Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
March 3, 2000, Friday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 4236 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF JON SCHROEDER DIRECTOR CHARTER FRIENDS NATIONAL NETWORK
BEFORE THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
BODY:
Thank you for your invitation to offer
these observations on the Federal Charter Grant Program, focusing on its impact
on states and on charter schools since it was first authorized by the Congress
in 1994.
These comments are based on my experience as an observer and
participant in the public school choice movement in Minnesota over the last 15
years, including passage of the nation's first charter school law in 1991. It
also reflects my involvement in the design and passage of the legislation
authorizing the Federal Charter School Grant Program, from 1992-94, while I was
policy director for the legislation's chief author, former U.S. Senator Dave
Durenberger (R- MN). And, it reflects my experience over the past three years
directing a project that links together almost sixty grassroots charter support
organizations in all the major charter school states. In that position, I've
also closely followed passage and implementation of the amendments to the grant
program's legislation that were adopted by the Congress in 1998.
I
should emphasize that my opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent
the views of the charter school organizations that work together through the
Charter Friends National Network... or the views of the 1,700 charter schools
that are now in operation throughout the country.
My comments today will
focus on four important questions:
First, has the federal charter grant
program delivered on the original intent of Congress in adopting this
legislation in 19947
Second, what have we learned since 1994 that has
required changes in the legislation and its implementation over the past
five-plus years?
Third, do those lessons now require any additional
changes in the legislation or the administration of the program?
Finally, are there other initiatives that Congress and the federal
government should -- or shouldn't -- be undertaking to support the continued
growth and success of the charter school movement?My bottom line position is
that the charter grant program is working well and as originally intended.
Thanks to strong bi-partisan support from Congress and the Administration,
appropriations for the program have kept pace with the growing number of charter
schools and charter school states. The changes made by Congress in 1998 in the
grant program's authorizing legislation were also helpful "mid-course
corrections." These changes should be considered a de-facto reauthorization of
the program as the Congress now formally reauthorizes other programs in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
Part of
my lack of enthusiasm for further legislative changes is also based on the
Department of Education's past flexibility in administering this program,
addressing a number of concerns and new opportunities as they have come along.
The Department has indicated its willingness to continue to listen to the
charter school community and to the states and to make further administrative
adjustments as they are needed.
Aside' from this grant program, there
are a number of other opportunities for national leaders and the federal
government to support and strengthen the charter movement across the country. We
must remember, however, that charter schools are largely an instrument of state
education policy reform.., a kind of R&D program for changes and
improvements that can eventually be used to change and improve all public
schools and benefit all students. That means that, in some cases, the best thing
the federal government can do is watch and learn, lend moral support, send money
and get out of the way!
Now, let me take up the four questions I listed
above, one at a time...
1) Is the federal charter grant program
achieving its original goals? The ink was hardly dry on Minnesota's pioneering
charter school law when, in mid-1992, former U.S. Senator Dave Durenberger
(R-MN) introduced what we then called the "Public School Redefinition Act,"
creating a federal start-up grant program for charter schools. Senator Joseph
Lieberman (D-CN) was the chief Democratic co-sponsor. When the legislation was
reintroduced in 1993, Senators Durenberger and Lieberman were joined by
Representatives Dave McCurdy (D-OK) and Tom Petri (R-WI) in introducing the same
legislation in the House. From the very beginning, this was a bi-partisan
initiative -- something that I'm pleased to say continues today with the strong
support we've seen for charter schools from the Clinton Administration and both
Republicans and Democrats in the Congress.
The Durenberger-Lieberman
proposal wasn't adopted in the 1991-92 Congress, but it was endorsed in late
1992 by the Progressive Policy Institute's publication "Mandate for Change,"
which became a post- election blueprint for many of President Clinton's
first-term domestic policy initiatives. The President then included the
Durenberger- Lieberman proposal in his legislation reauthorizing the elementary
and Secondary Education Act, which was adopted in 1994.
From the
beginning, this legislation has had two major goals:
First, to help
build awareness of the charter idea and encourage states to pass charter school
laws;
And, second, to help address what quickly emerged as the single
biggest obstacle facing the charter movement -- the lack of funding for planning
and start-up of new charter schools.
In both cases, these goals are
clearly being met.When legislation authorizing a federal grant program was first
introduced in 1992, there were only two states with charter laws and only three
or four schools that had opened their doors. When Congress authorized the grant
program in 1994 there were seven charter states and fifty or sixty schools.
Today, there are 37 charter laws and about 1,700 charter schools; with charter
legislation under serious consideration in a half dozen additional states and
hundreds of schools in various stages of development all across the country.
Start-up funding is still a high priority issue and concern for charter
school operators. But, by the end of this year, this program will have put at
least $350 million in the hands of charter developers and
operators to help address that concern (see attached chart). This has allowed
states to make grants to more schools and, in many states, for the average-sized
grant to be larger. Further evidence of success is the fact that, in the most
recent federal charter school study, 39 percent of first year charters cited
start-up funding as a limitation, down from 59 percent for schools that opened
just a year earlier.
There is no question that start-up funding will
continue to be a top concern in the future. That's why we're pleased to see
continued support in both the Administration and Congress for increasing
appropriations for the grant program to keep up with the growing number of
schools. But, I think we can all take pride in the success of this program in
addressing its two major goals during its first five years.
2)
What have we learned since 1994 that has required changes in the program? I'm
not embarrassed to say that, when the grant program's authorizing legislation
was first drafted in 1992 -- and even when it was passed in 1994 -- we really
didn't know how best to support the growth of charter schools through national
programs and policies. We've learned at least six lessons along the way, all of
which have been reflected in either legislative changes made in 1998 or
administrative changes made by the Department of Education and the states over
the last five years.
Lesson one -- Stronger schools will result from
earlier support We've learned that developing a strong charter proposal often
requires several years of research and planning. The planning and proposal
development process also takes time and money. Some planning groups have
partnerships that can help subsidize the process. But, to make charter school
development truly accessible for all -- including teachers, parents and
community groups -- modest-sized planning grants can and have made a critical
difference in a number of states around the country.
Originally, the
authorizing legislation was interpreted to allow grants to be made to charter
developers only after a charter had actually been granted. A number of states,
however, have benefited from Department of Education flexibility in making
smaller grants available earlier. One concern that could perhaps benefit from
clarification is that receiving a small planning grant shouldn't disqualify
schools from receiving their full share of larger grants for start-up and
implementation. In other words, schools should not be discouraged from seeking
small planning grants because they might reduce the total amount of money the
schools are eventually awarded.
Lesson two -- Schools need the
flexibility to take a full "planning year" We've also learned that charter
schools can be stronger on their opening day if they've had more than a few
months of planning time between the date when a charter is formally granted and
the date they welcome their first students. By taking a full planning year,
charter developers can devote more time to finding a facility, getting it ready,
setting specific goals, developing curriculum, recruiting students,involving
parents, recruiting and training teachers and a myriad of other tasks that are
critical to the success of a charter school in its first year.
Again,
there needs to be flexibility in the timing and sizing of grants to make it
feasible for schools to take more time for planning before they open their
doors. That might mean more than 18 months of planning grant eligibility, for
example, or greater front-end-loading of grants to schools that choose to take a
full planning year.
Lesson three -- Larger grants should go to states
with stronger charter laws
That lesson was reflected in the amendments
made in 1998 and has been increasingly used by the Department to award grants to
states. Perhaps the largest embarrassment in the program -- awarding more than
$1.5 million in grants to a state (Oregon) that didn't even
have a charter law -- can no longer be repeated. And, at least proportionately,
the amount of money going to states with fewer schools has been reduced and
grants to states with more schools made larger.
States with features in
their laws that tend to produce more school are now also given higher priority.
These features include alternative sponsors and appeals, more fiscal autonomy
for individual schools and strong accountability measures for monitoring
progress toward meeting each schools' academic achievement goals. These were
critical changes -- made in 1998 -- that better target funds to states with the
greatest promise for meeting the original intent behind this legislation.
It should be pointed out that one issue does remain in some states
relating to the "fiscal autonomy" criteria included in the 1998 amendments. In
some states, charters are required to get a sign-off from a school district to
apply for federal grants and in some states, districts are keeping a percentage
of the grants for administering them. At worst, some districts are using these
practices to effectively discourage planning groups from seeking charters. At
best, these practices are unnecessarily time-consuming and waste funds intended
to assist charter developers and operators, not districts. These practices
shouldn't be allowed and/or schools should have a right to avoid them by seeking
and receiving grant funds directly from their states.
Lesson four --
Cash flow is a critical issue for smaller autonomous school sites
The
1998 amendments also responded to an early lesson regarding the critical cash
flow needs of autonomous public schools. Unlike districts, charter schools don't
have huge reserves to draw upon and can't move money from one school to another
to meet temporary cash flow needs. But, historically, Title I and many other
state and federal categorical programs have been allocated based on previous
years' enrollments. This is an obvious problem for a new school that had no
previous year or a school that's expanding rapidly, for example, by adding new
grades each year.
To address this problem, the Department and states are
now implementing the requirement in the 1998 amendments that charter schools
receive Title I and other categorical funds on a timely basis and based on the
current year's enrollments. Congress should continue to monitor implementation
of that requirement closely to ensure that it's carded out. And, states would be
wise to adopt the same procedures to ensure timely and full, current year
enrollment funding for state categorical programs, as well.
Lesson five
-- Start-up grants aren't sufficient to meet the facilities financing needs of
charters The charter grant program was never intended to pay for the major costs
of renovating or acquiring facilities. In most states, operating revenues are
also insufficient to make mortgage or rent payments, requiring charter schools
to, in effect, take money out of the classroom to put a roof over their heads.
In citing this lesson, I'm not arguing for a broadening of the start- up
grant program to include facilities financing. I'm not even arguing for a
federal role. The challenge of finding and affording facilities is a huge issue,
however, that can't be overlooked and must be addressed through some other
means.
Lesson six -- Grassroots technical assistance can have a huge
impact on strengthening schools Finally, the first decade of experience with
charter schools has demonstrated the value of a variety of forms of hands-on
technical assistance to charter school developers and operators. This is the
central mission of organizations that work together through the Charter Friends
National Network. Through workshops, publications, web sites, electronic
discussion groups and a variety of other means, they help guide charter
developers and operators through the complex maize of developing a proposal,
getting schools through the chartering process, getting the doors open and
getting schools through their first critical years of operation.
These
so-called "charter friends" groups have emerged in a variety of forms and
include non-profit resource centers and membership-based associations of charter
school operators. Over time, we've learned that -- along with a strong law --
these technical assistance resources are essential to a growing and vibrant
charter school movement in each charter school state.
To its credit, the
Department of Education has recognized the importance of hands-on technical
assistance to charter schools. Just recently, it funded a series of 18 focus
groups around the country to identify the top priority technical assistance
needs of charter developers, operators and sponsors. And, in at least a half
dozen states, it has supported -- even encouraged -- using federal charter grant
funds to help strengthen technical assistance capacity in a variety of creative
ways.
Examples of these creative uses of federal grant funds include: *
The new charter special education cooperative here in Washington, D.C. -- that
was launched through a supplemental federal grant to 14 founding schools who
will now use this cooperative to pool and broker access to a variety of special
ed services.
* Pooling of a portion of federal grants by a number of
charter schools in Minnesota through that state's charter school association.
These funds have been used to provide and broker a variety of technical
assistance services.
* Use of a small portion of federal grants by a
number of charter schools in Colorado to fund technical assistance for clusters
of rural charters and to help underwrite charter participation in the state's
accreditation and accountability initiatives.
* Pooling of
unspent federal grant funds through a number of Connecticut charter schools to
help "jump-start" an aggressive technical assistance program to be managed by
that state's charter school association.
* Using administrative funds
associated with the grant program and other federal funds to finance the
operations of the Florida Charter School Resource Center. Florida's state
department and resource center are now also developing a proposal to create
regional technical assistance consortia through dissemination grants to the
state's five pioneer charter schools that are now eligible for that program.
* Using a two-year dissemination grant to a multi-campus charter in
Tucson to help create the new Arizona Regional Resource Center for charter
schools.
Each of these creative uses of federal grant funds to help
provide or strengthen technical assistance is different. But each is having --
or has the potential to have -- a huge impact in strengthening the quality of
charter applications and schools in their states. Each has the potential to be a
model worth replicating in other states. And, perhaps most importantly, the
Department has indicated a willingness to consider authorizing these or other
creative ways of strengthening technical assistance capacity in any other state
that asks.
3) Does what we've learned require changes in the legislation
or its administration? I stated at the outset that I don't believe additional
changes in the authorizing legislation for the grant program are needed -- at
least at this time. I've taken that position for three reasons.
First, a
number of the lessons learned in the grant program's early years were addressed
through the 1998 amendments adopted by the Congress.
Second, with strong
bi-partisan support from the Congress and Administration, the grant program's
annual appropriation has kept pace with the huge growth we've seen in the number
schools and helped increase the average grant to schools and/or the percentages
of schools in most states receiving grants.
And, finally, the Department
of Education has been flexible in administering the program.., responding to
states and listening to the needs of schools. There's every indication that this
flexibility in responding to new issues will continue as they emerge -- through
waivers, less formal letters of authorization, non-regulatory guidance and other
means.
Earlier, I identified several issues worth monitoring to ensure
that administrative flexibility is adequate. I'd also urge the Congress to
listen carefully to the Department, the states and schools to determine if any
of these issues require minor technical changes in the law, or, preferably,
could be addressed through committee report language or colloquies -- avoiding
the need to reopen the law.
If legislative changes were ever considered,
I'd urge that you either do or don't do the following:
* Please don't
add to or change the existing definition of charters and priorities for states
and/or try to second guess states as they further develop the charter idea.
Deference to state policy initiatives was one of the founding principles
underlying this legislation when it was first drafted and adopted and should be
respected now and in the future.
* Please don't use the five-percent
"national activities" funds to create a "federal pork program for charter
schools." With the recently conducted focus groups, the Department now has good
grassroots advice on the priority technical assistance needs facing charter
schools. Helping to meet those needs in effective and efficient ways, should be
the number one priority for using these funds. Deciding how to do that is a good
place to defer to the Department and to exercise legislative restraint.* Please
avoid what will be inevitable pressure to extend eligibility for the start-up
grant program beyond three years. Congress was able to resist that pressure in
1998, but it will grow as more schools exhaust their three years of eligibility
for grants.
* Please encourage careful use of the new dissemination
grant program. This program is a good release valve for the pressure to extend
eligibility beyond three years. But, it must be carefully used to help meet the
original intent of the law -- by focusing on assisting with the start-up of new
schools, not the strengthening of well-established existing schools.
*
Finally, please monitor and discourage the growing volume of grants being made
by the Department directly to individual schools, as opposed to grants to states
and then subgrants made by states to schools. In the first three years, only a
handful of grants were made directly to schools -- as intended, to allow schools
to by-pass unwilling or uncooperative state departments. They generally went to
schools in states with weak laws, including Hawaii, New Mexico, New Hampshire,
Mississippi and Arkansas. In 1998, however, over $2.0 million
in grants were awarded to 21 schools directly by the Department. And, in 1999,
40 schools received a total of nearly $3.9 million in grants. I
realize a large majority of these schools are in Arizona, where a separate
dispute has prevented state participation in the grant program during the past
two years. This dispute needs to get resolved -- both to get Arizona schools
their full share of funding and to retain the original focus of this program on
states and, increasingly, on states with stronger charter laws.
I must
admit that my reluctance to support legislative changes in the grant program is
partly substantive -- for all the reasons I've outlined above -- and partly
strategic. Any reopening of this legislation leaves Congress vulnerable to
considering changes proposed by others who would just as soon stuff this
"growing genie" back in the bottle. That risk would be acceptable if there were
huge problems with this program or even smaller problems that couldn't be fixed
administratively. I don't believe either of these justifications now exists.
All across the country, critics and opponents of charter schools are
proposing state legislation to reregulate charters or otherwise limit their
growth, independence and chance to succeed. There's no reason to think the same
forces wouldn't be just as active and just as powerful should this legislation
be again reopened and major changes again considered and made.
4) What
should the federal government do -- or not do -- to support charters? Many
members of Congress -- and current or prospective leaders in the Executive
Branch -- are strong supporters of charter schools and want to "do something" to
help. I was there myself in 1991 and 1992, just after my own state had passed
this wonderful new policy innovation. My boss, Senator Durenberger, wanted to
"do something" to help. It was my job to come up with something "to do."
Based on both my previous and current experience, here's what I believe
Congress and the Administration should "do" for charters:
* First,
protect and expand the federal charter school grant program, in particular by
continuing to increase annual appropriations as the number of charter states and
schools continues to grow.
* Second, protect and learn from the DC
charter school law and program. As the "state legislature" for the District of
Columbia, Congress is in a unique position to protect this strong law and
encourage continued expansion in the number and quality of charter schools
serving students in the nation's capital.
* Third, continue to help
document the growth and impact of the charter movement nationally, through
basic, longitudinal research on charter schools and their impact on students and
on districts and district schools.
* Fourth, help document the problem
and explore options on facilities financing. But don't have delusions about
solving what is basically a state-level education finance policy issue through
major new federal programs or direct financial support.
* Fifth, ensure
charters are treated fairly and get their fair and timely share of federal
categorical program grants and other funding.
* Sixth, monitor charters
to learn how best to have federal funding follow students to individual district
schools and, generally, how to use charters as an R&D program for changes
and improvements in all public schools in areas like special education,
accountability and facilities financing.
* Seventh, exercise caution and
deference in fashioning a federal role in realizing laudable goals like
increasing teacher quality and increasing school and student accountability. In
particular, don't impose uniform, prescriptive national solutions on charters
that discourage or impede their efforts to address these goals through a
performance-based contract between each school and its sponsor.
* And,
finally, don't underestimate that value of using the "bully pulpit" -- to
encourage state policy makers to pass and strengthen charter laws and to educate
the public, the media, private sector funders and others on the value and role
that charter schools can play as a broader strategy for reform. One good
opportunity to do that, by the way, is through active Congressional involvement
in the first annual National Charter Schools Week, now scheduled for May 1-5.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to share these thoughts with
you here today and for all you and your colleagues have done to support the
growth of this exciting opportunity to change and improve all public schools and
benefit all students in this country. We look forward to expanding and building
on that past strong relationship in the years to come.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 8, 2000
