Credit: Alexis Brown on Unsplash
Credit: Alexis Brown on UnsplashThe vast majority of California’s charter schools sampled for a study failed to fully disclose how they spent money on students targeted for assistance under the state’s funding formula. Some didn’t account for any of that funding, as the state requires, according to a report released Wednesday by the nonprofit law and advocacy organization Public Advocates.
Public Advocates is urging tighter oversight and stricter regulations for charter schools, similar to the requirements imposed on school districts. The report concludes that these changes are needed to ensure clearer accounting for spending and greater parent involvement in the creation of the key accountability document that districts and charter schools must complete annually. Called Local Control and Accountability Plans, or LCAPs, they set academic and school improvement goals and actions to achieve them.
“We find charter school engagement, transparency and accountability woefully lacking to such a degree that it is sometimes impossible to determine how charter schools are spending millions of dollars” that should be used to improve the education of “high-needs” students drawing extra money, Public Advocates wrote. Those students include low-income, foster and homeless children and English learners.
Public Advocates reviewed LCAPs from 2017-18 for 43 charter schools, serving 24,000 students, from charter schools in five urban areas: Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Richmond. Those charter schools serve primarily low-income Latino and African-American students. It’s also where charter management organizations concentrate their efforts.
Public Advocates discovered significant variations in LCAP compliance among charter schools. In the aggregate, it found:
- No charter school examined properly documented how it was increasing or improving services for high need students, as the law creating the funding formula requires.
- Nine schools documented how they planned to spend at least 75 percent of the funds generated by high-needs students for programs and services for those students. Public Advocates said it could find documentation for only a third of the $48.6 million the 43 schools received specifically for high-needs students.
Charters educate about 10 percent of the state’s 6 million students and get $3.4 billion under the Local Control Funding Formula, including about $900 million for students drawing extra funding.
The state’s 1,200 charter schools are not alone in facing criticism. San Francisco-based Public Advocates has successfully sued or filed complaints against Long Beach Unified and Los Angeles Unified over how they spent money for students who were entitled to extra services or programs under the formula. Last month, West Contra Costa Unified agreed to post more data on student progress, in response to a Public Advocates complaint. Public Advocates were critical of districts’ compliance with LCAP regulations in two reports two years ago (see here and here).
A key difference, however, is that the funding formula law exempted charter schools from some key oversight and public participation requirements districts must meet.
Charter school LCAPs do not need the approval of the district or county office of education that granted the charter petition, unlike districts, whose LCAPs must be approved by their county office. That may be why the bigger failings go unchecked. Charter authorizers do have the authority to review charter schools’ LCAPs and point out their deficiencies. The California Department of Education has done that for the three dozen charter schools authorized on appeal by the State Board of Education. And authorizers can cite a failure to meet LCAP requirements as an element in a charter revocation or renewal process.
Unlike districts, charter schools don’t have to publish their LCAPs online. Public Advocates discovered that 38 percent of the LCAPs it wanted to read — 27 of the 70 — weren’t posted, denying parents and the public access to them.
Charter schools aren’t required to create parent LCAP advisory groups, which provide suggestions, and most have not established them, the report found.
Charter schools aren’t required to present LCAPs at public meetings. The study found that some of the nonprofit boards of larger charter management organizations, including Aspire Public Schools, KIPP Public Charter Schools and Rocketship Public Schools, placed approval of their charter schools’ LCAPs on the consent agenda for automatic approval. There was no public comment preceding the votes.
Brittany Chord Parmley, director of Bay Area communications for the California Charter Schools Association, disputed the report’s finding that charter schools aren’t reaching out and involving parents.
“Parent engagement is the backbone of the charter school movement. In fact, before a charter can be approved by an authorizer, it has to clearly articulate a parent engagement strategy,” she said in a statement. “Charter schools believe in and embrace transparency and accountability to the students and families they serve.”
Charter schools are required to use the same template as districts for their LCAPs. They are required to detail how they will use money from the funding formula to achieve priorities the Legislature set, including improved school climate, academic performance and parent involvement. And they must specify how much money they receive under the formula for students targeted for extra aid and how they will use the funding to increase or improve services and programs for these high-needs students. Charter schools must also consult with parents and teachers in writing the LCAP.
Starting with the next year’s LCAP, districts and charter schools will be required to include a budget overview geared to parents as an attachment to the LCAP. Among its requirements, it should clearly state the total expenditures for high-needs students in the proposed LCAP and a summary of how the funding will be used, along with a summary of the same information in the current LCAP.
This new feature should benefit parents and clarify for charter schools the information they should have been providing all along, said Rigel Spencer Massaro, senior staff attorney for Public Advocates and author of the report. But she said the new document will not replace the need for an annual LCAP approval or review by a county or district authorizer. “It will encourage folks with good intentions to do the right thing, but if I am not reviewed, am I going to do it?” she said. If there were oversight, “there would be fewer problems across the board,” she said
Even though each charter school’s LCAP is supposed to address specific conditions at the school, the report also found that some of the charter management organizations adopted a cookie-cutter approach to their schools’ LCAPs, with identical goals and actions despite variations in the demographics of their students and wide differences in student achievement among their schools.
To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.
Comments (6)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Mary Gray 5 years ago5 years ago
So, many of us have been asking for charter school accountability and oversight for years now, especially because these schools are playing with our tax dollars. I want to know how our money is being spent, and so do others. We’ve been hearing crickets.
Arthur Aleman 5 years ago5 years ago
I’m involved in advocating for public schools. After reading article on charter schools, I find it very disturbing but not surprising. I have found that most parents are ill-informed and LCAP for their schools is not translated in the languages where more than 15% of population need the translation. Also principals choose “yes man” parents to sign off on required documents.
Dkel 5 years ago5 years ago
"charter schools are spending millions of dollars that should be used to improve the education of “high-needs” students.. " Thank you for writing such an enlightening article. What enlightened me the most is Public Advocates not ensuring all students receive an excellent education but instead they … Read More
“charter schools are spending millions of dollars that should be used to improve the education of “high-needs” students.. ”
Thank you for writing such an enlightening article. What enlightened me the most is Public Advocates not ensuring all students receive an excellent education but instead they are focused on $48.6 million of taxpayers’ money going towards benefitting a selected “special” group of kids. That sounds like discrimination. All services , classes, and curriculums should be available to all students meeting the academic standard to participate (remembering the landmark case Missouri ex real Gaines vs Canada (1938) by applying the standard here). The money should be directed towards curriculum for every child. The taxpayer money should be directed towards teachers having supplies in their classrooms for all students. Anything else is discrimination and Public Advocates should be against that civil right violation.
VCaigoy 5 years ago5 years ago
It is apparent by reading this article that the author is not fully aware of the actual requirements and accountability measures put into place for public charter schools. A few examples are: the author notes that charters do not have to post their LCAP online - Incorrect, by law the LCAP must be posted on their website in a easy to find location for stakeholders. The author also stated that S&C (supplemental and concentrated funds … Read More
It is apparent by reading this article that the author is not fully aware of the actual requirements and accountability measures put into place for public charter schools. A few examples are: the author notes that charters do not have to post their LCAP online – Incorrect, by law the LCAP must be posted on their website in a easy to find location for stakeholders. The author also stated that S&C (supplemental and concentrated funds do not need to be reflected – the rule is to reflect at a minimum 75% of the S&C budget. I know for sure that one of the schools on the list as sited not doing this does reflect their S&C funds and more. For the record stakeholder advisory and input on the LCAP is a requirement for everyone including charters. I would think that before an article like this is distributed, that the facts would have been checked and verified… that’s what great journalism is.
Replies
John Fensterwald 5 years ago5 years ago
Dear VCaigoy, Thanks for your critique. Please cite the reg or statute that says the LCAP must be posted online. Public Advocates states there is no such requirement. The article clearly states that charter schools must use the same template that districts use and must report how much supplemental and concentration money they receive and how they plan to use it. The article also states that charter must consult with parents and students in crafting the LCAP; … Read More
Dear VCaigoy,
Thanks for your critique. Please cite the reg or statute that says the LCAP must be posted online. Public Advocates states there is no such requirement.
The article clearly states that charter schools must use the same template that districts use and must report how much supplemental and concentration money they receive and how they plan to use it. The article also states that charter must consult with parents and students in crafting the LCAP; what it does not require is for charters to show how they have incorporated the feedback they get, which is required of districts.
Districts must also respond in writing to suggestions and comments on draft LCAPs from advisory committees; charters do not have to do this, since they don’t have to create those committees. Many districts don’t do a good job reaching out to and involving parents — no question about that; some go through the motion and then complain that parents are apathetic. That said, the law regarding stakeholder engagement has different requirements for charters and districts.
Karl Yoder 5 years ago5 years ago
I think the article was factually correct and I'm also unsure where the commenter was getting their info. A) LCAP rules for charters are more relaxed than for districts/COEs. Just as the article said, districts and COEs must post their LCAP online (Ed Code 52065) but this does not include charter schools (although it's still a good idea). B) There's no "rule" or even a guideline to reflect 75% of the S&C budget in the LCAP. … Read More
I think the article was factually correct and I’m also unsure where the commenter was getting their info.
A) LCAP rules for charters are more relaxed than for districts/COEs. Just as the article said, districts and COEs must post their LCAP online (Ed Code 52065) but this does not include charter schools (although it’s still a good idea).
B) There’s no “rule” or even a guideline to reflect 75% of the S&C budget in the LCAP. That’s not how LCFF works either by statute or in practice. The LCAP must show that the LEA (this is the same for districts and charters) is spending a minimum amount of its LCAP funds on additional services for low-income, English Learner and foster students, which is what Public Advocates is claiming was not done correctly. This is called the “minimum proportionality percentage”. But it’s based on a combination of the S/C grant amount and prior year spending, and there’s no “75% minimum”, nor does the LCAP tie the spending on these students to the S/C grant amount per se, just to the Minimum Proportionality Percentage (this calc is at the end of every LCAP, before the Addendum – you can look for yourself). This rule is also in the FAQ at https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp#LCAP.
This is a complex field with limited guidance, but the article was correct.