some school districts and schools, the
data collected during these site visits could be used to determine the
timeliness of funds disbursed only to the districts and schools
visited. These data cannot be used to check timeliness of funds
disbursed to all of a state's charter schools. Furthermore, Education
has not collected information on the Charter School Program in a
standardized way that would help the program determine the number of
charter schools started annually with program funds. Education is
developing a system to track academic performance and financial
information, the Performance-Based Data Management Initiative (PBDMI),
which is designed to produce school-level reports and analyses, using
state-reported data on charter schools and traditional public schools.
However, because states and school districts may not all maintain
complete school-level records on disbursements of federal grant funds,
it is not clear that all states will collect and report charter school-
level financial data. Therefore, at present, Education has little
information to use in ensuring that charter schools receive their
federal funds promptly or to know how well charter schools perform.
Finally, while Education has sponsored research that addressed
authorizers' oversight methods and is undertaking a study of charter
school performance, these research efforts have not yet addressed the
link, if any, between states' oversight and charter schools'
performance.
To enhance the department's ability to ensure that charter schools
receive federal funds in a timely fashion and to provide other
information specific to charter schools, we are recommending that the
Department assist states with tracking the disbursement of federal
funds to charter schools. In addition, we are recommending that
Education collect basic indicators of Charter School Program
accomplishments, such as the number of charter schools started with
program funds, from all grant recipients and include an examination of
the effects of states' oversight approaches in its planned charter
school impact evaluation. In its comments on a draft of this report,
Education said that it intended to implement our recommendation
concerning reporting requirements. In addition, Education agreed to
examine the financial tracking systems used in selected states and, if
merited, will share this information with other states. Finally,
Education said that it would examine expanding the charter school
impact study to include further study of oversight and accountability
practices. We withdrew our recommendation about collecting authorizer
information on a PBDMI survey because Education said that it was using
the impact evaluation to do an initial exploration of this issue.
Education's comments appear in appendix IV.
Background:
States began adopting charter school laws in the early 1990s, beginning
with Minnesota in 1991. Charter schools are permitted more flexibility
in school operation for agreeing to accomplish specific academic goals
contained in their charters. The specifics of these arrangements vary,
as each state adopting a charter school law sets up its own charter
school structure and guidelines, and states have continued to revise
their charter school laws over time. However, not all states with a
charter school law have operational charter schools, as shown in figure
2. The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico also have charter school
laws. During the 2003-04 school year, nearly 3,000 charter schools were
operating nationwide, with nearly 700,000 students enrolled.
Figure 2: State Distribution of Charter Schools, 2002-03:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Oversight authority for charter schools is established by the state's
charter school law and may rest with several entities, including state
boards of education, which set educational policy, and state
departments of education, which implement those policies. Some states
have also created independent charter school boards that can authorize
charter schools in the state. In addition, some states have created
charter school offices, housed in the state department of education,
that support and advocate for charter schools. State law also specifies
which entities within the state can authorize the establishment of a
charter school, such as state departments of education, state boards of
education, local education agencies, institutions of higher education,
and municipal governments.
Depending on the state, a wide range of individuals or groups,
including parents, educators, nonprofit organizations, and
universities, may apply for permission to operate a charter school. The
agreement that is reached between the applicants and the authorizer
defines specific academic goals and outlines school finances and other
operational considerations. In some states, including Texas and
Arizona, a single charter may cover the establishment of multiple
schools. Once charter schools are in operation, the authorizer is
responsible for monitoring school performance and has authority to
close the school or take other actions if academic goals or state
financial requirements are not met. The schools are governed by a board
of trustees, which is responsible for overseeing school operations.
Requirements for charter school board membership vary across states,
but the responsibilities are similar. Specifically, charter school
boards oversee legal compliance, contracts with external parties,
financial management and policies, and facilities and equipment
acquisition and maintenance.
NCLBA, signed into law in early 2002, increased federal funding for
elementary and secondary education and created new requirements for all
public schools, including charter schools.[Footnote 2] NCLBA requires
states to test all children against reading and mathematics standards
annually in grades 3-8 and once in grades 10-12 by the 2005-06 school
year. States also had to develop performance goals for schools that
identify what percentage of students must be proficient in reading and
math each year for the school to achieve proficiency for all children
by 2013-14.[Footnote 3] Standards for science proficiency are to be
developed by the 2005-06 school year, with testing in science to begin
in 2007-08. Schools are required to measure the performance of all
students in meeting proficiency goals, as well as the performance of
designated groups. These groups are students who (1) are economically
disadvantaged, (2) represent major racial and ethnic groups, (3) have
disabilities, and (4) are limited in English proficiency. NCLBA also
requires that schools include at least 95 percent of students in each
of these groups in statewide tests and meet at least one other academic
indicator. States must use the graduation rate as the additional
indicator for high schools.[Footnote 4] NCLBA also generally requires
that teachers be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school
year, meaning that teachers must demonstrate subject matter expertise,
have a bachelor's degree and have full state certification as a
teacher.[Footnote 5]
NCLBA also specifies the actions that must be taken if schools
receiving funds for children from low-income families under Title I of
the act do not meet performance goals. Title I provides funds to states
for local school districts to improve the education of low-income
students in high-poverty schools. About half of all public schools
nationwide receive a share of the federal funds--over $12 billion
dollars in 2004--this program provides. NCLBA's performance
requirements specify that if a school receiving Title I funds does not
meet its performance target for 2 consecutive years, it must provide
professional development for the school's staff and students must be
offered the choice of attending another public school. If the school
misses its performance goal for the third year, it must offer low-
income students supplemental educational services, such as tutoring. If
the school continues to miss its performance goal, additional actions
are required, such as replacing the curriculum, hiring a new principal,
turning the school into a charter school, letting a private company
operate the school, or taking other action designed to improve student
academic results.
As with other public schools, funding for charter schools comes largely
from state and local funds, augmented by federal aid. Eligible charter
schools may receive funds under federal formula and discretionary grant
programs. Formula grant programs, which provide funding to states on a
noncompetitive basis, include:
* Title I Grants to LEAs. This program is the largest federal program
supporting elementary and secondary education. Title I provides funding
for schools with disadvantaged children and accounts for about 2.5
percent of total education expenditures nationally.
* Impact Aid. This program provides funds to help educate children
whose parents or residences are connected to the federal government
through employment, the military, or federal housing programs.
* Special Education Grants to States. This program funds districts to
assist them to provide special education and related services to
children with disabilities.
NCLBA continues to require Education and states to ensure that charter
schools receive payment from 18 federal grant programs for which they
are eligible, including Title I and Special Education Grants. New
charter schools and charter schools with expanding enrollments are to
receive these funds within 5 months of opening or expanding enrollment.
This NCLBA requirement for timely payment of federal grant funds
originated with the Charter School Expansion Act of 1998.
Education has two data systems to support the department's grant
administration functions. One system, the Grant Administration and
Payment System (GAPS), tracks the payment of federal grant funds to the
grant recipient, frequently the state education agency (SEA) or LEA.
Education is developing the second system, the PBDMI--a data management
initiative for federal grant programs--to streamline the collection of
performance and financial data across Education's formula grant
programs, including Title I. When fully implemented, this initiative
would replace, in whole or in part, other data collections on the
implementation of NCLBA's academic performance requirements, including
elements of the Consolidated State Performance Report.
Education also administers two grant programs targeted to charter
schools, the Charter School Program and the Credit Enhancement for
Charter School Facilities Program. These programs provide funding to
states, charter schools, and other entities on a competitive basis. The
Charter School Program supports the planning, development, and initial
implementation of charter schools. The Congress has appropriated over
$1 billion to the Charter School Program since 1995. The Credit
Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program helps charter schools
obtain school facilities, one of the greatest challenges faced by new
charter schools.[Footnote 6] In total, the Congress has appropriated
nearly $90 million for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities
since 2001.
While Education relies on states for the most part to oversee the
implementation of federal grant programs at the individual school
level, Education does sponsor research on schools in areas that support
the department's strategic goals, such as improving student
achievement. A considerable body of research related to charter school
oversight by authorizers has been conducted since 1991 by a number of
policy research organizations, as well as Education. In addition, to
address the department's interest in charter schools as an educational
reform initiative, Education has sponsored three studies, focusing on
the evolution of the charter school movement, the characteristics of
charter schools and charter school students, and charter schools'
relationships with authorizers and their communities.[Footnote 7] The
first evaluation, The State of Charter Schools, provides descriptive
information about charter schools that were operating in the 1998-99
school year. This study addressed how charter schools have been
implemented, under what conditions they have improved student
achievement, and their impact on public education. The second
evaluation, A Study of Charter School Accountability, by researchers at
the University of Washington, examined charter schools' relationships
with authorizers and with their communities. The study included the
perspectives of both charter schools and authorizers. The third study,
A Decade of Public Charter Schools, evaluated the Public Charter School
Program and documented the evolution of the charter school movement.
None of these studies looked at the states' role in ensuring that
charter schools are held accountable for meeting their goals.
Some States Provided Flexibility by Allowing Charter Schools to Choose
among Authorizers, and Most States Released Charter Schools from
Traditional Public School Requirements:
In school year 2002-03, states reported that they provided flexibility
through the authorizers they established and through releasing charter
schools from traditional public school requirements. Some states
provided charter schools flexibility in developing and operating their
programs by allowing a degree of choice in selecting the authorizer
that oversees operations. Twenty-six of 39 states in our survey
reported that they allowed an appeal of an authorizer's decision to
deny an application to start a charter school. Nearly all states
released charter schools from traditional public school requirements of
some type.
About Half of the States Had Established More Than One Type of
Authorizer, but Fewer States Allowed Authorizer Choice:
About half of the 39 states with operating charter schools in school
year 2002-03 had established more than one type of authorizer to
approve charters and oversee operations. In about a quarter of states,
only a state agency--either the state education agency or the state
board--could authorize; in another quarter, only LEAs could authorize.
Figure 3, which is based on responses of charter school state agency
officials to our survey, shows the types of authorizers states with a
mix of authorizers have established as well as those in states that
allow only one type of authorizer.
Figure 3: Types of Authorizers Established in Charter School States:
[See PDF for image]
Note: One state where a public university and LEAs served as
authorizers is included in the 7 states that offered no choice. Two
states where the board of education and LEAs serve as authorizers did
not respond to our question about choosing authorizers.
[End of figure]
A state with a mix of authorizers potentially provides charter school
founders more opportunity to find support for a wider range of
instructional approaches or educational philosophies than might be
possible with a single authorizer, such as the local school district.
In addition, providing more than one type of authorizer may expedite
charter school authorization and insulate the decision to approve a
charter school from the local political environment. The range of
authorizers in states that offered a mix of authorizers included LEAs
that are local school districts, other types of LEAs, state departments
or boards of education, public or private colleges or universities, and
nonprofit organizations.[Footnote 8] Two states--Ohio and Minnesota--
had established more types of authorizers than other charter school
states. In school year 2002-03, Ohio allowed the board of education,
local school districts, an educational service center, and a private
university to authorize. That same year in Minnesota, the department of
education, local school districts and other types of LEAs, public and
private universities, and nonprofit organizations served as
authorizers. Examples of another type of authorizer can be found in
Arizona and the District of Columbia: both created a charter school
board independent of local school districts to authorize.[Footnote 9]
In 11 of the 20 states with a mix of authorizers in school year 2002-
03, more than one authorizer was available in at least some geographic
areas that charter school developers could choose. (See fig. 3.) For
example, in the District of Columbia, a charter school developer might
petition either of the two established authorizers. Most of the 11
states offering choice emphasized that allowing choice was intended to
provide charter school developers with options, and these states
allowed choice among all of the state's authorizers. In a few of the 11
states, charter school developers had choice in some areas of the state
but not in other areas. For example, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, charter
school developers could choose an authorizer from several options: the
LEA, the City of Milwaukee, the University of Wisconsin or a local
technical college. In Racine, charter school developers could choose
between the LEA and the University of Wisconsin, but the university was
limited to overseeing just one charter school in Racine. However,
outside of Milwaukee and Racine, charter school developers did not have
a choice of authorizers.
In 7 of the 20 states with a mix of authorizers, choice of authorizer
was not available. Although LEAs and the state board of education
served as authorizers in 6 of these 7 states, LEAs could authorize only
within their jurisdiction and the board of education authorized only
when a charter school developer appealed an LEA's denial of an
application.[Footnote 10] Table 7 in appendix II identifies the type
and number of authorizers offered by each state with a mix of
authorizers and those states that offer charter school developers a
choice of authorizers.
In 9 states--Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wyoming--only LEAs served
as authorizers. The number of LEAs that had operating charter schools
in these states ranged from 1 in Wyoming and 2 in Oklahoma to 91 in
Colorado and Pennsylvania. In 8 of these 9 states, the LEAs authorized
only within their jurisdiction, and charter school developers were not
allowed to choose an authorizer from a jurisdiction other than the one
where they decided to locate their school.[Footnote 11] Ten states--
Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
North Carolina, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico--allowed only
a state agency to act as authorizer.
Of the 39 charter school state agencies surveyed, 26 reported that they
allowed appeals when authorizers denied applications. States reported
taking different approaches to conducting the appeal process. In 17
states, the appeal is made to the state board of education, and in 3
states, the state department of education hears the appeal. In the
other states, a charter school review panel or state board, the county
office of education or city council, a state or district court, or an
independent party hears the appeal. In 1 state, the reviewing body
hears the appeal and, if the case has merit, asks the school developers
to resubmit the application to the same authorizer.
Most States Released Charter Schools from Some Traditional School
Requirements:
Nearly all of the 39 states in our survey reported that they released
charter schools from some traditional public school
requirements.[Footnote 12] All but 2 states offered release in one or
more of 30 areas that states identified, from reporting requirements to
staffing practices to student discipline. The greatest number of states
released charter schools from teacher termination procedures and length
of school day (21 states), teacher compensation and benefits (22
states), collective bargaining procedures (22 states), and requirements
established for local school boards (23 states). Officials in 6 states
reported that the state released charter schools from almost all
traditional public school requirements, while a few requirements, such
as the minimum number of teachers required, the use of district-
approved text books, and graduation requirements, were released in only
a few states.
Michigan and Puerto Rico reported that they don't release charter
schools from traditional public school requirements but that their
charter schools had some features that distinguished them from
traditional public schools. Michigan's state charter school agency
representative explained that its charter schools operate as private,
nonprofit corporations and that their contracts are individualized and
set forth terms that are unique to each charter school. In addition,
unlike public schools, Michigan's charter school boards are appointed,
not elected. Puerto Rico's representative said that the state permits
charter schools to introduce additional elements to the curriculum, as
long as they meet state curriculum requirements and that the charter
school computer equipment policy is different from the policy for
traditional public schools.
States Promoted Accountability for Charter School Performance and
Financial Integrity through State Actions and through Authorizers:
To promote charter school performance and financial integrity, states
took various actions to oversee charter schools and provided oversight
of and assistance to authorizers. Twenty-eight of 39 states reported
that they collected information on the extent to which charter schools
achieved the academic goals in their charters, goals that may not be
related to NCLBA. A third of the 39 surveyed states reported having
primary responsibility for monitoring the financial condition of
charter schools. In overseeing authorizers, most states also reported
having taken actions to determine whether authorizers were performing
their oversight responsibilities or to address authorizer oversight
problems.[Footnote 13] In addition, most of the states supported
authorizers by providing them with assistance to help them oversee
charter schools. Over half of the states either provided funding to
authorizers or allowed authorizers to collect a fee from the charter
schools they authorize.
States Took Various Actions to Monitor the Academic Performance and
Financial Integrity of Charter Schools:
All but 5 states reported monitoring the enforcement of NCLBA school
improvement requirements for charter schools. Title I schools are
designated as in need of improvement if they miss state performance
targets for 2 or more years in a row and certain school improvement
actions are required. According to our survey, only 6 states reported
being responsible for developing school improvement strategies. (See
table 1.) Over half of the 39 states in our survey reported having
responsibility for enforcing school improvement actions. Table 8 in
Appendix II presents the detailed responses to these questions,
organized by states' authorizer structures.
Table 1: Number of States with Various Responsibilities for NCLBA
School Improvement Actions for Charter Schools:
State department of education or board of education...Has primary
responsibility for developing a strategy for school improvement;
Number of states: 6.
State department of education or board of education...Has primary
responsibility to enforce school improvement actions;
Number of states: 21.
State department of education or board of education...Has taken
action to determine whether school improvement actions are enforced;
Number of states: 33.
Source: GAO survey.
Note: Each row in the table reports states responses to a separate
question.
[End of table]
Twenty-eight of the 39 surveyed states reported that they also
collected information on the extent to which charter schools achieved
the academic goals in their charters, not including those goals related
to NCLBA. Eight states reported that the state agency had primary
responsibility for ensuring the charter goals are achieved, but most of
these were states where the state agency is the only authorizer in the
state. Table 9 in appendix II shows states' detailed responses to these
questions.
States also reported varying roles in promoting financial integrity of
charter schools. Thirteen states reported that a state agency was
primarily responsible for monitoring the financial condition of charter
schools. As shown in table 2, many of the 39 states reported multiple
entities with varying degrees of responsibility for financial
monitoring. Only 4 states--Arizona, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Puerto
Rico--reported that a single entity had financial oversight
responsibility. Table 10 and table 11 in appendix II show the complete
range of answers given for each state reporting.
Table 2: Number of States with Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring
the Financial Condition of Charter Schools:
Responsible entity (most respondents marked multiple answers): State
department of education;
Number of states: 24.
Responsible entity (most respondents marked multiple answers): State
board of education;
Number of states: 13.
Responsible entity (most respondents marked multiple answers): State
charter school office;
Number of states: 10.
Responsible entity (most respondents marked multiple answers):
Authorizers;
Number of states: 33.
Responsible entity (most respondents marked multiple answers): State
audit organization;
Number of states: 20.
Responsible entity (most respondents marked multiple answers): Local
audit organization; Number of states: 7.
Responsible entity (most respondents marked multiple answers): Charter
holders;
Number of states: 32.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
Most of the 39 states relied on financial audits as one mechanism of
financial oversight. Thirty states reported that the state required
charter schools to obtain an audit of their financial statements on a
regular cycle, usually each year, and most of these states said that
state law required this audit. Generally, states reported that
independent auditing firms conducted these audits; in 6 states, they
were conducted by the state audit organization.
Although 30 states reported that audits were required, many of these
states did not provide information we requested about audit results for
the 2002-03 school year. Twenty-seven states reported that charter
schools received audits in 2002-03, but only 14 states provided audit
data.[Footnote 14] States gave several reasons for the incomplete
information. Some state officials said that they collected the annual
audit reports but did not compile the audit data for our survey or that
their office did not receive copies of the audit reports. Other states
reported that charter schools are included in school district audits,
but results are not broken out for charter schools.
In the 14 states that reported audit data, 360 of the 428 charter
schools--84 percent--received an unqualified, or "clean,"
opinion.[Footnote 15] An unqualified opinion means that financial
statements present fairly the financial position, results of
operations, and cash flows of the entity, in this case the charter
school, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
Almost 70 charter schools in these states received something other than
a clean opinion; most of these schools--59--received a qualified
opinion as the result of a problem. For example, one state had several
charter schools receive qualified opinions because of insufficient
detail in their financial statements. Three schools received a
disclaimer of opinion, indicating that the auditor did not express an
opinion on the financial statements, and 6 schools received a going
concern opinion, indicating that the school could not meet current
operating costs without incurring debt or liquidating assets.[Footnote
16]
Over one-third of the 39 surveyed states reported that in school year
2002-03, at least one charter school was closed involuntarily, for
reasons other than the charter holder's request. One state--
Connecticut--reported an involuntary charter school closure for
academic reasons in 2002-03, and 7 states--Arizona, Colorado, Florida,
Louisiana, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin--reported involuntary
charter school closures for financial reasons. Other reasons given for
involuntary closures included leadership and governance problems.
Fourteen states, many of which were the same states reporting
involuntary closures, also reported that at least one charter school
closed voluntarily in 2002-03. Table 12 in appendix II provides more
detailed information about charter school closures.
States Also Provided Oversight of and Assistance to Authorizers of
Charter Schools:
Twenty-nine states reported that entities other than a state agency
could authorize charter schools. These states reported that they had
established a variety of statewide policies and procedures that
authorizers and schools must use. Nearly all of the 29 states
established procedures for administering standardized tests. Eight
states established policies that required or allowed accreditation of
charter schools. Over half of the 29 states reported that they
prescribed accounting standards for authorizers, and 12 reported that
they permitted authorizers to withhold state funds from charter
schools.[Footnote 17]
Most of the 29 states also reported having taken actions to determine
whether authorizers were performing their oversight responsibilities or
to address authorizer oversight problems. As table 3 shows, these
actions sometimes involved audits or investigations of authorizers. Not
shown in table 3, most of the 29 states provided notification of
potential charter school noncompliance with educational or financial
requirements. Table 13 in appendix II provides more detailed
information about states' actions to address authorizers not performing
their oversight responsibilities.
Table 3: State Actions to Monitor Authorizers' Financial Integrity:
Actions by state: Conduct financial statement audits of authorizers;
Number of states: 5.
Actions by state: Conduct investigations of authorizers;
Number of states: 5.
Actions by state: Request third-party financial statement audits of
authorizers; Number of states: 9.
Actions by state: Request third-party investigations of authorizers;
Number of states: 2.
Source: GAO survey.
Note: Some states marked multiple answers.
[End of table]
In addition to overseeing authorizers, states supported authorizers by
providing them with assistance to help them oversee charter schools. As
shown in table 4, nearly all of the 29 states provided assistance in at
least one of four forms: state funding, fees for service, training, and
technical assistance. Over half of the 29 states either provided
funding to authorizers or allowed authorizers to collect a fee from the
charter schools they authorize.
Table 4: States' Assistance to Authorizers to Help Them Oversee Charter
Schools:
State: Alaska;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Arizona;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: California;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Colorado;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: District of Columbia;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: No response[A];
Provides technical assistance: No response.
State: Delaware;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Florida;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Georgia;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Idaho;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Illinois;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Indiana;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Louisiana;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Maryland;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Michigan;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Minnesota;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Missouri;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Nevada;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: New Mexico;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: New York;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Ohio;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Oklahoma;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Oregon;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Pennsylvania;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: South Carolina;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Texas;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: No response.
State: Utah;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Virginia;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: No response;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Wisconsin;
Provides funding: No;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: Yes;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
State: Wyoming;
Provides funding: Yes;
Allows authorizers to collect a fee: No;
Provides training: Yes;
Provides technical assistance: Yes.
Source: GAO survey.
Note: States where only the state authorizes are not included in this
table.
[A] The independent charter school board in the District of Columbia
also identified training as a form of assistance provided to
authorizers.
[End of table]
Most of the 29 states also collected information from authorizers about
the charter schools the authorizer oversaw. As shown in table 5, the
majority required authorizers to submit schools' charters and student
attendance data to the state. Fewer than half required authorizers to
submit performance reports about the schools they authorized, contracts
approved by charter schools, and information about policy decisions
made by charter holders.
Table 5: Information States Required of Authorizers:
Information required: Schools' charters;
Number of states: 22.
Information required: School performance reports[A];
Number of states: 11.
Information required: Student attendance data;
Number of states: 22.
Information required: Contracts approved by charter holders;
Number of states: 8.
Information required: Policy decisions;
Number of states: 4.
Source: GAO survey.
[A] These reports may or may not be related to school performance under
NCLBA, but officials in all states reported elsewhere in our survey
that charter schools were using the state standardized test for NCLBA.
[End of table]
NCLBA's Provisions Apply to Charter Schools but Provide Some
Flexibilities:
Under NCLBA, charter schools are required to meet the same performance
requirements as other public schools, but the law permits certain
flexibilities where allowed by state law. Charter schools, like other
public schools, are subject to the law's requirements for the
assessment of school performance and the implementation of actions
required when schools do not meet state performance goals. NCLBA
requires that oversight responsibility be performed in accordance with
state law. In addition, while NCLBA requires certification for all
other teachers to meet the highly qualified teacher requirement, the
law exempts charter school teachers from this requirement where state
law contains such an exemption.
NCLBA Requires Charter Schools to Comply with Its Provisions, but
Oversight Responsibility Is Determined by State Law:
Charter schools, like other public schools, are subject to the single
statewide system for assessing school performance required by NCLBA and
to the law's parental notification requirements regarding the school's
performance on these assessments. If charter schools receiving Title I
funds do not meet annual performance goals, they must also implement
the school improvement actions NCLBA requires. Education's guidance for
charter schools specifies that NCLBA requirements are to be overseen in
accordance with state law and that it is state law that determines the
entity with responsibility for the performance of charter schools.
According to the guidance, this generally means the authorizer.
Our survey of states indicated that charter schools were included in
statewide assessment systems. All 39 states indicated that charter
schools administered the test used for states' annual performance goals
under NCLBA in 2002-03. Thirty-three states provided information on
their charter schools' performance in achieving the state performance
goals in 2002-03. Of these 33 states, 21 reported that at least half of
charter schools in the state achieved annual state performance goals in
2002-03, while 12 states indicated that fewer than half of their
charter schools achieved annual performance goals. (See fig. 4.) For
example, the percentage of charter schools achieving state performance
goals ranged from 100 percent in Utah to 8 percent in Missouri. Table
14 in appendix II includes information for each state on charter
schools' achievement of state goals.
Figure 4: Number of States with Various Percentages of Charter Schools
Achieving Annual School Performance Goals for 2002-03:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Because the school performance data reported were incomplete or
not comparable with data reported by other states, this analysis
excludes 5 states that reported their charter schools' performance in
achieving annual school performance goals. Also, this analysis includes
performance data reported for all charter schools in the District of
Columbia. See appendix I for additional details, and appendix II, table
14, for state data.
[End of figure]
In addition, the law requires schools receiving funds under Title I of
NCLBA, including charter schools, to take certain improvement actions
if they repeatedly do not achieve their states' annual performance
goals. As figure 5 shows, 31 states reported that some or all charter
schools in their states received Title I funds in 2002-03; therefore,
these Title I schools would potentially be subject to NCLBA school
improvement actions. In 21 of those states, a majority of charter
schools received Title I funds. Table 14 in appendix II provides
detailed responses on the percentage of Title I charter schools by
state.
Figure 5: Number of States with Charter Schools Receiving Title I Funds
in School Year 2002-03:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Some percentages are based on small numbers of schools (see table
14 in app. II). Four states did not provide an answer to this question.
[End of figure]
As mentioned previously in this report, our survey asked state
officials which entity in their state had primary responsibility for
NCLBA requirements, and consistent with Education's guidance, states
reported a variety of entities assuming these responsibilities. As
shown in figure 6, officials most commonly reported that development of
school improvement strategies is primarily the responsibility of the
charter holder--the entity granted permission to establish the charter
school. The enforcement role was most often seen as the responsibility
of the state education agency, either the state department or board of
education and, less frequently, authorizers. However, in 9 of the 19
states that identified a state agency as being primarily responsible,
the state agency was the only authorizer in the state.[Footnote 18] In
addition, while 7 states reported that enforcement is primarily an LEA
responsibility, LEAs are the only authorizers in 4 of these states.
Figure 6: Entities with Primary Responsibility for Developing School
Improvement Strategies and Enforcing School Improvement Actions:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Among the first of the improvement actions specified for Title I
schools are the school choice transfer option and supplemental
services. If a Title I school does not meet the state's annual school
performance goals for 2 consecutive years, it must be designated as in
need of improvement. Students attending these schools must be given the
option to transfer to another school in the district, and the transfer
school offered must not be designated in need of improvement under
NCLBA.[Footnote 19] If a school does not meet the target for a third
year, students must be offered supplementary educational services, such
as tutoring. Officials in 18 of the 31 states with Title I charter
schools reported that at least one charter school in their state had
been designated in need of improvement in school year 2002-03--a total
of 148 charter schools across the 18 states. Three of the 18 states
reported a total of 15 charter schools implementing the school choice
transfer option. An additional 5 of the 18 states reported implementing
supplemental services rather than choice. Ten states reported that
neither choice nor supplemental services was implemented or that they
did not know if any school improvement action had been taken. Table 14
in appendix II provides this information for each state.[Footnote 20]
One of the possible reasons that states reported relatively few charter
schools implementing choice may be that many charter schools are
single-school LEAs. In these cases, Education guidance says that to the
extent practicable, arrangements should be made with a neighboring LEA
to accept transferring students. If such arrangements cannot be made,
supplemental services may be offered as an alternative. Officials in 8
of the 39 states we surveyed reported that charter schools were
considered LEAs, and in 15 other states, some charter schools were
LEAs. (See fig. 7.) However, when charter schools are parts of LEAs
under state law, as reported by 16 states, and there are other eligible
schools in the LEA to which students could transfer, LEAs are required
to offer transfers. Charter school students who accept transfers under
these conditions must be provided transportation to the offered school,
even if a state's charter law does not require that transportation
funds be made available for charter schools.
Figure 7: In More Than Half of the States, Charter Schools Can Be
Separate LEAs:
[See PDF for image]
Note: States reporting "mixed status" included those in which some
charter schools are separate districts, while others are included in
existing districts, as well as those in which charter schools can be
considered separate districts for some purposes but not for others,
such as special education.
[End of figure]
Those schools, including charter schools, that meet state performance
goals may serve as schools of choice for students transferring under
NCLBA or may provide supplemental services to students attending
schools that did not meet state goals.[Footnote 21] Officials in 4
states reported on our survey that at least one charter school in their
state received students transferring under the NCLBA school choice
provision, and officials in 3 states reported charter schools serving
as providers of supplemental services.
A few states reported other reasons that school improvement actions,
including school choice transfer, were not implemented in charter
schools. In 1 state, timing was reported as a possible reason--that is,
school improvement actions may have been planned but not yet taken by
the end of school year 2002-03. In 2 states, officials said that
charter schools are schools of choice and students may transfer at any
time. In another state, officials said they believed that in most
charter schools needing improvement, parents might have declined to
transfer their children--or might not have been offered the transfer
option because of a misunderstanding of the law. However, some states
did not know what actions were taken in charter schools needing
improvement. For example, officials in 3 states, with a total of 78
charter schools needing improvement in 2002-03, were unable to provide
information about any school improvement actions that may have been
taken in those schools.
NCLBA Allows Certain Flexibilities for Charter Schools:
While most accountability provisions of NCLBA are applied in the same
way to charter and traditional schools, the law makes a distinction in
several areas. For one thing, NCLBA requirements for highly qualified
teachers make an exception in the certification requirement for charter
school teachers. In general, to be highly qualified under NCLBA,
teachers in core academic subjects must have obtained state teacher
certification, hold a bachelor's degree, and have demonstrated subject
matter knowledge.[Footnote 22] However, the law provides that teachers
of core academic subjects in charter schools meet the certification
requirement if they meet the requirements set forth in their state's
charter school law regarding certification or licensure. Officials in
13 of the 39 states in our survey reported that their state law
exempted charter school teachers from certification requirements.
In addition, Education's NCLBA guidance for charter schools modifies
the instructions regarding lotteries to give preference to students
seeking to transfer to the charter school under the choice provision of
NCLBA. Charter schools receiving funds under Education's Charter School
Program must use a lottery if they have more applicants than can be
served by the school. The NCLBA guidance permits such charter schools
to weight the lottery to increase the chances of admitting students
seeking to change schools under the law's choice provisions.
Other areas where charter schools have had flexibility do not appear to
be affected by NCLBA, such as having additional, unique academic goals
and using additional assessments to measure progress for those goals.
Officials in 30 of the 39 charter school states we surveyed reported
that all charter schools included unique academic goals, not related to
the state's annual school performance goals, in their charters.
Officials in 4 other states reported that at least some of the charter
schools in their states included their own academic goals in their
charters.[Footnote 23] Twenty-three states reported that charter
schools in their states use a test, in addition to the standardized
test required by the state, for their own assessment purposes.[Footnote
24]
Education Provides Support to Charter Schools Directly and Indirectly
through Several Federal Programs and Conducts Research on Charter
Schools:
As it does for all public schools, Education plays a role in
accountability for charter schools through the resources it provides:
it administers grant programs that provide funds to charter schools,
including a program designed specifically to encourage the development
of charter schools, and sponsors research on charter school
accountability. In addition, NCLBA reiterated Education's additional
responsibility for charter schools' funds. The department must ensure
that new and expanding charter schools receive timely payment of
federal grant funds for which they are eligible. Education's OIG has
reported problems with the timeliness of receipt of Title I funds by
charter schools and recommended that Education more closely monitor
this situation. Although Education monitors states' oversight systems
and visits some school districts and schools, the data collected during
these site visits can only be used to determine the timeliness of funds
disbursed at the locations visited. Therefore, Education has little
information to use in ensuring that charter schools receive their
federal funds promptly or to know how well the schools perform.
Education is in the process of developing new systems that are expected
to provide both performance and financial reports for the department's
major grant programs, but the ability of the new systems to provide
financial data for charter schools is questionable. Education also
sponsors research that provides a better understanding of charter
schools.
Education Administers Grant Programs That Provided Funds to Charter
Schools but Could Seldom Distinguish Charter Schools from Others in
Data Collected:
Although charter schools receive funds from a variety of federal
programs, Education's monitoring of these programs provides little
information that can help the department fulfill its responsibility
under NCLBA to ensure timely payment to charter schools. Table 6 shows
selected grant programs from which charter schools commonly receive
federal funds. In the case of the larger grant programs, Title I and
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Education makes
grants to the states, which then distribute the money to local
education agencies. In such cases, Education monitors state programs,
including state systems for monitoring local programs, by reviewing
annual performance reports and conducting site visits. As part of its
monitoring process, Education visits a selected number of school
districts and schools. However, the data collected during these site
visits could be used to determine the timeliness only of funds
disbursed to the districts and schools visited. These data cannot be
used to check timeliness of funds dispersed to all of a state's charter
schools.
Table 6: Selected Grant Programs In Which Charter Schools Participate:
Dollars in thousands.
Program: Title I;
Purpose: Educating students from low-income families;
2003 appropriation: $11,689;
Grantees: SEAs;
LEAs are subgrantees;
Can Education track its funds to school level? No.
Program: IDEA Part B;
Purpose: Educating disabled students;
2003 appropriation: $9,957;
Grantees: SEAs;
Can Education track its funds to school level? No.
Program: Impact Aid;
Purpose: Educating federally connected students;
2003 appropriation: $1,188;
Grantees: LEAs;
Can Education track its funds to school level? Yes--only for charter
schools that are separate LEAs.
Program: Charter School Program;
Purpose: Support for new charter schools;
2003 appropriation: $198.7;
Grantees: SEAs;
schools may apply directly in states without approved grant
applications;
Can Education track its funds to school level? No--except for those
schools that apply directly to Education[A].
Program: Teaching of Traditional American History;
Purpose: Improving instructional quality;
2003 appropriation: $99.4;
Grantees: LEAs;
Can Education track its funds to school level? Yes--only for charter
schools that are separate LEAs and apply for program funds as LEAs, not
for charter schools that receive funds through LEAs.
Program: GEAR UP;
Purpose: Preparing low-income students for college;
2003 appropriation: $293.0;
Grantees: SEAs; LEAs; other;
Can Education track its funds to school level? No.
Sources: Interviews with grant program officials; the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance Web site; and the President's 2005 Budget
Request as presented on the Department of Education's Web site.
[A] In recent years, virtually all schools that apply directly have
come from one state--Arizona.
[End of table]
NCLBA charges both Education and states with ensuring that new and
expanding charter schools receive all federal formula grant funds for
which they are eligible within 5 months of opening or expanding.
However, Education's OIG reported problems with the timeliness of Title
I grant payments to charter schools. In 2003 and 2004, the OIG examined
the timeliness of states' Title I payments to charter schools in
Arizona, California, and New York and found delays as long as 13 months
in New York and 6 months in Arizona. In reporting these findings, the
OIG included suggestions for improving Education's monitoring of
payment timeliness for charter schools.[Footnote 25] Education has
generally accepted the OIG's recommendations and proposes to take
certain steps to improve its monitoring of these payments.
Responses to our survey suggested that states varied in their ability
to track federal funds flowing to charter schools in their states. For
instance, according to our survey, although officials in 36 states
reported that they monitored the federal funding that individual
charter schools received, just 13 states were able to report the
proportion. However, according to officials in at least two of these 13
states--Ohio and Texas--their states have developed the capability to
track the flow of state and federal funds to charter schools through
their automated financial information systems. The information on
funding flows and the timeliness of payments these systems provide can
assist state education agencies in Ohio and Texas in ensuring that
charter schools receive federal grant funds.
For most grant programs, Education's financial data system does not
identify individual schools, nor does it distinguish between charter
schools and other schools. Instead, for most programs, funding is
provided to, and data are collected on, the grant recipient, which is
usually an SEA or LEA. The management information system that
Education's grant managers use to track funds and oversee their
programs, GAPS, follows the payment and timing of grants according to
the fiscal agent, frequently an SEA or LEA.[Footnote 26] Only when
schools are single-school LEAs can they serve as fiscal agents in some
programs. Even then, however, single-school charter school LEAs are not
separately identified as charter schools in GAPS. For the programs
shown in table 6, GAPS cannot be used to obtain complete information on
grant receipt at the charter school level. Furthermore, although there
are plans to develop a new management information system to improve
grant monitoring, it is unlikely that the new system will have the
capability to track Education's grant funds to the school level.
Without the capability in its financial information system to track
federal funds to charter schools, Education must rely on states for
information to perform its responsibility under NCLBA to ensure prompt
payment of federal funds to individual charter schools. According to
Education's OIG, Education's current monitoring of states does not
systematically obtain information about timeliness. While monitoring
team members sometimes asked about timely payment on their own
initiative, Education's monitoring procedures for Title I funds did not
instruct team members to inquire about timely payment of funds to
charter schools.
At present, a similar lack of charter school-level information exists
for school performance data. Education did not collect information on
NCLBA-related annual school performance goal status for any public
schools in school year 2002-03, and the performance data Education
collected about school improvement status did not allow the department
to distinguish charter schools from other public schools without
additional analysis and reporting. Education required states to submit
a Consolidated State Performance Report by December 2003 on specific
aspects of NCLBA implementation for the 2002-03 school year.[Footnote
27] Of the Consolidated State Performance Report's three main sections-
-student performance, schools needing improvement, and school choice
and supplemental educational services--none requested separate data on
charter schools.
Education also administers the Charter School Program, a grant program
designed specifically to encourage the development and expansion of
charter schools. The Charter School Program obligated about $199
million in grants in fiscal year 2003. Typically, grants are awarded to
state agencies, although other entities, including schools, can apply
directly if their state does not have an approved application on file.
The grant is competitive; that is, applications are ranked and awards
are made on the basis of the applicant's ability to meet program goals.
To monitor this program, Education has collected information on how
well the program is meeting its goal of developing and expanding
charter schools, using the standard performance report used by most
Education programs.[Footnote 28] This report does not require that
states receiving Charter School Program grants provide this information
in a standardized, uniform way. States provided information about how
they are meeting the goal in formats of their own choosing, resulting
in data that are not readily aggregated and making determination of
overall program success difficult. For example, at least one state
reported the number of grant applications received and awarded but did
not report on the number of schools actually opened and operated that
were funded by those grants, a piece of information critical to
assessing the program's goal of developing and expanding charter
schools.
In 2003, federal program officials developed a supplementary form that
requested more specific indicators of performance; for instance, the
form asks specifically for the number of charter schools opened each
year. According to an Education official, the information provided on
this form has been useful in monitoring the grant, but completing it is
voluntary on the part of the states, and not all states choose to
provide the information. Having the data from all states on the number
of new charter schools started with Charter School Program funds would
allow program officials to monitor the program's goal of encouraging
the development of charter schools more precisely than the standard
performance report permits.
Data System Holds Promise for Tracking School-Level Performance Data;
Financial Data Are More Problematic:
To support Education's grant management functions and to streamline
collection of performance reports across grant programs, Education is
in the process of developing the PBDMI. The PBDMI is designed to be a
comprehensive system that will integrate information from numerous data
sources. The design calls for the system to include both financial and
academic performance information. For the academic performance
information component, the PBDMI is expected to provide school-level
academic performance information for the department's major grant
programs, including information on NCLBA implementation. Education
officials also hope to use PBDMI's financial information to examine the
link between federal grant program resources and program results.
Moreover, the system is designed to produce reports that break out
charter schools, but this capability is contingent upon receiving data
from states that identify charter schools. Education officials expect
to implement the academic performance information component in spring
2005, and the PBDMI's financial information component is in an early
stage of implementation.
For academic performance information, the system's school-level data
categories will include whether schools have achieved annual state
school performance goals under NCLBA, whether or not students from the
school have transferred to other schools under school choice, and the
number of students receiving supplemental services. Reports covering
these categories would allow Education to monitor and analyze charter
schools' NCLBA results. In fact, once the PBDMI is fully implemented,
according to an Education official, elements of the Consolidated State
Performance Report will be replaced, since the new system will allow
Education to monitor implementation of NCLBA in all public schools.
Although the academic performance information component is fully
developed, the extent to which the PBDMI will provide school-level
financial information, including information that could be used to
track the timeliness of payments, still is unclear. The PBDMI is
expected to draw on the new grant tracking and monitoring system that
will replace GAPS, but that system is unlikely to have the capability
to track Education's grant funds to the school level, according to
Education officials. Consequently, on the basis of our discussions with
Education officials, it appears questionable that the PBDMI will be
able to track federal funds to schools, either traditional public
schools or charter schools, unless other school-level data sources are
available, such as information states may be able to provide. However,
according to Education officials, states and school districts in some
cases may not maintain complete school-level records on federal grant
fund disbursements. For instance, Education officials explained that
because for some grant programs, federal funds bypass the states and go
directly to school districts, states may not record the disbursements.
States' records also are incomplete in some cases because states may
redistribute the funds for federal grant programs, such as Title I, and
record those disbursements, but have no records of the disbursements
made by school districts or schools. Thus, Education's plan for
collecting school-level financial information for the PBDMI is not yet
complete.
Through a separate process, the PBDMI also will make possible the
collection of specialized data, which could provide useful information
in understanding the performance of charter schools. Surveys will be
used to obtain information on schools or subpopulations of schools that
is not reported annually by state agencies. For charter schools, the
specialized information could include data such as authorizer type.
Researchers then would be able to use the PBDMI's information on
characteristics of charter school and the type of authorizer that
oversees each charter school in the design of charter school studies,
such as Education's charter school impact evaluation of the
effectiveness of charter schools. Collecting information on the entire
charter school population, storing it in the PBDMI, and updating it
periodically would avoid the need for researchers to collect basic
descriptive information each time a charter school study is conducted.
The first survey--which is not currently focused on charter schools--is
planned for spring 2005. No surveys of charter schools are planned yet,
according to an Education official, although they could be considered
in the future.
Education Has Sponsored Research on Charter Schools:
To contribute to understanding of the charter school movement and
address the department's interest in charter schools as an educational
reform, Education has sponsored a range of research projects on charter
schools. Some findings of these studies provide useful information
related to accountability for school performance and financial
integrity. Appendix III shows selected charter school research projects
sponsored by Education. For example, the department has conducted a
series of studies based on national surveys, published as The State of
Charter Schools and A Decade of Public Charter Schools. These studies
provided useful information on the methods authorizers use to hold
charter schools responsible for academic performance and financial
integrity, but they did not examine states' oversight actions. These
studies also have produced valuable information on the flexibilities
available to and preferred by charter schools. Although they provided
descriptive information on authorizers' oversight methods, these
studies were not designed to focus on states' oversight actions and
charter school performance. Thus, the studies did not attempt to
associate states' approaches to flexibility or oversight actions with
charter school results.
At present, Education is undertaking a major study of charter school
performance, the charter school impact study shown in appendix III.
This study, Education's first evaluation designed to determine whether
charter schools can make a difference in the academic achievement of
their students, will track about 3,000 students in 50 schools in 10
states. It will compare the achievement on standardized tests over 3
years for a cohort of students accepted into the 50 charter schools and
students who applied to those schools but were not accepted. This
approach should result in a methodologically rigorous study design
because acceptance into an oversubscribed charter school is supposed to
be based on a lottery. Assignment by a lottery would yield a study
group and a comparison group that are created from randomly selected
students. In order to identify the conditions under which charter
schools are most effective in improving student achievement, the study
is likely to include a measure of the flexibility states offer charter
schools, according to an Education official. As originally designed,
the study did not include plans to examine states' approaches to
oversight or to associate these approaches with school performance.
According to department officials, subsequent revisions were made to
the study design to allow Education to examine how various aspects of
state and authorizer policy may contribute to student achievement.
However, the amended evaluation design does not make clear the extent
to which states' accountability practices will be taken into account.
Conclusions:
In recent years, charter schools have enjoyed widespread support as
vehicles with potential to provide parental choice in education and
promote innovation and creativity in the nation's educational system.
Flexibility and increased autonomy are thought to be important tools
for successful charter schools. However, the many challenges of
starting and operating a successful charter school are widely
recognized, and these challenges could put charter schools at risk for
academic and financial difficulties.
Like the department's role in administering other federal public school
programs, Education's oversight responsibility for charter schools
seldom extends to individual schools. However, charter schools, as a
group, are of particular interest to policy makers because they hold
promise as an education reform. Education's inability to disaggregate
charter schools in its routine monitoring and analysis activities has
limited its ability to provide policy makers information on the
academic performance of charter schools, although the department's
planned comprehensive data system, PBDMI, is expected to improve this
situation soon. However, the department's plans for the financial
component of PBDMI are much less developed. Although it appears that
the system has the potential to assist the department in its
responsibility to ensure timely grant payments to charter schools,
critical questions remain about the capability of states to provide
complete information on the timing and disbursements of federal funds.
Some states, including Ohio and Texas, have developed financial
information systems that include records of school-level disbursements
of federal funds. Such improvements enable these states to track the
timeliness of federal grant payments to charter schools.
In an area where Education has a more direct monitoring role--oversight
of the Charter School Program--program officials have recently taken
steps to collect data that give better insight into program
performance. For instance, program officials have begun to ask for
standardized data on program progress, such as the number of charter
schools opened. However, reporting the information is voluntary, and
not all states choose to provide it. Without assurance that states will
provide the requested information, Education is limited in its ability
to gauge the Charter School Program's accomplishments.
Finally, as it does for other public schools, Education plays an
important role in advancing knowledge about charter schools through
research efforts it sponsors, and its planned evaluation of achievement
in charter schools will further contribute to this knowledge base. The
size of this study--about 3000 students in 50 charter schools--could
afford an opportunity for researchers to further examine the
relationship between states' approaches to oversight of charter schools
and their academic success.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help the department in carrying out its responsibilities related to
monitoring federal funds for charter schools and to provide further
information on charter schools as an educational reform, we recommend
that the Secretary of Education:
1. Support implementation of the PBDMI's financial performance
information component by assisting states in developing automated
financial information systems to measure and track the disbursement of
funds to the charter school level.
2. Require Charter School Program grantees to include in their annual
performance reports standard indicators of program accomplishments, in
particular, the number of schools started through use of grant funds.
3. Require that the planned charter school impact evaluation design
include an analysis of the effects of accountability practices on
charter schools' performance.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for
review and comment. Education's comments appear in appendix IV.
Recommended technical changes have been incorporated in the report as
appropriate.
Education said that the report provides useful information about the
application of NCLBA to charter schools, charter school authorizers,
and states' oversight of charter schools. Education strongly agreed
with our recommendation about reporting requirements for the Charter
School Program and indicated its intention to implement that
recommendation. In the case of our recommendation that the department
support the implementation of PBDMI's financial component by assisting
states in making improvements to their financial information systems,
Education said that it would look more closely at the systems developed
in Ohio and Texas and, if merited, will share this information with
other states. Education also will use the review of Ohio and Texas'
information systems to assess the degree of burden states might incur
in measuring and tracking financial information to the school level.
Regarding our recommendation about examining the effects of
accountability practices on school performance, Education agreed to
examine expanding the impact evaluation to include a review of
authorizers' oversight and accountability practices.
We have withdrawn our recommendation that Education collect information
on authorizer type through a PBDMI survey. We think that Education's
plan to examine the strength of the relationship between authorizers
and charter schools' academic performance in the charter school impact
evaluation is a good first step. We think using information from a
small sample of schools to determine whether authorizer type should be
collected for the entire charter school population through a PBDMI
survey is a prudent use of resources.
We will send copies of this report to the relevant congressional
committees and other interested parties. We also will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be made
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions
about this report. Other contacts and major contributors are listed in
appendix V.
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This appendix discusses in more detail our methodology for examining
states' oversight of their charter school systems and the role the
Department of Education (Education) plays in charter school
accountability. The study was framed around four questions: (1) how
states allow charter schools flexibility in design and operation, (2)
how states promote accountability for school performance and financial
integrity in their charter school systems, (3) the implications of the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) for charter schools, and (4) the role
Education plays in charter school accountability for school performance
and financial integrity.
Scope:
While individual charter schools often are locally initiated, the state
legislature determines the basic structure of a state's charter school
system in legislation. Prior research on charter school accountability
has focused on the relationship between charter school authorizers and
their schools, but few studies examined the flexibility that state laws
and agencies grant authorizers and schools or the accountability
responsibilities the state exercises. To examine how states allow
flexibility and promote accountability, we focused on the approaches
all states and other political units with operating charter schools in
school year 2002-03 took to managing the accountability relationship
with charter school authorizers and schools. We also examined states'
NCLBA implementation practices and the role Education played in
supporting charter school accountability through federal funds and
research.
Methodology:
Survey Data Collection and Analysis:
The population for this survey included the state charter school
agencies in the 37 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,
all of which had operating charter schools in school year 2002-03. We
obtained usable data from all 39. We asked that the person most
knowledgeable about the state's charter schools coordinate completion
of the data collection instrument and confer with representatives of
other offices in the state department of education or other charter
school agencies for questions that required more in-depth knowledge of
particular areas.
To develop survey questions, we conducted interviews with charter
school researchers and reviewed existing studies on the relationship
between authorizers and their schools. We also consulted with
Education's Charter School Program officials. In addition, we conducted
an exploratory site visit to Ohio charter school organizations to
develop an understanding of authorizers' and charter schools'
perspectives on state oversight actions. We also discussed their
charter school accountability research with representatives of the
state legislative oversight agency and state audit agency. The survey
included both a primary data collection instrument and a second data
collection instrument used to verify state responses to the primary
data collection instrument and to collect additional contextual data.
In addition to an internal expert technical review by our survey
coordination group, we conducted a two-stage pretest of the primary
data collection instrument in 6 states to ensure that the data
collection instrument was clear and could be answered accurately in a
reasonable amount of time. These states were Arizona, Indiana,
Louisiana, New Jersey, Oregon, and Texas.[Footnote 29] We modified the
data collection instrument to incorporate findings from the pretest. On
the basis of this work, we decided on a two-pronged approach: a primary
self-administered survey and a follow-up telephone survey. The primary
data collection instrument, used for the self-administered survey, was
an electronic instrument that was sent to the state agencies by e-mail.
As intended, state agency respondents completed the data collection
instrument electronically and returned the completed instrument to GAO
headquarters by e-mail. The second data collection instrument, used for
the follow-up survey, was also an electronic document with open-ended
questions that collected narrative data. This data collection
instrument was administered by telephone by a GAO analyst. The second
follow-up survey provided for clarification and verification of
responses to the primary data collection instrument to ensure that any
variation among charter school state agencies in approaches to
flexibility, accountability practices, and organizational structures
was in fact due to differences in their approaches. This follow-up
interview was conducted with each of the 39 states that returned the
primary data collection instrument. Another set of follow-up contacts
for data that required inquiries with additional state agency
representatives or searches of state agency records also was conducted
by e-mail.
Our approach also involved two additional data gathering and
verification steps. During the follow-up telephone interview,
additional information was obtained from all participating states on
survey questions concerning actions state agencies took to oversee
authorizers and set statewide policies and procedures for charter
schools, and a short supplemental instrument was completed. In
addition, the 6 states selected to pretest the data collection
instrument were asked to complete a short modification instrument that
included only those questions that had changed or been added from the
pretest version to the final version of the primary data collection
instrument.
To expedite data preparation, responses on the electronic version of
the primary data collection instrument were transferred electronically
directly into the survey data file. Changes to responses on the
electronic version of the instruments originally submitted by state
respondents, arising from (1) the follow-up interviews and (2) the
supplemental instruments on accountability practices, were recorded
manually on a hard copy of the e-mail submission and entered into the
survey data file through programming codes. For the pretest states,
integrated electronic versions of the original survey responses on the
primary data collection instrument, and responses to the second data
collection instrument, the supplemental instrument, and changes
collected by the modification instrument were transferred to a new
instrument, and a 100 percent verification of this information was
completed. As with other states' responses, the pretest states'
responses on the integrated electronic data collection instrument were
then read directly into the survey data file.
Thirty-nine states responded to the survey, yielding a 100 percent
response rate. In two instances, we adapted our survey data collection
strategy to suit local circumstances. In Arizona, although we initially
contacted the state education agency, that agency and the independent
charter school board agreed that the independent board would take the
lead in completing the survey. However, both entities worked together
to provide a completed survey. In the District of Columbia, the Board
of Education opted to answer the survey only for the charter schools it
authorized. To obtain complete information, we asked the District of
Columbia's independent charter school board to complete a separate
survey for its charter schools. Where appropriate, we have provided the
additional information we obtained from the independent charter school
board.
The survey relied on state agency officials' self-reporting of
flexibility, accountability, and NCLBA implementation information. To
ensure the reliability of the data collected, responses from the
follow-up interviews were used to verify survey responses and to make
corrections. Changes made to the original survey were verified
independently. An independent analyst compared the programming done to
incorporate the corrections arising from the follow-up interview with
responses in the survey data file.
The survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and cross-
tabulations. In collecting and analyzing the financial statement audit
data, we employed the following definitions of audit results:
* Unqualified opinion. The financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position, results of operations, and
cash flows of the entity in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.
* Qualified opinion. Except for the effects of the matter to which the
qualification relates, the financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position, results of operations, and
cash flows of the entity in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.
* Disclaimer of opinion. A disclaimer of opinion states that the
auditor does not express an opinion on the financial statements.
* Going concern. The entity cannot meet current operating costs without
incurring debt or liquidating assets.
However, in analyzing the data on states' financial oversight actions,
we did not assess how well the oversight was conducted, that is,
whether the required financial audit reports were in fact reviewed by
the oversight agencies or whether agency officials had the skills
needed to make financial assessments.
Because the school performance data reported were incomplete or not
comparable with data reported by other states, we excluded data on
charter schools' performance in achieving state performance goals in
school year 2002-03 reported by 5 states from our state performance
summary:
* Arkansas. All seven of Arkansas' charter schools were assessed, but
all seven were not rated because the charter schools had not all been
in operation for 3 years. Arkansas uses a 3-year model to determine
student proficiency.
* Connecticut. The designated contact disclosed that the state tested
charter schools in the fall of 2003 and attributed the results to
spring 2003. Thus, the Connecticut charter school performance data did
not reflect the same time period as data for other states.
* Indiana. Because test results for the 2002-03 school year were not
yet available, Indiana reported results from the test administered in
school year 2001-02. Indiana had no operating charter schools in 2001-
02.
* New York. New York's charter school performance data were incomplete.
The designated contact reported results for 5 of the state's 38 charter
schools.
* Wisconsin. Wisconsin's charter school performance data were
incomplete. The designated contact reported results for the charter
schools authorized by the state agency, a small proportion of the
state's 128 charter schools.
Interviews with Education Officials:
To determine Education's role in charter school flexibility and
accountability, we conducted interviews with representatives of the
Charter School Program, Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), selected other formula and discretionary grant
programs, the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS) financial
information system, the Office of Inspector General, and Education's
research offices. We also interviewed charter school experts, including
Bryan Hassel, Public Impact; Katrina Bulkley, Rutgers University; Mark
Cannon, National Association of Charter School Authorizers; Louann
Bierlein-Palmer, Western Michigan University; and Anna Varghese, Center
for Education Reform. We identified grant programs for inclusion in our
assessment on the basis of program size and nomination by Education
officials, and we asked Education officials to identify grant programs
in which charter schools were likely to participate. We also reviewed
documentation for the grant programs, the Performance-Based Data
Management Initiative (PBDMI), GAPS, and the charter school impact
study design.
We also used findings from the interviews and document review to
determine the implications of NCLBA for charter schools.
Review of Existing Charter School Accountability Studies:
To examine Education's role in sponsoring charter school research, we
reviewed existing studies of charter school accountability for school
performance and financial integrity. This review was designed to
identify the research sponsored by Education and other policy research
organizations that assessed some aspect of charter school
accountability. We framed our search for existing research broadly
enough to identify studies that focused on the oversight relationship
between authorizers and charter schools. We included research sponsored
by Education and other organizations to identify the range and quality
of research evidence on charter school accountability available to
charter school state agencies and authorizers.
To identify a potential population of studies, we consulted with
knowledgeable Education officials and conducted a search of automated
bibliographic data bases for studies of charter schools focused, in
whole or in part, on any aspect of charter school accountability for
school performance and financial integrity. We gave priority to studies
that covered all or multiple states with operating charter schools or
had highly salient findings. Appendix III lists the studies identified.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Selected Data Tables from Survey:
Table 7: Types of Authorizers in States with a Mix of Authorizers in
School Year 2002-03:
State: Arizona;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes;
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 9;
Independent charter school boards: 1.
State: California;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes;
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 180;
Other LEAs: 18.
State: District of Columbia;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes;
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Independent charter school boards: 1.
State: Delaware;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes[A];
Department of education (DOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 1.
State: Florida;
Choice among authorizers allowed: No;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 38;
Public colleges and universities: 1.
State: Georgia;
Choice among authorizers allowed: No;
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 35.
State: Idaho;
Choice among authorizers allowed: b;
Board of education (BOE): 0;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 11.
State: Illinois;
Choice among authorizers allowed: No;
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 7.
State: Indiana;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes[A];
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 2;
Municipal governments: 1;
Public colleges and universities: 1.
State: Louisiana;
Choice among authorizers allowed: No;
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 6.
State: Maryland;
Choice among authorizers allowed: No;
Board of education (BOE): 0;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 1.
State: Michigan;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 4;
Other LEAs: 11;
Public colleges and universities: 11.
State: Minnesota;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes;
Department of education (DOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 17;
Other LEAs: 2;
Public colleges and universities: 4;
Private colleges and universities: 9;
Nonprofit organizations: 6.
State: Missouri;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes;
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 2;
Public colleges and universities: 6.
State: New York;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes;
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 1;
Independent charter school boards: 1.
State: Ohio;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes[A,C];
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 13;
Other LEAs: 1;
Private colleges and universities: 1.
State: Oregon;
Choice among authorizers allowed: No;
Board of education (BOE): 0;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 18.
State: Texas;
Choice among authorizers allowed: [D];
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 5.
State: Utah;
Choice among authorizers allowed: No;
Board of education (BOE): 1;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 4.
State: Wisconsin;
Choice among authorizers allowed: Yes[A];
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 66;
Municipal governments: 5;
Public colleges and universities: 6.
Total;
Department of education (DOE): 2;
Board of education (BOE): 11;
Local school district local education agencies (LEAs): 420;
Other LEAs: 32;
Independent charter school boards: 3;
Municipal governments: 6;
Public colleges and universities: 29;
Private colleges and universities: 10;
Nonprofit organizations: 6.
Source: GAO survey.
Note: The state agencies in Idaho, Maryland, Missouri and Oregon were
overseeing no operating charter schools in school year 2002-03.
[A] Choice is restricted to some locations or circumstances.
[B] Did not respond.
[C] Law changed April 2003 to further expand choices available.
[D] The respondent from Texas chose not to answer this question.
However, the respondent acknowledged that when the legislation was
passed, the intent was to have both state and LEA authorizers.
[End of table]
Table 8: Responsibility for NCLBA School Improvement Actions by State
and Authorizer Structure:
Authorized structure: State only;
State: AR;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: No
response;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: LEA;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State BOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State only;
State: CT;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: No
response;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: State
DOE;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State only;
State: HI;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State BOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State only;
State: KS;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: LEA;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State only;
State: MA;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 9;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? No.
State: MS;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State only;
State: NC;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 1;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State only;
State: NJ;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? [A].
Authorized structure: State only;
State: PR;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 4;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: State
DOE;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State only;
State: RI;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: No
response;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: State
DOE;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: CA;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 25;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Other;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Other;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: DE;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: GA;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 2;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: LEA;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: ID;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: State
DOE;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: IL;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 7;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: LA;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: MD;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: LEA;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: LEA;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: OR;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy:
Authorizers;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: TX;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 7;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and LEA;
State: UT;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State, LEA, and independent board;
State: AZ;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: No
response;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
State: NY;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: No
response;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? No.
Authorized structure: State and independent board;
State: DC;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? No[B].
Authorized structure: State and other;
State: MN;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 2;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Other;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: State and other;
State: MO;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 1;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? No.
Authorized structure: State and other;
State: OH;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 15;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA only;
State: AK;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 1;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: LEA;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA only;
State: CO;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 1;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: LEA;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: LEA;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA only;
State: NM;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: State
DOE;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA only;
State: NV;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: LEA;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: LEA;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA only;
State: OK;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 2;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA only;
State: PA;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 38;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA only;
State: SC;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: LEA;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: LEA;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA only;
State: VA;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 1;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: LEA;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA only;
State: WY;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: LEA;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: LEA;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA and other;
State: FL;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 3;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA and other;
State: IN;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 0;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: State
DOE;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? No response.
Authorized structure: LEA and other;
State: MI;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 28;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy: Charter
holders;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: State DOE;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Authorized structure: LEA and other;
State: WI;
Number of charter schools in need of improvement, 2002-03: 1;
Primary responsibility for developing improvement strategy:
Authorizers;
Primary responsibility for enforcing improvement strategy: Authorizers;
Does the state monitor enforcement? Yes.
Source: GAO survey.
[A] This state reported that there were no charter schools in need of
improvement in 2002-03.
[B] Although the District of Columbia Board of Education responded that
the District does not monitor the enforcement of school improvement
actions, the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board (DCPCSB)
responded that for DCPCSB schools, the state does monitor enforcement.
[End of table]
Table 9: Oversight Of Charter Schools' Achievement of the Academic
Goals Not Related To NCLBA Academic Performance Goals, by Authorizer
Type:
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: AR;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: CT;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: HI;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
State board of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: KS;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: MA;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: MS;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
State board of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: NC;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: NJ;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: PR;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: RI;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for charter schools authorized
by the state;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: CA;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for charter schools authorized
by the state;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: DE;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for charter schools authorized
by the state;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: GA;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: ID;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: IL;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for charter schools authorized
by the state;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: LA;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: MD;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: OR;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: TX;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: UT;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for charter schools authorized
by the state;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State, LEA, and independent board;
State: AZ;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for charter schools authorized
by the state;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State, LEA, and independent board;
State: NY;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State and independent board;
State: DC;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: MN;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: MO;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: OH;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: AK;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: CO;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Authorizer structure: No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizer structure: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: NM;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Authorizer structure: Yes for all
charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizer structure: Both the state DOE and authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: NV;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Authorizer structure: Yes for all
charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizer structure: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: OK;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: PA;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: SC;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: VA;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: WY;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: FL;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Yes for all charter schools;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: IN;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? Authorizer structure: No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizer structure: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: MI;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: WI;
Does the state collect information on the extent to which charter
schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA academic
performance goals in their charters? No;
What entity has primary oversight responsibility for ensuring that
charter schools achieve the academic goals not related to NCLBA
academic performance goals specified in their charters?
Authorizers.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
Table 10: Entities Monitoring Charter Schools' Financial Condition, by
Authorizer Type:
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: AR;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: Yes;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: CT;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: No.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: HI;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: Yes;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: KS;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: Yes;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: MA;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: MS;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: NC;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: NJ;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: No;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: PR;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: No;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: No.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: RI;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: No;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: CA;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: No.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: DE;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: GA;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No response;
Local audit organization: No response;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: ID;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No response;
Local audit organization: No response;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: IL;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: Yes;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: LA;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: Yes;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: MD;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: Yes;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: OR;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: TX;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: UT;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: No;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: Don't know;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA and independent board;
State: AZ;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: No;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA and independent board;
State: NY;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and independent board;
State: DC;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: MN;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: No.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: MO;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: OH;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: AK;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: Yes;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: Yes;
Charter holders: No.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: CO;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: NM;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: NV;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: OK;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: PA;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: SC;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: VA;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: WY;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: Yes;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: FL;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: IN;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Don't know;
State audit organization: Yes;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: No .
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: MI;
State department of education: Yes;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: WI;
State department of education: No;
State board of education: No;
State charter school office: No;
Authorizers: Yes;
State audit organization: No;
Local audit organization: No;
Charter holders: No response.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
Table 11: Entities with Primary Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring
the Financial Condition of Charter Schools, by Authorizer Type:
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: AR;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Charter holders;
Conducting audit follow- up: Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: CT;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State department
of education;
Conducting audit follow-up: State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: HI;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Other entities;
Conducting audit follow-up: Other entities.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: KS;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Charter holders;
Conducting audit follow-up: Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: MA;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State charter
school office;
Conducting audit follow-up: State charter school office.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: MS;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State audit
organization;
Conducting audit follow- up: State audit organization.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: NC;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State board of
education;
Conducting audit follow- up: State board of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: NJ;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State department
of education;
Conducting audit follow-up: State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: PR;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State department
of education;
Conducting audit follow-up: State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State only;
State: RI;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State audit
organization;
Conducting audit follow- up: State audit organization.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: CA;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: DE;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State department
of education;
Conducting audit follow-up: State audit organization.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: GA;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Local audit
organization;
Conducting audit follow- up: Local audit organization.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: ID;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: IL;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: LA;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Charter holders;
Conducting audit follow-up: Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: MD;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: OR;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: TX;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State department
of education;
Conducting audit follow-up: State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: UT;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Charter holders;
Conducting audit follow-up: Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA and independent board;
State: AZ;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Charter holders;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA and independent board;
State: NY;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and independent board;
State: DC;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: MN;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: MO;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: State department of education.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: OH;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Charter holders.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: AK;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: NM;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State
department of education;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: NV;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: OK;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State department
of education;
Conducting audit follow-up: State department of education.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: PA;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: SC;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: VA;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: WY;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: State department of education.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: FL;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: State audit organization.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: IN;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State audit
organization;
Conducting audit follow-up: State audit organization.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: MI;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: State department
of education;
Conducting audit follow-up: State department of education.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: WI;
Monitoring the financial condition of charter schools: Authorizers;
Conducting audit follow-up: Authorizers.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
Table 12: Charter School Closures during 2002-03:
State: AR;
Voluntary closures: 1;
Total closures: 1.
State: AZ;
Voluntary closures: 7;
Revoked/terminated: Financial reasons: 1;
Total closures: 8.
State: CA;
Voluntary closures: 22;
Revoked/terminated: Other reasons: 12;
Total closures: 34.
State: CO;
Revoked/terminated: Financial reasons: 1;
Revoked/terminated: Other reasons: 1;
Total closures: 2.
State: CT;
Not renewed: Academic reasons: 1;
Total closures: 1.
State: FL;
Voluntary closures: 4;
Not renewed: Revoked/terminated: Financial reasons: 1;
Revoked/terminated: Other reasons: 3;
Total closures: 8.
State: GA;
Voluntary closures: 5;
Total closures: 5.
State: IL;
Voluntary closures: 2;
Not renewed: Other reasons: 1;
Total closures: 3.
State: KS;
Revoked/terminated: Other reasons: 1;
Total closures: 1.
State: LA;
Voluntary closures: 2;
Revoked/terminated: Financial reasons: 1;
Total closures: 3.
State: MI;
Voluntary closures: 1;
Not renewed: Other reasons: 1;
Revoked/terminated: Other reasons: 2;
Total closures: 4.
State: MN;
Voluntary closures: 1;
Total closures: 1.
State: NC;
Voluntary closures: 1;
Total closures: 1.
State: NJ;
Voluntary closures: 1;
Revoked/terminated: Financial reasons: 2;
Total closures: 3.
State: NV;
Revoked/terminated: Other reasons: 1;
Total closures: 1.
State: OR;
Voluntary closures: 1;
Not renewed: Financial reasons: 1;
Total closures: 2.
State: PA;
Revoked/terminated: Other reasons: 1;
Total closures: 1.
State: TX;
Voluntary closures: 7;
Total closures: 7.
State: WI;
Voluntary closures: 6;
Revoked/terminated: Financial reasons: 1;
Total closures: 7.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
Table 13: Actions Taken by States to Address Authorizers Not Performing
Their Responsibilities, by Authorizer Type:
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: CA;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes;
Overturn authorizer decisions to renew or not renew: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: DE;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: GA.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: ID;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes;
Overturn authorizer decisions to renew or not renew: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: IL;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: LA;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: MD;
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: OR;
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: TX.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA;
State: UT;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA and independent board;
State: AZ;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes;
Withhold state funds from authorizers for any reason: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and LEA and independent board;
State: NY;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes;
Overturn authorizer decisions to renew or not renew: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and independent board;
State: DC.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: MN;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: MO;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: State and other;
State: OH;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: AK;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: CO;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes;
Overturn authorizer decisions to renew or not renew: Yes .
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: NM;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes;
Withhold state funds from authorizers for any reason: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: NV;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: OK;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes;
Withhold state funds from authorizers for any reason: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: PA;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes;
Withhold state funds from authorizers for any reason: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: SC;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: VA.
Authorizer structure: LEA only;
State: WY;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: FL;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Overturn authorizer decisions to renew or not renew: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: IN.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: MI;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding financial requirements: Yes.
Authorizer structure: LEA and other;
State: WI;
Provide notification to authorizers of potential noncompliance by
charter schools regarding educational requirements: Yes;
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
Table 14: Charter Schools Achieving Annual State Performance Goals and
Taking School Improvement Actions under NCLBA, by State, in School Year
2002-03:
State: Alaska;
Year charter school operation began: 1996-97;
Operating charter schools: 16;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 100;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 10;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 63;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 1;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 1.
State: Arizona;
Year charter school operation began: 1994-95;
Operating charter schools: 460;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: >50[A];
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 279;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 69;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: No response;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: No
response;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: No response.
State: Arkansas;
Year charter school operation began: 2000-01;
Operating charter schools: 7;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 71;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: No schools
rated;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: No schools rated;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: No response;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: California;
Year charter school operation began: 1993-94;
Operating charter schools: 385;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 32;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 153;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 42;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 25;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Colorado;
Year charter school operation began: 1993-94;
Operating charter schools: 91;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 22;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 127;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 83;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 1;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: No
response;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: No response.
State: Connecticut;
Year charter school operation began: 1997-98;
Operating charter schools: 13;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 62;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: Not
comparable;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: Not comparable;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: No response;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Delaware;
Year charter school operation began: 1996-97;
Operating charter schools: 11;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 82;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 7;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 64;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: District of Columbia[B];
Year charter school operation began: 1997-98;
Operating charter schools: 35;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 100;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 9;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 30;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Florida;
Year charter school operation began: 1996-97;
Operating charter schools: 222;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 29;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 63;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 33;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 3;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Georgia;
Year charter school operation began: 1995-96;
Operating charter schools: 36;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: No response;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 21;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 78;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 2;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Hawaii;
Year charter school operation began: 1996-97;
Operating charter schools: 25;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 32;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 10;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 43;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Idaho;
Year charter school operation began: 1998-99;
Operating charter schools: 13;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 23;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 10;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 77;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Illinois;
Year charter school operation began: 1996-97;
Operating charter schools: 22;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: No response;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 8;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 38;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 7;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 7;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 1.
State: Indiana;
Year charter school operation began: 2002-03;
Operating charter schools: 11;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 0;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: No schools
rated;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: No schools rated;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Kansas;
Year charter school operation began: 1997-98;
Operating charter schools: 12;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 33;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 4;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 33;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: No response.
State: Louisiana;
Year charter school operation began: 1996-97;
Operating charter schools: 20;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 100;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 8;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 73;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Maryland;
Year charter school operation began: 2002-03;
Operating charter schools: 1;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 0;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 1;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 100;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Massachusetts;
Year charter school operation began: 1995-96;
Operating charter schools: 46;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 91;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 30;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 75;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 9;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: No response.
State: Michigan;
Year charter school operation began: 1994-95;
Operating charter schools: Not comparable[C];
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: >50[A];
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 88;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 62;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 28;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 7;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 1.
State: Minnesota;
Year charter school operation began: 1992-93;
Operating charter schools: 75;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 69;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 32;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 73;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 2;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Mississippi;
Year charter school operation began: 1998-99;
Operating charter schools: 1;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 0;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 1;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 100;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Missouri;
Year charter school operation began: 1999-00;
Operating charter schools: 25;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 100;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 2;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 8;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 1;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: Don't know.
State: Nevada;
Year charter school operation began: 1998-99;
Operating charter schools: 13;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 8;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 7;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 54;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: New Jersey;
Year charter school operation began: 1997-98;
Operating charter schools: 50;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 94;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 6;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 50;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: New Mexico;
Year charter school operation began: 1993-94;
Operating charter schools: 27;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 67;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: No schools
rated;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: No schools rated;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: New York;
Year charter school operation began: 1999-00;
Operating charter schools: 38;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 95;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: Incomplete
response;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: Incomplete response;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: No response;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: North Carolina;
Year charter school operation began: 1997-98;
Operating charter schools: 93;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 61;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 49;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 54;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 1;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: No
response;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 1.
State: Ohio;
Year charter school operation began: 1998-99;
Operating charter schools: 137;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 88;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 42;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 48;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 15;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: No
response;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: No response.
State: Oklahoma;
Year charter school operation began: 1999-00;
Operating charter schools: 10;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 60;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 4;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 40;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 2;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Oregon;
Year charter school operation began: 1999-00;
Operating charter schools: 24;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 8;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 8;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 62;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Pennsylvania;
Year charter school operation began: 1997-98;
Operating charter schools: 91;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 100;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 12;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 16;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 38;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: No
response;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: Incomplete[D].
State: Puerto Rico;
Year charter school operation began: 1996-97;
Operating charter schools: 121;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: No response;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 59;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 49;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 4;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 4.
State: Rhode Island;
Year charter school operation began: 1997-98;
Operating charter schools: 9;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 89;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 8;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 89;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: No response;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: South Carolina;
Year charter school operation began: 1997-98;
Operating charter schools: 13;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 23;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 3;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 38;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 2[E].
State: Texas;
Year charter school operation began: 1997-98;
Operating charter schools: 260[F];
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: >50[A];
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 141;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 68;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 7;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 3.
State: Utah;
Year charter school operation began: 1999-00;
Operating charter schools: 13;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 62;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 13;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 100;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Virginia;
Year charter school operation began: 2000-01;
Operating charter schools: 8;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: No response;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 2;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 67;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 1;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
State: Wisconsin;
Year charter school operation began: 1994-95;
Operating charter schools: 128;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 30;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: Incomplete
response;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: Incomplete response;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 1;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 1;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 1.
State: Wyoming;
Year charter school operation began: 2002-03;
Operating charter schools: 1;
Percentage of charter schools receiving Title I funds: 0;
Charter schools achieving annual state performance goals: 1;
Percentage of charter schools achieving annual state performance
goals: 100;
Title I charter schools needing improvement: 0;
Title I charter schools implementing school choice transfer: 0;
Title I charter schools offering supplemental services: 0.
Source: GAO survey.
[A] These figures represent conservative estimates based on data
provided by the respondents, who answered in terms of charter holders,
not individual schools.
[B] Table reflects combined data for both entities that completed the
survey for the District of Columbia.
[C] Respondent answered in terms of charter holders, which may operate
more than one school, and not in terms of individual charter schools.
[D] Respondent indicated that supplemental services were provided to
charter schools but left the number of schools blank.
[E] Supplemental services were provided to two charter schools that had
not met state annual school performance goals for 1 year but were not
yet designated as needing improvement.
[F] Respondents for Texas indicated that they answered the survey only
for the 260 charter schools authorized by the state in 2002-03 and did
not include the approximately 30 charter schools operated by five LEAs.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Summary of Selected Charter School Research Projects
Sponsored by the Department of Education:
Study: RPP International, The State of Charter Schools: National Study
of Charter Schools, Fourth Year Report, 2000;
Sponsoring Education office: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement;
Study objectives: Examine how charter schools have been implemented;
Identify under what conditions, if any, charter schools have improved
student achievement; Determine the impact charter schools have had on
public education;
Study design: Descriptive study design in the sections that focused on
charter school accountability; Employed annual surveys of all charter
schools, operating in school years 1995-96 to 1998-99; Conducted
descriptive statistical analysis of survey data.
Study: SRI International, A Decade of Public Charter Schools.
Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: 2000-2001 Evaluation
Report, 2002;
Sponsoring Education office: Policy and Program Studies Service;
Study objectives: Evaluate the Public Charter School Program; Document
the evolution of the charter school movement begun under the National
Study of Charter Schools;
Study design: Descriptive study design in the sections that focused on
charter school accountability; Employed random sample telephone surveys
of charter schools and charter school authorizers; Conducted site
visits to seven charter schools in six states; Analyzed data collected
by the National Study of Charter Schools; Conducted descriptive
statistical analysis of survey data. Qualitative data are used to help
explain some of the quantitative findings and provide examples.
Study: University of Washington, A Study of Charter School
Accountability: National Charter School Accountability Study, 2001;
Sponsoring Education office: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement;
Study objectives: Examine how the need to be responsive to authorizers
and others affects charter schools; Determine how charter school
leaders balance competing demands; Examine how authorizers and others
influence charter schools; Identify lessons public agencies have
learned about charter schools;
Study design: Exploratory study design; Interviewed government and
education association officials, reviewed documents and conducted case
studies of 17 charter schools in six states; Surveyed a sample of
authorizers and added questions to RPP's survey of charter schools;
Synthesized findings of qualitative data.
Study: Mathematica Policy Research, Charter School Impact Study, in
design;
Sponsoring Education office: Institute of Education Sciences;
Study objectives: Identify the conditions under which charter schools
are most likely to be effective;
Study design: Experimental study design; Students on charter school
waiting lists who are accepted will be assigned to the treatment group.
Students not selected will be assigned to control groups.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY:
December 17, 2004:
Ms. Mamie S. Shaul:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft report
entitled, "Charter Schools: To Enhance Education's Monitoring and
Research, More Charter School-Level Data are Needed" (GAO-05-5). I
believe this report provides useful information about the operation of
the Department's Charter Schools Program (CSP). In particular, the
report provides helpful discussion of how the requirements of the No
Child Left Behind Act apply to charter schools, the types of
authorizers States use for their charter schools, and States' oversight
responsibilities for charter schools.
Before I respond directly to GAO's recommendations, I would like to
clarify the design of the impact study referenced in the GAO report and
point out that ED has recently released another study that contains
information on several topics for which GAO recommends additional data
collection.
The draft report represents two aspects of the impact study, The
Evaluation of the Impact of Charter School Strategies, in a manner that
is not quite consistent with the actual design. First, the report
describes the study as tracking about 3,000 students in 25 schools in 5
or 6 States. (See page 37.) However, that earlier design was amended to
involve 3,000 students in 50 schools in 10 States (dropping the data
collection of two cohorts of students in favor of only one). This
change was made specifically to allow ED to examine how different
aspects of State and authorizer policy may contribute to student
achievement.
Also in the discussion on page 37, the report notes that the evaluation
will compare achievement on standardized tests for "...cohorts of
students accepted into the 25 charter schools and students who applied
to those schools but were not accepted." This description leaves out a
key component of the evaluation design. Decisions about whom to accept
for enrollment will be based on a lottery of all applicants who are
eligible; a random draw will ensure that those who are accepted and not
accepted are equivalent in terms of motivation and other important
characteristics that can affect student outcomes. Thus, any difference
between the two groups in the follow-up years will definitively be
attributable to the charter schools' impacts. Lotteries of students are
already used by most charter schools with waiting lists, but no
published or large-scale studies of charter schools have so far used
the groups formed by these lotteries to examine the effects on
students. This "random assignment" of students into participant and
non-participant groups is consistent with the strongest methods of
scientifically based research, and thus, the evaluation represents an
important contribution to the evidence on charter schools.
Additionally, the draft report does not include information on the
Department's recently released study of charter schools, Evaluation of
Public Charter Schools Program (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
ods/ppss/reports.html#charter). [Note 1] This study contains
information on several topics on which your draft report recommends
additional data collection. For example, the draft report notes the
need for ED to collect basic indicator information, such as on the
number of charter schools started with program funds and the types of
authorizers that oversee charter schools. Although the Department does
not collect that information annually, our recent study addresses both
topics. States reported that CSP funds are the most prevalent source of
start-up funds available to charter schools, and Chapter 4 of this
study discusses the role of authorizers in charter school
accountability. Among its findings are the following:
(a) although 91 percent of authorizers are local educational agencies,
State authorizers, on average, grant the largest number of charters;
(b) multiple groups are involved in the process of monitoring charter
schools, resulting in a complex system of accountability for charter
schools in which more than half of all authorizers reported difficulty
in closing a school that is having problems; and (c) the charter
contract, with its tailored outcomes, may have diminished importance in
the current high-stakes accountability environment.
The remainder of this letter responds more directly to the
recommendations that you make to the Secretary.
Your first two recommendations request that ED help States track
Federal funds to charter schools and include information on authorizer
type in any Performance-Based Data Management Initiative (PBDMI) survey
that includes charter schools. You also recommend that ED require CSP
grantees to report the number of schools started with program funds and
that we include accountability as a variable in the charter school
impact study.
We agree that States would be better able to monitor and report on the
timeliness of receipt of Federal funds by charter schools if the States
had in place automated financial and information systems to measure and
track the disbursement of Federal funds to the school level. We will
look more closely at the systems used by Ohio and Texas and mentioned
in your report and if merited, will share information on these systems
with other CSP State grantees. That review will help us determine if
tracking of financial information to the individual school level can be
carried out without imposition of an undue burden on States and charter
schools.
We also believe that it is important to have a better understanding of
the relationship between authorizers and charter schools' academic
performance. We plan to look at that specific issue through our current
charter school impact study, as explained below. While we are not sure
that we would learn much by collecting that information through PBDMI,
we will give the recommendation careful consideration.
I strongly agree that the annual reporting instructions to CSP State
grantees should include standard indicators of program accomplishments,
including the number of schools started through the use of grant funds.
Although we have been able to gather similar information through our
evaluations of the CSP, this approach would ensure that we receive this
information annually from each State receiving CSP funds. The
Department will, thus, implement this recommendation.
Finally, you recommend that the impact study evaluation design include
an analysis of the impact of accountability practices on charter
schools' performance. We agree that strong charter school authorizing
and accountability are critical to the success of the charter school
movement, which is why the Department has been supporting the technical
assistance work of the National Association of Charter School
Authorizers to help State and local boards and other charter school
sponsors carry out their responsibilities more effectively. The
evaluation plan already calls for the collection of various State and
authorizer policies; the study will examine the influence on charter
school effectiveness of such factors as State and local funding, the
autonomy of charter schools to deviate from State or district rules,
and the role of authorizers. In response to your recommendation, we
will examine expanding the study to include a review of the stringency
with which authorizers oversee charter school performance and the types
of school accountability reporting they require.
Thank you again for taking the time to analyze and report on these
issues. We will use the findings and recommendations in this report to
improve our monitoring, research, and data collection efforts regarding
charter schools.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Eugene W. Hickok:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Deborah L. Edwards, (202) 512-5416, edwardsd@gao.gov Sara E. Edmondson,
(202) 512-8516, edmondsons@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
The following staff also contributed to this report: Christopher
Morehouse, Scott Spicer, Terry Richardson, George Quinn Jr., Julie
Phillips, Behn Kelly, Corinna Nicolaou:
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional
Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School
Choice Provision, GAO-05-007, Washington, D.C.: December 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process
for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions, GAO-04-734,
Washington, D.C.: September 2004.
Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed
among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher
Requirements, GAO-04-659, Washington, D.C., July 2004.
Charter Schools: New Charter Schools across the Country and in the
District of Columbia Face Similar Start-Up Challenges, GAO-03-899,
Washington, D.C.: September 2003.
No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States Determine
Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified, GAO-03-631, Washington, D.C.: July
17, 2003.
Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information
Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies, GAO-03-389, Washington,
D.C.: May 8, 2003.
Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States' Scoring of Assessments,
GAO-02-393, Washington, D.C.: April 2002.
Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit though Funding Per Poor Child
Differs, GAO-02-242, Washington, D.C.: January 2002.
School Vouchers: Publicly Funded Programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee,
GAO-01-914, August 31, 2001.
Charter Schools: Limited Access to Facility Financing, GAO/HEHS-00-163,
Washington, D.C.: September 2000.
Title I Program: Stronger Accountability Needed for Performance of
Disadvantaged Students, GAO/HEHS-00-89, Washington, D.C.: June 2000.
Charter Schools: Federal Funding Available but Barriers Exist, GAO/
HEHS-98-84, Washington, D.C.: April 1998.
Charter Schools: Issues Affecting Access to Federal Funds, GAO/T-HEHS-
97-216, Washington, D.C.: September 16, 1997.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Throughout the report, we refer to all states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico as states and all of their agencies as state
agencies.
[2] Pub. L. No. 107-110, 1425 (enacted January 8, 2002).
[3] Hereafter, we refer to states' adequate yearly progress goals for
their schools, as defined by NCLBA, as states' annual school
performance goals.
[4] For more information about state NCLBA accountability plans, see
GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's
Process for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions,
GAO-04-734, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004).
[5] Education's March 2004 guidance allows new flexibilities. For
example, under some circumstances, teachers in rural districts are
allowed extra time--up to 3 years--to meet the teacher qualification
requirements.
[6] See, for example, GAO, Charter Schools: New Charter Schools across
the Country and in the District of Columbia Face Similar Start-Up
Challenges, GAO-03-899 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 2003).
[7] After our review of studies had been completed, Education released
Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program in November 2004.
[8] LEAs of other types include intermediate school districts,
educational service centers, and other local offices of education.
[9] In both states, at least one other entity also served as
authorizers.
[10] As indicated on figure 3, one state where a public university and
LEAs served as authorizers offered no choice. Two states where the
board of education and LEAs served as authorizers did not respond to
our question about choosing authorizers.
[11] We were unable to ascertain the ninth state's policy on this
practice.
[12] Some state charter school laws contain actual exemption
provisions. For example, Oklahoma's state law provides that each
charter school "shall be exempt from all statutes and rules relating to
schools, boards of education, and school districts". 70 Okl. St. 3-136.
Other states simply legislate a separate set of education requirements
that pertain to charter schools. For example, the District of Columbia
code itemizes a list of powers exclusive to charter schools such as
acquiring real property and exercising "control" over "expenditures,
administration, personnel and instructional methods". (D.C. Code 38-
1802.04.)
[13] Twenty-one states provided notification to authorizers of
potential noncompliance by charter schools regarding educational
requirements. Twenty states provided notification to authorizers of
potential noncompliance by charter schools regarding financial
requirements. Because the 10 of the 39 states in which a state agency
was the only authorizer did not oversee or assist authorizers, they
were not included in the analyses of state-authorizer oversight and
assistance.
[14] Three states, Florida, Indiana, and Wisconsin, indicated that
charter schools must receive audits on a regular cycle but did not
report that any charter schools were audited in 2002-03.
[15] These figures do not include data provided by the independent
charter school board in the District of Columbia, which reported that
of 19 charter school audits completed in 2002-03, 17 received a clean
opinion and 2 received a qualified opinion as a result of a problem.
The District of Columbia Board of Education reported that all 14
charter schools that were audited in 2002-03 received a clean opinion.
[16] Appendix I provides full definitions for the categories of audit
results and the limitations of our analysis of financial audit data.
[17] In most cases, as table 7 in appendix II shows, these other
authorizers were local education agencies, such as school districts,
and were thus already a part of the state's educational system.
Consequently, some of the actions states reported might have been
actions states routinely carried out for local education agencies.
[18] In 2 of these states, New Jersey and Rhode Island, officials
identified the authorizer as primarily responsible for enforcement.
However, state agencies were the only authorizers in New Jersey and
Rhode Island in school year 2002-03.
[19] Schools that do not receive Title I funds may be offered as
transfer schools, even if they fail to meet a state's annual school
performance goals for any number of years, unless the state has decided
to identify those schools for improvement under NCLBA's school
improvement requirement.
[20] Five states--Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode
Island--did not provide us information on whether any charter schools
in their state had been designated as needing improvement. In addition,
16 other states reported that none of their charter schools had been
designated as needing improvement in 2002-03.
[21] To serve as providers of supplemental services, schools must be
included in the state's list of approved schools.
[22] The core academic subjects are English, reading or language arts,
mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government,
economics, arts, history, and geography.
[23] These data do not include responses for the District of Columbia.
The respondent for the District of Columbia Board of Education did not
know whether that board's charter schools included academic goals other
than the District's annual school performance goals in their charters.
However, the respondent for the District of Columbia's independent
charter school board said that all of the charter schools they
authorize did so.
[24] The District of Columbia is not included in these figures. The
respondent for the District of Columbia Board of Education said that
that board's charter schools do not use additional tests for their own
assessment purposes, while officials of the District of Columbia's
independent charter school board said that at least some of the charter
schools they authorize do so.
[25] OIG recommended that Education designate the responsible oversight
office and enhance its monitoring procedures to ensure that new or
expanding charter schools receive timely payment of federal funds. In
general, the department agreed with OIG's recommendations and indicated
that it intended to provide guidance reminding all covered federal
programs to implement the addressed statutory provisions in their
monitoring procedures. See Office of the Inspector General, Final Audit
Report: Departmental Actions to Ensure Charter Schools' Access to Title
I and IDEA Part B Funds. ED-OIG/A09-E0014 (Sacramento, California:
October 2004).
[26] GAPS does include information on some charter schools that apply
directly for Charter School Program funds.
[27] According to an Education official, a Consolidated State
Performance Report will be required each year until an automated
process replaces it, in whole or in part. Education also collects
information on NCLBA implementation through monitoring and research.
[28] Form 524-B.
[29] While Louisiana participated in the first round of pretests,
Louisiana's response to an initial mailing of the draft instrument to
all pretest states was received too late to be considered in preparing
the final data collection instrument.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
