IDAHO IN FOCUS JANUARY 2013

Transcription

1 IDAHO IN FOCUS JANUARY 2013 SNAPSHOT: In , Idaho had 648 public schools, including 43 charters Idaho s charter law ranks in the bottom third of states with charter school laws Idaho s charter growth is slow compared to other states, despite the charter cap removal Charter Management Organizations are not present in Idaho Idaho does not offer scholarship tax credits Idaho does not have a scholarship program for special needs students In November 2012, Idaho voters defeated Proposition 3, repealing progressive digital learning policies designed to benefit teachers and students The School Choice and Digital Learning Landscape In November 2012, the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation commissioned a study of the Nation s school choice and digital learning landscape to better understand how Idaho school choice and digital learning policies compare to other states. The summary of our findings include: A snapshot of the current school choice landscape in the United States, including scholarship programs, scholarship tax credit programs, and charter school laws; A snapshot of the current school choice landscape in Idaho; A snapshot of the current digital learning landscape in the United States, including state virtual schools, and virtual and blended learning charter schools; and A snapshot of the current digital learning landscape in Idaho, particularly after the Proposition 3 repeal of the Students Come First digital learning provisions. Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 1

2 School Choice in the United States WA MT ND ME CA OR NV ID UT WY CO SD NE KS MN IA! MO WI IL MI OH IN WV KY PA! VA NY VT NH MA CT RI NJ DE MD D.C. AZ! NM OK AR TN NC SC MS AL GA TX LA AK FL HI Special Needs Scholarship! Source: 2012 School Choice Yearbook, Alliance for School Choice Scholarship Tax Credit! Voucher! School Choice Scholarships: Nine States and Washington DC Today, nine states and Washington, DC have school choice scholarship programs. These scholarships allow students to attend the public, private or parochial school of their choice. During the school year, over 81,000 students received these scholarships. Scholarships for Low-Income Students: Four States and Washington, DC Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and Washington, DC offer scholarships to students from low-income families. The DC Opportunity Scholarship program is the only federally funded private school choice program in the country. Scholarships for Students in Failing Schools: Two States Ohio and Louisiana offer scholarships for students enrolled in persistently low-performing or failing schools. Scholarships for Students with Disabilities: Six States Six states offer special needs scholarships to students with disabilities: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah. These scholarships allow the student to attend the private school of their choice. Scholarship Tax Credits: Eight States Eight states have scholarship tax credit programs that provide state tax credits to businesses or individuals who donate money to a designated scholarship organization. The scholarships do not originate from state appropriations; rather, they are funded by charitable donations made under the provisions of the state s tax code. States with tax credit scholarships include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 2

3 School Choice in Idaho Idaho has both intra-district and inter-district open enrollment. Idaho has 22 magnet schools. Idaho has a charter school law and 43 charter schools. Idaho has a state virtual school, the Idaho Digital Learning Academy. Idaho has statewide virtual charter schools. Idaho does not have scholarship programs for low-income students or students in failing schools. Idaho does not have a special needs scholarship program for students with disabilities. Idaho does not have a scholarship tax credit program, although legislation was filed in 2000, 2001, 2005, and Charter Schools in the United States Charter schools are independent public schools that are allowed the freedom to be more innovative, while being held accountable for student achievement. Today, 41 states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws In 2012, states with the top-ranked charter laws include Maine, Minnesota, Florida, New Mexico, Indiana, Colorado, and New York During the school year, there were 5,618 charter schools nationwide (5.8%) compared to 90,780 traditional public schools During the school year, charter schools educated over 2 million students Over 500 new charter schools opened their doors for the school year Charter quality is the most important trend in the charter school movement today [Source: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools] Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 3

4 Charter Schools in the United States NAPCS Model Charter Law The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) has developed a model charter school law with the following 20 essential components: No caps on the growth of public charter schools. A variety of public charter schools allowed, including new start-ups, conversions and virtual schools. Multiple authorizers available, including nonprofits, colleges and universities, mayors and city councils, to which a charter applicant may apply directly. Authorizer accountability system, whereby all authorizers affirm their interest in becoming an authorizer (except for legislatively created state public charter school commissions) and participate in an authorizer reporting program based on objective data. Adequate authorizer funding, including authorizer fees and expenditure accountability. Transparent charter application, review, and decision-making processes, including comprehensive academic, operational, governance and performance requirements, with applications being reviewed and acted upon in a timely manner. Comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection. Clear processes for renewal, non-renewal and revocation decisions, including school closure. Performance-based charter contracts, that are post-application documents that detail academic performance expectations, operational performance expectations, and school and authorizer rights and responsibilities. Fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent charter school boards. Clear student recruitment, enrollment and lottery procedures. Automatic exemptions from many state laws, except laws covering health, safety, civil rights, student accountability, employee criminal history checks, open meetings, and generally accepted accounting principles. Automatic collective bargaining exemptions. Educational service providers allowed, provided there are no conflicts of interests with the charter board. Multi-school charter contracts and multi-charter boards allowed, to facilitate replication and expansion of highperforming charter schools. Extracurricular and interscholastic activities eligibility and access. Clear identification of special education responsibilities. Equitable operational funding and equal access to all state and federal categorical funds, flowing to the charter school in a timely manner and in the same amount as district schools. Equitable access to capital funding and facilities, including multiple provisions such as: per-pupil facility allowance, charter school bonding authority (or access to local bonding authority available to all other public schools), and right of first refusal to purchase or lease an unused public school building. Access to relevant employee retirement systems. Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 4

5 Charter Schools in the United States 2012 Rankings: State Charter School Laws The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) annually evaluates each state s charter school law as compared to the 20 essential components of the NAPCS model law. The 2012 state rankings are provided in the chart below. NAPCS recognizes Idaho as a leading state for fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent charter school boards and its automatic collective bargaining exemption. However, Idaho is ranked 32 out of 42 charter jurisdictions (41 states and DC), placing it in the bottom third of charter states. Idaho dropped in the rankings because the Students Come First requirements also applied to charter schools, reducing their autonomy. NAPCS has identified areas for improvement in Idaho s charter law, including performancebased contracts, stronger renewal, non-renewal and revocation requirements, and providing equitable access to capital funding and facilities Ranking State 2012 Score 2011 Ranking 2012 Ranking State 2012 Score 2011 Ranking 1 Maine 158 No Law 2 Minnesota Florida New Mexico Massachusetts Indiana Colorado New York California Michigan District of Columbia Utah Louisiana Georgia Arizona Pennsylvania Arkansas Missouri New Hampshire Nevada Oregon Delaware Texas Illinois South Carolina Rhode Island Oklahoma Ohio Connecticut Tennessee New Jersey Idaho North Carolina Wyoming Hawaii Wisconsin Virginia Iowa Kansas Alaska Maryland Mississippi Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 5

6 Charter Schools in Idaho Idaho Charter School Law Idaho passed its charter school law in 1998, and most recently amended the law in 2012 to remove the charter school cap. In Idaho, 44 percent of charters are authorized by their local school districts, and 56 percent of charters are authorized by the Public Charter School Commission (PCSC). However, in recent years, Idaho school districts have ceased to approve any new charter schools, leaving the PCSC as the state s only functioning charter authorizer. In 2012, Idaho s charter school law was ranked 32 out of 42 charter jurisdictions, placing it in the bottom third of all charter states. While Idaho is a leader in charter autonomy, it lacks equitable funding for charter students, provides no funding for charter facilities, and does not allow nonprofits or universities to authorize charter schools Star Ratings and 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2012 Star Rating Public Schools Percentage Charter Schools Percentage 5 Star Schools 74 12% 6 14% 4 Star Schools % 19 44% 3 Star Schools % 6 14% 2 Star Schools 59 10% 5 12% 1 Star Schools 28 4% 7 16% Total Schools: NAEP Proficient or Advanced According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Idaho charter schools outperformed other public schools on 4th and 8th grade Reading and Math assessments. Idaho Non-Charter Schools Idaho Charter Schools 70% 56% 42% 28% 14% [Note: all schools that participate in NAEP are selected through random sampling] 0% 4th Reading 4th Math 8th Reading 8th Math Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 6

7 Charter Management Organizations Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) are nonprofit entities that directly manage public charter schools. The nation s most effective CMOs include KIPP, Aspire, BASIS, Great Hearts Academies, IDEA Public Schools, Rocketship Education, Carpe Diem and Yes Prep. CMOs were developed to address the challenges that often limit the number and quality of charter schools. On average, charter schools receive fewer per-pupil dollars than district schools, yet are expected to pay for their own buildings, business services, and recruit their own staff. CMOs provide a way to capture economies of scale for groups of charter schools. In December 2012, Education Secretary Arne Duncan awarded $70 million in Race to the Top funds to three CMOs: Harmony Public Schools (Texas), IDEA Public Schools (Texas), and KIPP DC (Washington, DC) to provide personalized learning for each student through technology, opportunities for students to learn beyond the traditional school day environment, and access to STEM courses. Demand is high for effective CMOs. Five of the highest-performing CMOs collectively serve less than 48,000 students, and in , all CMOs combined served only 228,000 students or 14 percent of all charter students. More students - 420,000 - remained on charter waiting lists. CMOs face significant growth barriers, including state charter caps, inequitable funding, scarce facilities, talent shortages, a limited pool of authorizers and local school district opposition. There are no CMOs operating in Idaho. Blended Learning Charter Schools High quality CMOs with blended learning models: Carpe Diem Schools, Arizona. Carpe Diem Schools offer two school models: a blended learning campus and a full-time online program. Carpe Diem recently expanded to San Antonio, Texas and Indiana with a six school charter. Rocketship Education, California. Rocketship Education provides a blended learning program for grades K-5 serving 3,700 students and is currently the highestperforming, low-income elementary school system in California. Rocketship is opening a school in Milwaukee in Fall 2013, its first expansion outside California. KIPP Empower Academy, California. KIPP Los Angeles Empower Academy uses a rotation blended learning model to deliver high quality outcomes to students in South Los Angeles. Students rotate through instructional blocks (some with teachers, some via computers). IDEA Public Schools, Texas. These charter schools have a college prep program and a new blended learning academic program for elementary students called BetterIDEA. IDEA uses a personalized learning platform with 1:1 devices. Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 7

8 Multiple Charter Authorizers in the United States The NAPCS encourages states to amend their charter laws to allow multiple charter authorizers, including nonprofit organizations and postsecondary institutions. Thirteen states permit nonprofit organizations, colleges and universities to serve as charter authorizers: Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. NAPCS Recommends Multiple Authorizers According to NAPCS, a well-designed charter school law must allow multiple authorizers to which potential charter founders can apply, so that all charter applicants have the opportunity to seek approval from a conscientious and wellmotivated authorizer. To create multiple authorizers, the model law provides for three things: Establishment of a state public charter school commission; Opportunity for local school boards to authorize charters; and Opportunity for various entities to authorize charter schools - including mayors, city councils, nonprofit organizations and public and private postsecondary institutions - to authorize charter schools [Source: A New Model Law for Supporting the Growth of High-Quality Public Charter Schools, June 2009, NAPCS] Authorizers and Charter Market Share Not surprisingly, States that enable nonprofits, colleges and universities to authorize charter schools are among the states with the greatest market share. Of the top 10 school districts with the highest growth of public charter school students, 6 of these districts are in multiple authorizer states: Nevada, Florida (2 districts), Georgia, New York and Minnesota. 4 Of the top 20 school districts serving the highest percentage of public charter school students, 14 of these districts are in multiple authorizer states: Louisiana, Michigan (3 districts), Missouri (2 districts), Indiana (2 districts), Ohio (4 districts), New York, and Wisconsin. Of the top 50 school districts by number of charter school students, 27 of these districts are in multiple authorizer states: New York (2 districts), Michigan, Florida (8 districts), Louisiana, Wisconsin, Ohio (4 districts), Missouri (2 districts), Indiana, Georgia (3 districts), Minnesota (2 districts), Hawaii, and Nevada. Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 8

9 Charter Facilities Funding in the United States 15 States and the District of Columbia provide funding for charter facilities. Florida: Provides per-pupil charter facilities funding program and allocated $56 million in Minnesota: Covers up to 90% of charter school lease costs or $1,200 per pupil. Colorado: Provides capital construction funds to qualified charter schools. Indiana: A charter school facilities assistance program makes grants and loans to charter schools ($17 million appropriated in 2011). Vacant space is also made available to charter schools to either lease or purchase for one dollar. Utah: Local revenue replacement program provides additional annual per-pupil appropriations for charter schools to replace lost local property tax revenue. A minimum of 10% of these funds must be spent on facilities. Arizona: Provides per-pupil additional assistance, currently set at $1,445 for K-8 students and $1,684 for students in grades Texas: State-authorized charters may apply to have their bonds guaranteed by the state s Permanent School Fund if they meet certain financial criteria and investment grade rating. Idaho Charter Facilities Funding In September 2012, the Idaho Charter School Network and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools published a report entitled, An Analysis of the Charter School Facility Landscape in Idaho, detailing the challenges of charter school facilities in the state. Key findings include: Idaho charter schools do not have access to local facilities funding resources. Idaho public schools finance capital and facilities needs through local bonds. No Idaho charter school has ever been included in any district funding request. designated per-pupil operating revenues each year on facilities costs. Idaho charter school facilities are small compared to industry standards. Idaho charters are nearly 20 percent smaller than the typical public school. Charters spend more to provide low-income students with subsidized meals, due to the lack of kitchen facilities. As Idaho charters grow, facility challenges may get worse. Without a solution, even more operating funds will be diverted to facilities costs. Idaho charter schools must spend operating funds on facilities, while traditional public schools do not. On average, Idaho charter schools spend $602 per student from Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 9

10 Charter Student Funding in the United States According to NAPCS, while state approaches to charter funding may vary, most states have one commonality: they provide significantly less funding to public charter schools as compared to traditional public schools. In 2005, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute published a study on the charter school funding levels, and found that charter schools received only 78 percent of the dollars that flowed to traditional public schools. Five years later, Ball State University researchers updated that study using data and found the funding disparity to be largely unchanged: Charters overall were significantly underfunded relative to district schools: The average state disparity was 19.2 percent or $2,297 per student Differences in student need (students with disabilities, free or reduced lunch, grade levels) do not justify the disparity The chief culprit was lack of access to local and capital funding: No state provided charter schools equal access to all funding sources (federal, state, local, facilities) Statewide, more than 85 percent of the disparity between charter and district school funding resulted from difference in access to local revenues Idaho Charter Student Funding The 2010 Ball State University study on charter school funding included Idaho data. The Idaho findings include: Idaho charter schools trailed their district counterparts in funding by 23.8 percent: $6,178 vs. $8,108 per pupil, a difference of $1,930 per student. Idaho charters schools received $6,178 per pupil, but district schools would have received $8,179 to educate the same students - a difference of $2,001 or 24.5 percent. Weighting the district per-pupil revenues (PPR) for charter enrollment, therefore, increases the funding disparity by $71 from the statewide difference above. Boise charter funding lagged behind Boise school district funding by 35.4 percent: $6,215 vs. $9,623 per pupil, a difference of $3,408. Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 10

11 Digital Learning in the United States and Idaho According to the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (inacol): 40 States have state virtual schools or state-led initiatives. 30 states and DC have statewide, full-time online schools (including virtual charter schools). There were an estimated 1.8 million enrollments in distance education courses in K-12 school districts in (almost all of which were online courses), and 74 percent were high school students. The estimate does not include 200,000 students enrolled in full-time online schools. Online courses with the highest district enrollments are credit recovery and dual credit. Florida, Minnesota, Idaho and Wisconsin stand out as states with a wide variety of full-time and supplemental options for students across most grade levels. Current US average per-pupil expenditures are $6,400 for a fully online model and $8,900 for a blended learning model. Traditional school models have an average per-pupil cost of $10, states and DC have adopted Common Core State Standards, which will make it easier for course developers to expand their reach across states. Most state virtual schools are funded with an annual appropriation. However, some states, like Idaho, also charge enrollment fees. In Florida, Idaho and North Carolina, state virtual schools are funded in a scalable manner, based on the number of course enrollments provided. Idaho Digital Learning Academy (IDLA) Enrollment. More than 65,000 enrollments since Student Fees. IDLA charges $100 per course, which typically is paid by the district for students enrolled as part of their normal school day. May be passed on to student in overload situations. Blended Learning Consortium. Currently serves 35 Idaho school districts, allowing member districts to access content built by teachers within the consortium. Districts may limit teacher participation. Flex classes. Students work at their own pace; however, courses are offered at school, not home. Idaho Education Network (IEN) High speed, broadband Internet access. The IEN is now operational in all districts across Idaho, except Valley School District. Video-Teleconferencing (VTC). The IEN offers VTC at 216 locations across the state. 70 percent of IEN courses were dual credit courses (via VTC) with a 98% student completion rate. Content. IEN is working to increase content offerings from NNU and working with IDLA for a la carte courses. Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 11

12 Digital Learning in Idaho 2011 Digital Learning Report Card In 2010, the Foundation for Excellence in Education (Foundation) launched the Digital Learning Now initiative and its 10 Essential Elements for High Quality Digital Learning. In 2011, the Foundation issued its Digital Learning State Report Cards, which evaluated state digital learning policies and provided state rankings for each essential element. In 2011, Idaho was ranked among the top states, alongside digital learning leaders such as Utah and Florida. In some instances, Idaho s 2011 report card factored in the Students Come First digital learning provisions, including the online course requirement, the funding follows the student requirement, and the 1:1 mobile device initiative for teachers and students. Idaho also received credit for the infrastructure provision of high-speed, broadband Internet access by The Foundation is scheduled to release the 2012 Digital Learning State Report Cards in February Given the Proposition 3 repeal of the Students Come First digital provisions, Idaho may drop in the rankings. Ten Elements of High Quality Digital Learning Eligibility: All students are digital learners Access: All students have access to high quality digital content and online courses Personalized Learning: All students can customize their education using digital content Advancement: Students progress based on demonstrated competency Content: Digital content, online and blended learning courses are high quality Instruction: Digital instruction and teachers are high quality Providers: All students have access to multiple high quality providers Assessment and Accountability: Student learning is metric for evaluating content and quality Funding: Funding creates incentives for performance, options, and innovation Delivery: Infrastructure supports digital learning Essential Element Idaho Score Student Access 75% Student Eligibility 90% Personalized Learning 85% Advancement 25% Content 100% Instruction 50% Providers 60% Assessment & Accountability 50% Funding 60% Infrastructure 20% Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 12

13 Rural Schools in the United States TEN FACTS ON RURAL EDUCATION IN AMERICA There are more than 11 million students enrolled in rural public schools, which is 25 percent of all public school enrollees. One-third of the nation s public schools and more than one-half of all public school districts are classified by the US Department of Education as rural. Rural enrollment in the United States is rising. Between 2006 and 2009, rural enrollment grew by 8 percent, while enrollment in non-rural schools was stagnant. More than half of all rural students in the United States are concentrated in 11 states. North Carolina has the largest population of rural students, followed by Texas, Georgia, Ohio and Virginia. The five states with the highest percentage of rural students are Maine, Vermont, South Dakota, North Carolina and Mississippi. Rural families typically have fewer learning options than their counterparts in urban and suburban areas. 82 percent of rural students attend non-charter public schools, compared to 64 percent of city students and 75 percent of suburban students. Rural student demographics vary by region. 80 percent of rural minority students reside in the Southeast and the Southwest. The average graduation rate of rural high school students hovers around 75 percent, which is on par with suburban high schools and significantly higher than city high schools. The college enrollment rate in rural areas (27 percent) is lower than in cities (37 percent), suburban areas (37 percent) or towns (32 percent). Adults in rural areas are less likely to have earned a bachelor s degree or higher than adults in cities and suburbs. In 2004, 21 percent of adults age attained a bachelor s degree or higher, compared to 34 percent in cities and suburbs. [Source: Beyond City Limits: Expanding Public Charter Schools in Rural America, NAPCS, February 2012] According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in : There were nearly 47.5 million traditional public school students and approximately 1.8 million charter school students in the United States. Nearly 65 percent of traditional public schools students live in cities or suburbs, 12 percent live in towns and 25 percent reside in rural communities. For charter school students across the country, nearly 80 percent live in cities or suburbs, and approximately 20 percent live in towns or rural communities. Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 13

14 Rural Schools in Idaho According to the NCES, during the school year, there were nearly 260,000 traditional public school students and 16,000 charter school students in Idaho. In Idaho, nearly 45 percent of traditional public schools students live in cities or suburbs, 21 percent live in towns and 36 percent reside in rural communities. Over 58 percent of Idaho charter school students live in cities or suburbs, nearly 14 percent live in towns and 28 percent live in rural areas. Idaho charter school enrollments track along with the national trend: most charter schools are serving students who reside in cities and suburbs. In , there were more traditional public school students residing in rural communities (36 percent) than in cities (28 percent). Charter school options are not available to the majority of Idaho s rural students. Traditional (Non-Charter) Student Enrollment in Idaho Locale Percent City 28% Suburbs 15% Town 21% Rural 36% 28% 36% 21% 15% City Suburb Town Rural Charter School Student Enrollment in Idaho Locale Percent City 28% Suburbs 30% Town 14% Rural 28% 28% 14% Prepared by CH Global Strategies, LLC and The Price Group, LLC 28% 30% City Suburb Town Rural 14