Have your cake and eat it too: A sectoral analysis of charter schools in Los Angeles

UCLA Luskin Dept. of Urban Planning

HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO

December 2014 A sectoral analysis of charter schools expansion, investment, and outcomes in Los Angeles

HAVE YOUR CAKE AND IT IT TOO: A sectoral analysis of charter schools expansion, investment, and outcomes in Los Angeles UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Urban Planning 237A: Sectoral Analysis Instructor: Goetz Wolff December 19, 2014

Team members Mark Friedlander Brock Hicks Lilly O’Brien-Kovari Taylor Libolt Eric Romero

markfriedlander@ucla.edu brockhicks@ucla.edu mlillyobk@gmail.com tlibolt@ucla.edu romeric15@gmail.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Charter schools comprise just over 6 percent of the public schools in the United States (Yang, 2014). In some regions of the country, the percentage of charter schools is much higher. In the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), roughly 27 percent of schools are charters and almost 19 percent of students attend charter schools (California Charter Schools Association 2014). This sector is rapidly expanding. Student enrollment in charter schools for LAUSD increased by 15 percent from the 2013-14 school year to this school year (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2014). The inception and growth of charter schools in the last thirty years represent a large shift in public school reform in the United States.

The growth of the charter school industry does not continue unchallenged. The debate surrounding charter schools is heated and pins one group seeking to increase school autonomy and school choice through charter schools, and against the other, which fears the repercussions of the privatization of the public school industry that charter schools usher in.

This report on the charter school sector provides an important and timely look into a large and growing industry and school reform movement. It focuses its research on the Los Angeles Unified School District and supplements its findings with evidence and research from the industry in other places. This summary of the full report provides an overview of the key findings of our research, telling of the growth of the sector, the financial character of this growth and the sector, the private involvement in the industry, and the experiences of charter school teachers in a changing education sector. It also provides a glimpse into the purpose of the report and well as how we gathered and compiled the research.

Key findings 1) The sector is expanding rapidly; 2) In order to expand, charter schools must maintain financial solvency to help fund expansion, which creates financial pressures on the charter school’s budget; 3) Pressures to establish financial solvency charter schools seeking contributions from private foundations, philanthropists, venture funds, and novel financial instruments, which affect the politics of the sector; 4) Charter school teachers have less experience and job protections and higher rates of turnover compared to traditional public school teachers.

Scope, purpose, and methodology This report focuses on the sectoral dynamics and dimensions of the charter school sector within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). However, the sector does not exist in isolation, but is extensively connected to a network of actors nationwide. Charter schools in LAUSD also respond to larger political and economic trends in the context of the decline of state services and power during an era of neoliberalization of social services traditionally in the public domain. Because the charter school sector is a market within a market--a subsector of the larger primary and secondary public schools industry without a unique North American Industry Classification System code--it is often difficult to isolate charter-specific data. The analysis attempts to circumvent this difficulty by discussing the charter school industry within the context of public schools as a whole.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

1

This analysis uses a variety of data in order to create a thorough representation of the industry. These sources include, but are not limited to case studies, administrative data, interviews, and scholarly research all from a variety of primary and secondary sources.

SECTOR GROWTH IN LOS ANGELES: AN EPICENTER OF CHARTER SCHOOL EXPANSION

1

Los Angeles leads the nation in the number of charter schools and charter school enrollment.

Charter schools are the fastest-growing school choice option in the U.S. public education system (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2014). Despite this, charter schools still make up only just a small percentage (6 percent) of all public schools in the nation (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). That being said, the number of charter schools in the nation continues to grow each year. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2012), in 2012, 5,696 charter schools existed across the country, increasing by 65 percent since the year 2000. Further, in 2012, an estimated 2,057,599 students were enrolled in charter schools nationwide. This figure increased dramatically over the last decade or so, going from 448,343 in 2000-01 to over four times that figure in 2011-12 (National Center for Education Statistics 2014).

Los Angeles is home to the largest number of public charter schools and students enrolled in public charter schools in the nation (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2014). For example, LAUSD enrolled the largest number of students in public charter schools of any district in the nation in the 2013-14 school year.

Further, LAUSD’s charter enrollment was double the size of the district with the second largest charter student enrollment in the nation (National Alliance for Charter Schools, 2014). Most of the charter school activity in Los Angeles occurs in LAUSD: ● ●

Seventy-seven percent of L.A. County charter schools located in LAUSD in the 2013-14 school year (California Department of Education 2013).

Seventy-six percent of L.A. County charter school students were enrolled in charter schools in LAUSD in the 2013-14 school year (California Department of Education 2013).

Our research identified three possible reasons for the high number of charter schools and students enrolled in charter schools in Los Angeles: 1) K-12 students densely concentrate in Los Angeles, creating a need for more schools 2) It is easier for charter school advocates to make the case for more charter schools in areas where schools look to be “failing” students 3) Los Angeles has a strong network of charter school and educational reform advocates that includes elected officials and LAUSD administrators Los Angeles sits at the forefront of the movement for charter schools and education reform. This matters because important consequences accompany charter school growth. As charter schools and charter enrollment increase in Los Angeles, traditional public schools lose students to charter schools. Because charter schools benefit from public funding, as students move from traditional public schools to charter schools, local school districts lose funding for traditional public schools. What is more, because charter schools are managed by essentially private organizations who benefit from public funding, public education in Los Angeles is becoming increasingly more privatized. This cycle significantly changes the way the public education system operates in Los Angeles, and across the nation.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

2

FINANCIAL SOLVENCY/ SOURCES OF GROWTH

2

The growth of charter schools is explained by financial characteristics How do charter schools pay for this marked growth? In the full report, we explore the financial solvency and sources of capital for four charter schools within LAUSD: ● ● ● ●

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) LA Green Dot Charter Schools Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF) Magnolia Charter Schools

We call these charter schools “chain schools”, or schools that with more than one location. From our analysis, we discover key trends across these schools.

First, these charter schools commit to growth goals that explicitly state how many students they plan to enroll and schools they plan to open. However, while these charter school chains are indeed growing, they are not growing as fast as they commit to grow. We explore these charter schools’ growth goals and how well they meet those goals.

Second, we found that, if attempting to grow, charter school chains must maintain financial solvency, or the ability for a charter school to meet its long term financial goals. One element of this financial solvency is a charter school’s ability to meet its long term growth goals, since its long term financial plans predicate on its growth. An indicator of financial solvency is whether a charter school’s revenue exceeds its costs--in other words, whether a charter school can maintain a profit margin. The charter school management organizations in our analysis operate as non-profits, but this does not imply that they are disinterested in turning a profit. In fact, this profit margin creates a revenue stream that can be used to acquire more property, which allows charter school chains to open new schools and expand their brand. Profit margins are generally inconsistent across the charter schools in our analysis.

Finally, charter schools, like traditional public schools, seek funding from government funding streams. The majority of revenue comes from state sources. Like traditional public schools, the biggest expenditures are teacher services. However, in order to acquire more property and finance facilities, charter schools must seek money from private donors. Charter school facilities costs are typically only calculated when the school plans to purchase a facility. Charter schools argue that public sources do not account for the entire cost of purchasing facilities when calculating apportionment. While some public revenue streams exist to support facility acquisition, charter schools seek loans, donations, and investments from private sources to cover facility costs. We explore these costs in greater detail throughout the paper.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

3

3

HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO: THE POWER STRUCTURE AND FOUNDATION INVOLVEMENT Private money shapes the politics and drives the growth of the hybrid public-private charter school sector.

Foundations, venture philanthropists, the growing presence of for- and non-profit venture funds, and a novel financial instrument, New Market Tax Credits, are emblematic of the ethos that underpins the charter school sector. Private foundation funding of public education in LA concentrates most heavily in charter schools. As Richard Riordan, a prominent politician and philanthropist in LA says of his investment in the new for-profit Turner-Agassi Charter School Facilities Fund, "This is a way to make some money and help charter schools.

Then the money I make I can give back to charity. It's sort of a way to have your cake and eat it too" (quoted in Vincent, 2011). In short, the primary and secondary public schools sector, traditionally conceived of as stateprovisioned social services, is increasingly being conceived of as a new frontier for markets, investment, and profit-making; charter schools and Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) provide the vehicle for private inroads into the public education sector.

Studying the power structure of the charter sector in LA is largely an exercise in studying large foundations and the entities they fund. Therefore, this report looks at power in the charter sector via the ties between foundations and other important actors in the charter landscape in LA, including the top ten Charter Management Organizations (which comprise 39 percent of all charters in LAUSD and 10 percent of all LAUSD schools), advocacy organizations, private individual donors, CMO board members, politicians and public figures, and firms in related sectors. We also look at their interest in state education legislation. Los Angeles is an epicenter for the development, growth, and politics of the charter school reform movement. $16.2 million of the $20.7 million (78 percent) awarded to public education by major foundations in 2005 went to organizations supporting charter schools (Reckhow, 2013).

Mapping power in the sector: important connections between private foundations and key players Via a mapping exercise, we drew connections between key actors in the charter sector (see Figure X-X on pages Y-Y). Several trends emerge, the most prominent being: (1) a concentration of relationships between the big three private foundations (Broad, Gates, and Walton) and all other important actors; (2) cross-cutting relationships between political figures like Richard Riordan and Marshall Tuck, who recently ran for California Superintendent of Schools, and all other key actors; and (3) CMO board members; connections with major foundations and firms in related sectors. These relationships are discussed briefly below (and in greater detail in the final report).

Investing in privatization: major foundations and venture funds There is a clear concentration of relationships between the top five CMOs and the top three private foundations (Broad, Gates, and Walton). These foundations also fund Teach for America (TFA) and organizations such as the California Charter School Association, Students First, and Parent Revolution.

The Broad Foundation, headquartered in LA, and the Gates Foundation fund large CMOs, while The Walton Foundation tends to fund individual charter schools. However, as Reckhow (2013) points out, the largest grant from all three foundations was not to a CMO or a charter school, but to Pacific Charter School Development (PCSD), a firm that constructs charter school facilities in LA. Constructing permanent facilities is foundational for charter sector growth.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

4

New Schools Venture Fund is another important tie that links major players together in LA. Its serves primarily to fund CMOs and both Gates and Broad invest in the Fund. In contrast to foundations, investors in venture funds receive a direct financial return. Since 2002, the Fund has raised over $50 million to support CMOs. Moreover, the Fund co-founded PCSD; representatives of the New Schools Venture Fund, Broad Foundation, and Green Dot Public Schools sit on the PCSD board (Reckhow, 2013).

Nationally, grants to charter support organizations in LA during 2005 comprised 28 percent of all grant dollars awarded by major foundations for charter schools and charter-related organizations. Moreover, during the same year, no funding by major foundations was awarded to LAUSD itself, instead funds went to nonprofits who support charter school expansion and compete directly with LAUSD (Reckhow 2013).

New Market Tax Credits: turning charter schools into an $11 billion industry New Market Tax Credits spawned an $11 billion industry overnight by providing a major incentive for private financiers to invest in the charter school sector. PCSD estimates that 195 New Market Tax Credits have been awarded to organizations involved in charter school development, totaling approximately $1.6 billion (interview with Dennis Maravilla of PCSD, 2014). New Market Tax Credits allow investors to combine the tax credit with interest collected on any money they lend. According to Singer (2014), the credit may allow investors to double their investment during the seven years they are allotted to collect the tax credit.

Related sectors: specialization around the charter industry Several firms specialize specifically in serving charter schools and offer comprehensive support services. One important one-stop shop is EdEX, located in LA. They work with startup charter schools from the beginning to develop schools by providing consulting in facilities location and school development; and services in fundraising, grant writing, financial accounting, and back office work. The existence of specialized one-stop shops, two located in California, indicates the growth and dynamism of the charter school sector. In other words, it is a sector off of which to make a profit, and has created substantial specializations across other sectors for consulting and service outsourcing.

A Taste for Cake: philanthropists and investors target the charter sector The evolution of venture funds (New School; Turner-Agassi) and financial instruments (New Market Tax Credits) are emblematic of the power structure and interests of key charter sector players in Los Angeles. It is the ethos of having your cake and eating it too; philanthropists and large foundations that support neoliberal education policies as the best path to reform--with charter schools as the poster child--have begun not only to supply a key funding stream via donations, but to invest in the sector with hopes of returns. Having your cake and eating it too is the philosophy of venture ideologues: market-driven policies support their free-market ideology while simultaneously feeding their taste for cake.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

5

TEACHERS

4

Charter school teachers: easy come, easy go Teachers are the backbone of any successful school, so when working with the public education sector, it is important to consider the labor force. To characterize the teaching experience at charter schools we rely on research, data, and interviews with current and former teachers and administrators in LAUSD. Through our research and interviews we came away with four key findings about teaching at charter schools: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Charter schools teachers are less likely to unionize; Charter school teachers often have less experience than teachers at traditional public schools; Charter schools have high rates of teacher turnover; Charter school teachers are less likely to hold tenure than teachers in traditional public schools

Charter schools continue to hire teachers despite long work hours, high teacher attrition, and lack of union representation and tenure by recruiting through organizations like Teach for America (TFA). In 2013, over 90 percent of TFA corps members in LAUSD were placed at charter schools. We will explore the nexus between TFA and charter schools as well as describe local and national concerns associated with TFA’s impact on both students and teachers.

Conclusion Charter school expansion is changing the way public education operates on multiple fronts, especially in regards to the funding of public education, student experiences and teacher experiences. Our evidence points to an increasing privatization of public education in Los Angeles as students move from traditional public schools to charter schools that are managed by private organizations. This expansion has been met with growing concerns over issues of accountability and transparency with charter schools in Los Angeles, and Charter Management Organizations in particular. A major concern for some is that charter school expansion and education reform efforts are being funded by a few key players whose motives, while sometimes ideological, sometimes altruistic, are also financial. Other concerns include: high teacher turnover in charter schools, low-levels of teaching experience held by charter school teachers, low rates of unionization for charter school teachers, loss of funding for traditional public schools, and laws driven by education reform advocates that emphasize high-stakes testing and charter school expansion. The findings of this report call for a deeper analysis of the charter school industry in Los Angeles, with a particular focus on the political economy of the charter school industry.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key findings .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Scope, purpose, and methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 1 SECTOR GROWTH IN LOS ANGELES: AN EPICENTER OF CHARTER SCHOOL EXPANSION ...................................................... 2 FINANCIAL SOLVENCY/ SOURCES OF GROWTH ................................................................................................................. 3 HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO: THE POWER STRUCTURE AND FOUNDATION INVOLVEMENT ..................................... 4 Mapping power in the sector: important connections between private foundations and key players ................................... 4 Investing in privatization: major foundations and venture funds ...................................................................................... 4 New Market Tax Credits: turning charter schools into an $11 billion industry ................................................................... 5 Related sectors: specialization around the charter industry ............................................................................................... 5 A Taste for Cake: philanthropists and investors target the charter sector .............................................................................. 5 TEACHERS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................. 19 3. Industry background and overview ............................................................................................................................ 21 3.1. Education Industry Size Snapshot ................................................................................................................................... 21 3.2. Charter Industry Size Snapshot ....................................................................................................................................... 22 3.3. Employment Snapshot .................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.4. NAICS Definition (611110) .............................................................................................................................................. 23 3.5. SIC Definition (8211) ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 3.6. History of the industry ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 3.7. Identification of major firms ........................................................................................................................................... 24 LA County ........................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Nationwide ........................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Abroad ............................................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.8. Companies in LA identified .............................................................................................................................................. 26

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

7

4. Structure of the industry ............................................................................................................................................ 28 4.1. Employment trends ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.2. Number of charter schools .............................................................................................................................................. 29 Nationwide ........................................................................................................................................................................ 29 California ............................................................................................................................................................................ 31 Distribution of charter schools .......................................................................................................................................... 32 LA County and LAUSD ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 Charter Management Organizations ................................................................................................................................. 37 5. Internal composition of the industry .......................................................................................................................... 44 5.1. Key Production Processes ................................................................................................................................................ 44 Starting and Maintaining a Charter ................................................................................................................................... 44 5.2. New technologies ............................................................................................................................................................ 46 5.3. Capital/labor intensity .................................................................................................................................................... 47 Financing facilities .............................................................................................................................................................. 47 Colocation in existing traditional public school facilities ................................................................................................... 49 6. Markets, Customers, and Nature of Competition ........................................................................................................ 52 6.1. Products and Services ..................................................................................................................................................... 52 6.2. Charter School Market .................................................................................................................................................... 53 School Choice ..................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Consumers ......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 6.3. The Nature of Competition ............................................................................................................................................. 53 6.4. Demographics of Students/Consumer Profiles................................................................................................................ 54 Charter school enrollment nationwide .............................................................................................................................. 55 LAUSD Enrollment .............................................................................................................................................................. 57 National Demographic Characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 59 LAUSD Charter School Demographics ................................................................................................................................ 62 LAUSD Demographics: Charter Schools versus Traditional Public Schools ........................................................................ 63 6.5. Access to Market: Admissions Policies ............................................................................................................................ 67 7. The Industry as a Cluster: Commodity Chains ............................................................................................................. 69 7.1. Commodity chain identified ............................................................................................................................................ 69 A closer look at one‐stop shops for charter schools development and management ...................................................... 70 Related sectors: A closer look at real estate development and financing firms ................................................................ 70 Real Estate Development and Finance Firms Specializing in Charter Schools ................................................................... 70 7.2. Linked industries ............................................................................................................................................................. 72 7.3. Related Sectors and Firms Case‐Study: Inner City Education Foundation ....................................................................... 74 Development Services ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 Publishers ........................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Information Technology & Educational Software .............................................................................................................. 75 Food Services ..................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Firm Map: Local and Nonlocal Space ................................................................................................................................. 75 A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

8

Suppliers ............................................................................................................................................................................ 76 Competitors ....................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Customers .......................................................................................................................................................................... 77 Trade associations ............................................................................................................................................................. 77 8. Geographical dimensions of the industry .................................................................................................................... 78 8.1. Spatial concentration ...................................................................................................................................................... 78 Statewide (Figure 8‐1)........................................................................................................................................................ 78 LA County and surrounding areas (Figure 8‐2) .................................................................................................................. 78 City of LA and surrounding cities (Figure 8‐3) .................................................................................................................... 78 Charters by Municipality within LAUSD ............................................................................................................................. 82 8.2. Location quotient ............................................................................................................................................................ 82 8.3 Charter School Expansion Patterns .................................................................................................................................. 86 LAUSD charter school expansion: 1994‐1999 .................................................................................................................... 86 LAUSD charter school expansion: 2000‐2004 .................................................................................................................... 87 LAUSD charter school expansion: 2005‐2009 .................................................................................................................... 88 LAUSD charter school expansion: 2010‐2014 .................................................................................................................... 89 LAUSD charter school closings: 2002‐2014 ........................................................................................................................ 90 8.4. Access to Transportation ................................................................................................................................................ 90 8.5 Determine reasons for location ........................................................................................................................................ 91 Facility Requirements ........................................................................................................................................................ 91 9. Financial situation/Source of Capital .......................................................................................................................... 93 9.1. Fast Facts about the California School Finance Authority’s Charter School programs ................................................... 94 9.2 KIPP LA Schools ................................................................................................................................................................ 95 Business plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 96 Profitability ........................................................................................................................................................................ 97 Funding sources ................................................................................................................................................................. 99 Assets and liabilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 100 Property tenure of school sites: lease vs. own vs. colocation ......................................................................................... 102 Other details .................................................................................................................................................................... 102 Ownership ........................................................................................................................................................................ 102 Board of directors + trustees ........................................................................................................................................... 102 Management ................................................................................................................................................................... 103 9.3 ICEF Public Schools ......................................................................................................................................................... 104 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 104 Balance of finances .......................................................................................................................................................... 105 Sources of Revenue ......................................................................................................................................................... 106 ICEF Public Schools expenditures .................................................................................................................................... 108 Loans payable .................................................................................................................................................................. 109 Property, plant and equipment ....................................................................................................................................... 109 Operating Leases ............................................................................................................................................................. 110 Assets & liabilities ............................................................................................................................................................ 110 ICEF board and management........................................................................................................................................... 110 Management ................................................................................................................................................................... 113 A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

9

9.4 Green Dot Public Schools ............................................................................................................................................... 114 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 114 Source: Greendot.org ................................................................................................................................................... 116 Business Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 116 Growth Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 116 Geographic Focus ............................................................................................................................................................. 117 Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................... 118 Assets/Liabilities .............................................................................................................................................................. 119 Sources of Capital ............................................................................................................................................................ 120 Notable Grants ................................................................................................................................................................. 120 Supporters ....................................................................................................................................................................... 120 Financial Pressures ........................................................................................................................................................... 121 Capital Leases .................................................................................................................................................................. 121 Ownership ........................................................................................................................................................................ 122 9.5 Magnolia Public Schools ......................................................................................................................................... 124 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 124 Leadership ........................................................................................................................................................................ 125 Finances ........................................................................................................................................................................... 127 Future Research: School Closure Threats and the Gulen Charter School Movement ..................................................... 129 9.6 Synthesis: comparison of case studies .................................................................................................................... 129 10. Relationships of the Industry to Government ......................................................................................................... 131 10.1. Forms of Government Impacts – Fees and Regulation ............................................................................................... 131 10.2 Government Regulations and Economic Structures .................................................................................................... 134 Enrollment ....................................................................................................................................................................... 134 Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................... 135 Food ................................................................................................................................................................................. 135 Teacher Quality ................................................................................................................................................................ 135 10.3. Available Funding ........................................................................................................................................................ 136 10.4. Tax and Investment Policy Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 139 10.5. Community concerns with the industry ...................................................................................................................... 140 Charter Management Organizations ............................................................................................................................... 140 Venture Philanthropy ...................................................................................................................................................... 140 11. The power structure of the industry ....................................................................................................................... 141 11.1. Advocacy organizations/Trade Associations ............................................................................................................... 141 The National Education Association (NEA) ...................................................................................................................... 141 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.................................................................................................................... 141 The Center for Education Reform .................................................................................................................................... 141 Institute of Education Sciences (IES) ................................................................................................................................ 142 California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) ................................................................................................................. 142 11.2. Web: network of key players in the industry............................................................................................................... 142 The web ........................................................................................................................................................................... 143 A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

10

Major patterns in the web ............................................................................................................................................... 143 11.3. Who are the industry leaders? .................................................................................................................................... 144 11.4. Profiles of key players in the industry ......................................................................................................................... 144 The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation .............................................................................................................................. 145 The Walton Family Foundation ........................................................................................................................................ 145 The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .......................................................................................................................... 146 Other important foundations and funds ......................................................................................................................... 148 Parent Revolution ............................................................................................................................................................ 148 Richard Riordan ............................................................................................................................................................... 149 11.5. Legislative concerns for the sector .............................................................................................................................. 149 12. Characterization of the labor force ......................................................................................................................... 153 12.1. Demographics ............................................................................................................................................................. 153 Looking at migrant status via teachers demographics for non‐citizens .......................................................................... 154 LAUSD employees demographic information .................................................................................................................. 155 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 156 12.2. Occupational Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 156 12.3 Skills Requirement ....................................................................................................................................................... 160 12.4 Education Levels ........................................................................................................................................................... 161 12.5 Workforce Residence Patterns ..................................................................................................................................... 164 12.6 Seniority and tenure of public school teachers ............................................................................................................ 170 Seniority and Years of Educational Employment of All LAUSD Workers ......................................................................... 170 Tenure in LAUSD .............................................................................................................................................................. 171 Tenure and Seniority in Charters ..................................................................................................................................... 172 12.7 Teacher Turnover ......................................................................................................................................................... 172 A Recent Study of Teacher Turnover Rates in LAUSD ...................................................................................................... 172 A Study of Teacher Turnover Rates in Charter Schools in Wisconsin .............................................................................. 173 Other Findings from the Literature .................................................................................................................................. 173 12.8 Levels of Unemployment .............................................................................................................................................. 174 12.9 Case‐Study: Inner City Education Foundation .............................................................................................................. 175 13. Labor/management practices ................................................................................................................................. 179 13.1 Teacher Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 179 Educator Growth and Development Cycle ...................................................................................................................... 179 Merit Pay.......................................................................................................................................................................... 180 Deregulation .................................................................................................................................................................... 180 13.2 Health/Safety ............................................................................................................................................................... 181 13.3 Union Information ........................................................................................................................................................ 182 History .............................................................................................................................................................................. 182 Statewide ......................................................................................................................................................................... 183 UTLA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 183 A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

11

Unionization and LAUSD Charter Schools ........................................................................................................................ 184 Pertinent Labor Unions .................................................................................................................................................... 185 Unionization by Charter Type .......................................................................................................................................... 188 14. Student Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................. 190 15. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 192 Glossary of terms ......................................................................................................................................................... 193 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................ 200

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

12

FIGURES + TABLES Figure 3‐1. Top five highest paying states in NAICS 611110

21

Figure 3‐2. Timeline of charter schools in the US and California

23

Figure 3‐3. Types of Charters in LAUSD

25

Figure 3‐4. Top 10 Charter Management Organizations in LAUSD by number of schools (2014/15)

26

Figure 4‐1. Number of charter teachers nationwide

28

Figure 4‐2. Pupil/teacher ratio in charter schools nationwide

29

Figure 4‐3. Charter school growth nationwide

30

Figure 4‐4. Charter schools growth as a percent of total public schools nationwide

30

Figure 4‐5. Number of charter schools by state

31

Figure 4‐6. Charter schools as a percent of total public schools, by state

31

Figure 4‐7. Distribution of charter schools by level, nationwide

32

Figure 4‐8. Locale nationwide

33

Figure 4‐9. Distributions of schools by region

33

Figure 4‐10. Racial/Ethnic concentration in charter schools nationwide

34

Figure 4‐11. Percentage of schools with students eligible for free or reduced lunch program, nationwide

35

Figure 4‐12. Charter growth L.A. County vs. LAUSD

36

Figure 4‐13. Charter growth in LAUSD

36

Figure 4‐14. Percent of charter schools to all public schools in LAUSD

37

Figure 4‐16. Charter Management Organizations in LAUSD by number of schools

37

Figure 4‐17. Definition of Types of Charter Schools

39

Figure 4‐19. ICEF graduation rates

41

Figure 4‐20. Lou Dantzler Preparatory Elementary test scores

41

Figure 4‐21. Frederick Douglass Charter Middle School test scores

42

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

13

Figure 4‐22. View Park Preparatory Charter High School test scores

42

Figure 4‐23. ICEF expenditures per pupil

42

Figure 4‐24. ICEF teacher and administrative salaries

43

Figure 5‐1. Charter School Divisions Responsibilities

44

Figure 5‐2. Charter Petition Review Flowchart

45

Figure 5‐3. LAUSD’s share of the FY 2013/14 California Charter Schools Facility Grant Program disbursements

48

Figure 5‐4. LAUSD’s share of the FY 2011/12 California Charter Schools Facility Grant Program disbursements

48

Figure 5‐5. Use of Facilities Incentives Grant Program funds by LA County charter schools (2006‐2013)

49

Figure 5‐6. Use of Facilities Incentives Grant Program funds by LA County charter schools (2006‐2013)

50

Figure 5‐7. Map of LAUSD Educational Service Centers

51

Figure 6‐1. Charter school enrollment nationwide

55

Figure 6‐5. Growth of charter enrollment in LAUSD

57

Figure 6‐6. Decline in LAUSD student enrollment

58

Figure 6‐7. Percent loss in LAUSD student enrollment

58

Figure 6‐8. Charter enrollment L.A County v. LAUSD

59

Figure 6‐9. Percentage distribution of students by sex nationwide

60

Figure 6‐10. Percentage distribution of charter school students by race/ethnicity nationwide

61

Figure 6‐11. Percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch program nationwide

62

Figure 6‐12. LAUSD charter students by race/ethnicity

63

Figure 6‐13. LAUSD charter students eligible for free/reduced price lunch

63

Figure 6‐14. Charter vs. Non‐Charter: number of enrolled students in LAUSD (2005/06‐2011/12)

64

Figure 6‐14. Charter vs. Non‐Charter by race/ethnicity in LAUSD (2005/06‐2011/12)

65

Figure 6‐15. LAUSD demographics: students and parents are the consumers (2011/12 ‐ 2005/06)

66

Figure 6‐16. LAUSD demographics for non‐charter schools (2011/12 ‐ 2005/06)

66

Figure 7‐1. LAUSD CMOs that partner with PCSD

74

Figure 7‐2. ICEF firm map

76

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

14

Figure 8‐1. Charter school locations in California (2014‐2015)

79

Figure 8‐2. Charter school locations in LA County (2014‐2015)

80

Figure 8‐3. Charter school locations in the City of LA (2014‐2015)

81

Figure 8‐4. Locations of Charters by Municipality within LAUSD (2014/2015)

82

Figure 8‐5. Location Quotient by Total Number of Schools for National Comparisons

84

Figure 8‐6. Location Quotient by Total Number of Schools for State and County Comparisons

85

Figure 8‐7. Location Quotient by Total Enrollment for National Comparisons

85

Figure 8‐8. Location Quotient by Total Enrollment for State and County Comparisons

86

Figure 8‐9. LAUSD charter school expansion: 1994‐1999

87

Figure 8‐10. LAUSD charter school expansion: 2000‐2004

88

Figure 8‐11. LAUSD charter school expansion: 2005‐2009

88

Figure 8‐12. LAUSD charter school expansion: 2010‐2014

89

Figure 8‐13. LAUSD charter school closings: 2002‐2014

90

Figure 9‐1. Timeline of KIPP school openings

95

Figure 9‐2. Map of KIPP school locations in LAUSD

96

Figure 9‐3 Revenue for KIPP LA 2012/13

97

Figure 9‐4 Profits or balance of finances (revenue minus expenditures, 2008/09 ‐ 2012/13)

98

Figure 9‐6. KIPP LA Total Revenue Over Time (2008/09 ‐ 2012/13)

99

Figure 9‐7. Finances (2008/09 ‐ 2012/13)

99

Figure 9‐8. Assets and liabilities (2009/10 ‐ 2010/11)

101

Figure 9‐9. List of ICEF charter schools by year established

104

Figure 9‐10. ICEF charter schools

105

Figure 9‐11. ICEF Public Schools revenue over time

105

Figure 9‐12. ICEF Public Schools balance of finances

106

Figure 9‐13. ICEF sources of public revenue 2013

107

Figure 9‐14. Private donations to ICEF Public Schools

107

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

15

Figure 9‐15. Names of ICEF private donors

108

Figure 9‐15. ICEF Public Schools expenditures 2012

109

Figure 9‐16. ICEF Public Schools board membership

112

Figure 9‐17. ICEF Public Schools management team

113

Figure 9‐18. Map of Green Dot Charter Schools in LA

115

Figure 9‐19. Green Dot Charter Schools Information

115

Figure 9‐20. Green Dot Public School Enrollment Over Time (Los Angeles)

117

Figure 9‐22. Green Dot’s Unrestricted Net Assets for the Year ending 6/30/2013

120

Figure 9‐23. Notable Grants Received by Green Dot Public Schools

120

Figure 9‐24. Green Dot Public School Supporters

121

Figure 9‐25. Green Dot’s Management Team

122

Figure 9‐26. Board of Directors (National)

123

Figure 9‐27. Board of Directors (California)

123

Figure 9‐28. Locations of Magnoila Charter Schools

125

Figure 9‐29. Magnolia School Management Team

126

Figure 9‐30. Board Members for Magnolia Charter Schools

126

Figure 9‐31. Magnolia Charter Schools Expenditures and Revenue

127

Figure 9‐32. Magnolia Charter Schools Net Assets Ratio

128

Figure 9‐34. Comparison of CMOs finances

130

Figure 10‐1. Governing Agencies that oversee Charter Schools and Related Prominent Laws

131

Figure 11‐1. Top 10 Charter Management Organizations in LAUSD by number of schools (2014/15)

142

Figure 11‐2. Common core grants awarded by Gates Foundation

147

FIgure 11‐3. Common core grant dollars awarded by Gates Foundation

147

Figure 11‐4. Legislation Concerning Charter School Industry

150

Figure 12‐1. All LA County Primary and Secondary School Teachers by Sex

154

Figure 12‐2. All LA County Primary and Secondary School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity + Sex

154

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

16

Figure 12‐3. All LA County Primary and Secondary School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity + Sex, non‐citizen

155

Figure 12‐4. All LA County Primary and Secondary School Teachers by Race/Ethnicty + Sex, non‐citizen

155

Figure 12‐5. All LAUSD Employees by Sex

156

Figure 12‐6. All LAUSD Employees by Ethnicity/Race and Sex

156

Figure 12‐6. Breakdown of Employment in Charter Schools ‐ 2013/14

157

Figure 12‐8. Los Angeles Unified School District Profile of Staff by Type

158

Figure 12‐9. Total Employment Over Time by Type of Employee in LAUSD

159

Figure 12‐11. Percent Change of Total Employment Over Time by Type of Employee in LAUSD

160

Figure 12‐12. Map of Charter Teacher Licensing in US

161

Figure 12‐13. Education Levels of SAMPLE Charter School Employees in LAUSD by Type of Staff

162

Figure 12‐14. Education Levels of LAUSD School Employees by Type of Staff

163

Figure 12‐15. National Education Levels by Type of Staff

163

Figure 12‐16. Statewide Education Levels by Type of Staff

164

Figure 12‐17. Density of Home Locations for Primary Jobs in LAUSD in 2011

165

Figure 12‐19. Primary Jobs for All Workers in 2011 Distance from Work to Home in LAUSD

166

Figure 12‐20. Miles Traveled to Work from Home for All Los Angeles

166

Figure 12‐21. Density of Home Locations for Animo Locke Academy and Technology High

167

Figure 12‐22. Miles Traveled to Animo Locke Academy and Technology High for Employees

168

Figure 12‐24. Miles Traveled to Work from Home, KIPP Los Angeles for Employees

170

Figure 12‐25 Miles Traveled to Work from Home, KIPP Los Angeles for Employees

170

Figure 12‐26. Average Number of years in Public and/or Private Education Employment of LAUSD employees

171

Figure 12‐27. Tenure Status of LAUSD Employees

172

Figure 12‐28. Unemployment Numbers for Education Occupations

174

Figure 12‐31. Number of teachers employed by race for ICEF Public Schools between 2011‐12

177

Figure 12‐32. Educational attainment of ICEF Public School teachers between 2011‐2012

177

Figure 12‐33. Teacher salaries of ICEF v LAUSD

178

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

17

Figure 13‐1. Non‐Union vs. Union Charters in LAUSD

184

Figure 13‐2. Charter School Labor Unions Breakdown (2012)

185

Figure 13‐3. Unionization, Chain vs Non Chain

186

Figure 13‐4. Major labor unions in LAUSD

186

Figure 13‐5. Breakdown of Type of Charters

188

Figure 13‐6. Unionized Charter by Type

189

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

18

2. Introduction In a speech identifying “major areas of surprising agreement” in the education system, United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (2014) states that “every child – every student -- deserves an education that will prepare her for the future”. Not only does the public consensus maintain the importance of education, it also holds that the nation’s current education system fails to adequately prepare all school-aged children and young adults in the United States. Despite these areas of agreement, the narrative surrounding education reform in the United States tells--and often shouts--of both fundamental and peripheral policy disagreements.

The charter school industry represents one of the major voices in the discussion surrounding public education around the nation, but especially in select urban areas. In the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), roughly 27 percent of schools are charters and almost 19 percent of students attend charter schools (California Charter Schools Association, 2014). This sector is rapidly expanding. Student enrollment in charter schools for LAUSD increased by 15 percent from the 2013-14 school year to this school year (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2014).

Charter schools are public schools formed to function with more autonomy from state regulation. Charter schools must still abide by civil rights, health and safety, and financial accountability. Charter school proponents argue that by operating more or less autonomously from school districts, charter schools provide a more innovative and community-based educational environment. The IBISWorld industry report highlights the flexibility this provides, describing charter schools as public schools “designed by educators, parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs and others who want to provide quality education tailored to students’ needs” (Yang, 2014, 35).

While these schools incur less regulation than other public schools, the National Education Association (2014) explains, charter schools are still charged with meeting goals and objectives identified in the school’s charter.

The growth of the charter school industry does not continue unchallenged, however. The debate surrounding charter schools is heated and pins one group seeking to increase school autonomy and school choice through charter schools, and against the other, which fears the repercussions of the privatization that charter schools usher into the public school industry.

This report provides an important and timely overview and analysis of the charter school industry and school reform movement, while recognizing the complexity and enormity of the charter school sector. To do this, the report first gives a detailed background and overview of the charter school industry as well as its context within and extractability from the public education sector. It then describes the structure of and competition within the charter school and related markets. An analysis of the economic and geographic clustering of the charter school sector then provides interesting insight into how charter schools and their management organizations operate. An important look into the financial aspects of the charter school industry helps flesh out the important intricacies of the industry and its privatization. Finally, an analysis of the power structure of the industry, which is closely related to its financial aspects, brings all of these sections together to evaluate the consequences of a rapidly expanding and privatized public school reform movement and industry.

Scope and methodology This sectoral analysis provides a contextual look into the charter school sector of the economy. As discussed above, we place strict emphasis on LAUSD in our report, drawing contrast where appropriate to California and LA County. As the LAUSD has the highest number of charter schools in the country (California Charter School Association, 2014), focusing on this district and on this area provides for a richer, more applied analysis of charter schools in LAUSD.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

19

In order to understand this industry, we utilize a variety of research methods. Administrative data from state and local sources coupled with original LAUSD case studies provide the qualitative and quantitative data useful to understand the charter school industry. We also reviewed pertinent scholarly research and conducted our own interviews with industry experts to fill out our analysis of the charter school sector in LAUSD.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

20

3. Industry background and overview

This chapter sets the stage for the discussion of the charter school industry by both describing its most important aspects and placing it in context with the education sector as a whole.

3.1. Education Industry Size Snapshot Of all the U.S. educational establishments classified under the broad “educational services (NAICS, 61)” category, Elementary and Secondary Schools make up 22 percent of establishments (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). In regards to employment in the U.S., Elementary and Secondary Schools make up 25.76 percent of employment in the education services category. Further, Elementary and Secondary schools account for 25 percent of wages in the educational services category in the country. Moving from the national level to the state level, Elementary and Secondary Schools make up 21 percent of educational establishments, and account for 27 percent of employees in the educational services category in the State of California. Further, Elementary and Secondary Schools account for 29 percent of wages in the state in the educational services category. At the county level, Elementary and Secondary schools make up 24 percent of establishments, account for 26.5 percent of employees, and account for 29 percent of wages in the educational services category in Los Angeles County (County Business Patterns, 2012).

In California, an estimated 2,620 establishments existed in 2012 classified in the Elementary and Secondary Schools NAICS category (County Business Patterns, 2012). In 2014, March employment was estimated at 95,249 Elementary and Secondary School employees in the State of California (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2014). When comparing the State of California to the rest of the country, California leads the nation in number of establishments and employees in the Elementary and Secondary Schools sector. The State of New York follows closely behind with 1,914 establishments and 85,381 employees (County Business Patterns, 2012; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2014). While California leads the nation in the number of establishments and employees in the Elementary and Secondary Schools sector, it is number five in the nation when it comes to average weekly wages, falling behind the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2014).

Figure 3-1. Top five highest paying states in NAICS 611110 RANK

STATE

AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE

1

District of Columbia

$1,012

2

Connecticut

$959

3

Massachusetts

$902

4

New York

$838

5

California

$827

Source: Quarterly Census of Employment Wages, 2014

According to the United States Census Bureau County Business Patterns, in Los Angeles County, 862 establishments, or 33 percent of establishments in California, existed in 2012 classified in the Elementary and Secondary Schools NAICS category. Further, in 2012, there were an estimated 36,354 employees in the Elementary and Secondary School sector in Los Angeles County, or 35 percent of employees in the Elementary A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

21

and Secondary Schools sector in the State of California. In 2014, Los Angeles County leads the nation in the number of establishments and employment in the industry (County Business Patterns, 2012). This, in large part, is due to the large population concentrated in Los Angeles County, which was an estimated 10.2 million in 2013 (U.S. Census Bureau).

3.2. Charter Industry Size Snapshot Charter schools have experienced exponential growth in recent years. Today, Los Angeles has more charter schools than any other location in the nation. About 323 charter schools were operating in Los Angeles County in the 2013-14 school year, with a student enrollment of 179,288 (California Department of Education, 2014).

Charter schools are the fastest-growing school choice option in the U.S. public education system (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2014). Despite this, charter schools still make up only just a small percentage (6 percent) of all public schools in the nation (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). That being said, the number of charter schools in the nation continues to grow each year. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2012), in 2012, 5,696 charter schools existed across the country, increasing by 65 percent since the year 2000. Further, in 2012, an estimated 2,057,599 students were enrolled in charter schools nationwide. This figure increased dramatically over the last decade or so, going from 448,343 in 2000-01 to over four times that figure in 2011-12.

Los Angeles is home to the largest numerical concentration of public charter schools and students enrolled in public charter schools in the nation (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2014). Most of the charter school activity in Los Angeles occurs in LAUSD: ● ● ●

Seventy-eight percent of L.A. County charter schools were in LAUSD in 2012 Seventy-five percent of L.A. County charter school students were enrolled in charter schools in LAUSD in 2012 LAUSD had the largest number of students attend public charter schools for any district in the country in the 2013-14 school year

3.3. Employment Snapshot Teachers make up the majority of a public school’s budget, at least 40 percent of a charter school’s public revenue have to go to teacher salaries and benefits. LAUSD is the largest employer of teachers in the California and the second largest employer in the nation. In 2012, LAUSD employed 32,713 teachers in total.

The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that 72,000 teachers were employed at charter schools in 2007 (Digest of Education Statistics, 2010). This appears to be the last national count of charter school teachers at the national level. We imagine that total numbers of charter school teachers at the national level are difficult to obtain. State law varies wildly, and collecting administrative data from charter schools may be inconsistent from state to state. We will explore state laws of charter schools in subsequent sections of this report.

At the state level, charter schools employed 19,273 teachers in 2012. At the county level, charter schools employed 6,533 teachers in 2012. In total, LAUSD employed 32,713 teachers in 2012. We will explore charter school teachers and education trends of teachers in LAUSD in later sections of this report.

Of course, charter schools employ more than just teachers. We will also dive more deeply into the kinds of occupations that charter schools employ in subsequent sections

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

22

3.4. NAICS Definition (611110) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) classifies charter schools under the Elementary and Secondary Schools industry (NAICS 611110). This particular NAICS industry is broad, making it difficult to obtain labor force wage and benefit characteristics for workers employed by charter schools, or charter school management organizations. In general, because charter schools are classified under such a broad category, it creates problems for accessing detailed information regarding the financial and employment characteristics of charter schools. For example, while finding information on the top 15 employers in the Elementary and Secondary Schools industry for Los Angeles County is straightforward, locating information on the top 15 charter school employers in Los Angeles County is troublesome. This barrier to accessing information creates transparency issues for studying and understanding the charter school industry, and the relationships that exist between charter schools and other establishments classified under the Elementary and Secondary Schools sector.

This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in furnishing academic courses and associated coursework that comprise a basic preparatory education. A basic preparatory education ordinarily constitutes kindergarten through 12th grade. This industry includes school boards and school districts.

3.5. SIC Definition (8211) The NAICS definition for Elementary and Secondary Schools shares many of the same classifications that stood alongside the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of Elementary and Secondary Schools (SIC 8211). The only major difference is that the NAICS definition includes a more expansive and nuanced list of classifications as compared to SIC. That being said, no major historical difficulties exist due to a change from SIC to NAICS. SIC Definition. Elementary and secondary schools furnishing academic courses, ordinarily for kindergarten through grade 12. Included in this industry are parochial schools and military academies furnishing academic courses for kindergarten through grade 12, and secondary schools which furnish both academic and technical courses.

3.6. History of the industry The concept of charter schools is generally credited to University of Massachusetts professor Ray Budde. Budde envisioned charter schools as a way for teachers to explore new innovative approaches to education that would otherwise be prohibited or limited in traditional public schools. The idea gained support in the 1980s when the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Albert Shanker, supported Budde’s notion that teachers should be given more flexibility to assume greater leadership roles in the school setting (Noguera, 2014 & Darrow, 2011).

In 1991, Minnesota became the first state to adopt a charter school law. Charter schools came to California the following year after the California Charter School Act (SB 1448) was signed into law in 1992 by Governor Pete Wilson (CSBA, 2009). Today, forty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws providing for the operation of charter schools (Noguera, 2014).

Elementary and secondary education is a sector that is always in demand. Therefore, when exploring geographic turning points in the industry, we focused mainly on educational policies and regulation from the federal, state and district level. We created the following timeline to provide context to the history and growth of the charter movement in LAUSD and the nation:

Figure 3-2. Timeline of charter schools in the US and California A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

23

Relating growth geographic trends to specific policies and regulations is difficult because of the relative newness of charter schools. There were only 6 charter schools in operation in LAUSD and 238 in California in 1999. Since the turn of the century, charter schools have experienced steady growth in both LAUSD and California. There has also been a significant amount of legislation triggering programmatic, fiscal, and regulatory changes to charter schools in LAUSD since 2000. The short time frame and expansive legislation makes attributing growth to single factors difficult.

Looking at the Figure 3-2 we can certainly attribute some growth to state policies such as as AB 544 and Prop.

39, which lifted caps on charter schools and provided funding for charter facilities. Federal policies such as NCLB and the Common Core Standards are also important factors to consider when assessing the charter movement’s growth. Backing from deep-pocketed private entities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Foundation has also been critical to the expansion of the charter movement nationwide and we will explore the role of private investment in more detail in subsequent sections.

3.7. Identification of major firms There are two basic types of organizations that run charter schools: 1) Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) are nonprofit companies that operate and launch charter schools.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

24

2) Education Management Organizations (EMOs) carry out the same functions, but are for-profit organizations (NCSRC, 1).

In the U.S., there are over 100 CMOs and nearly as many EMOs. It is estimated that CMOs manage about 600 charter schools nationwide, and EMO’s manage nearly 800. (Molnar, 8). This section will be discussing some of the largest CMOs and EMOs in LA County, the U.S. and abroad.

Figure 3-3. Types of Charters in LAUSD

LA County

CMOs Alliance College-Ready Public Schools. Alliance College-Ready Public Schools operates 26 public middle and high schools in and around Downtown Los Angeles. These schools service target students from low-income families and currently services over 11,000 students. Since the first Alliance School was established in 1991, it students have had a 95% admission rate into college (Alliance, 1).

Green Dot Public Schools. Green Dot Public Schools is another large CMO operating in the LA Area. It operates 16 public middle and high schools and services approximately 10,000 students. Unlike Alliance Schools, Green Dot also has schools in Inglewood and East LA (Green Dot, 1).

EMOs There are no EMOs in LA County or the state of California. According to Section 17078.56 paragraph 4, subsection B of the California Education Code, the State Board of Education shall give preference to charter schools managed by nonprofit entities. This may explain the absence of EMOs in the state.

Nationwide

CMOs

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

25

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP). KIPP is the largest nonprofit charter-chain in the U.S. It operates 162 schools in 20 states and services over 58,000 students (KIPP, 1). Approximately 93 percent of the middle schoolers it enrolls complete high school, and 80% of KIPP students gain admittance into college (Kipp, 2). In spite of its current performance records, KIPP has drawn criticism for the purportedly unsustainable demands it has placed on its teachers (The Economist, 1).

EMOs Charter Schools USA. Charter Schools USA is one of the largest and oldest EMOs in the U.S., with over 70 charter schools in 7 states, teaching over 60,000 K-12 students (CSUSA, 1). The Department of Education has awarded CSUSA a district “A” academic average for the last 6 years. While CSUSA has obtained support from the DoED, it is facing considerable opposition in Florida, where 42 of its schools are found. In August of 2014, the superintendent for the School District of Hillsborough County (SDHC), Mary Elia, issued 90-day warnings for the closure of 3 charter schools operated by CSUSA. The superintendent cited underperformance and inadequate oversight in her effort to close the schools.

Abroad Since 1994, Alberta has been the only province in Canada to welcome the establishment of charter schools (Alberta Education, 2). Unlike their counterparts in the U.S., Alberta’s charter schools have been expressly forbidden from charging tuition and can only be operated by nonprofit organizations. It is also worth noting that these charter schools were put in place for the purpose of “providing a basic education in a different or enhanced way to improve student learning” (Alberta Education, 2). While Alberta’s charter schools do target students who are considered at risk, they are also focused on giving students an alternative educational experience.

The Almadina Language Charter Academy for example was established to help the children of Middle Eastern immigrants learn English or French as a second language (ALCA, 1). Students at Almadina are taught to integrate into their new countries while retaining some proficiency in their mother tongue. There is also the Suzuki Charter School, which offers extensive instruction in musical theory and performance alongside a rigorous academic curriculum (Suzuki, 1).

3.8. Companies in LA identified The table below lists the major CMO chains in LAUSD. The top 10 CMOs operate nearly 40 percent of all charter schools in LAUSD and comprise 10 percent of all elementary and secondary schools in the district.

Figure 3-4. Top 10 Charter Management Organizations in LAUSD by number of schools (2014/15) NO. OF SCHOOLS TOP 10 CMOs

NO. OF SCHOOL SITES

(discluding additional sites)

1

L.A. Alliance for Public Schools

24

24

2

Green Dot Public Schools

16

16

3

KIPP LA Schools

16

11

4

Partnerships to Uplift Communities

13

12

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

26

5

Inner City Educ. Foundation

11

10

6

Aspire Public Schools

10

10

7

Celerity Ed. Group

10

6

8

Camino Nuevo Charter Academy

8

6

9

ME&R Foundation (Magnolia Schools)

8

8

6

5

TOTAL

122

108

% OF CMOs

73%

76%

% OF ALL CHARTERS

40%

39%

% OF ALL LAUSD SCHOOLS

12%

10%

10 Bright Star Schools

Source: LAUSD Directory of Charter Schools 2014/2015

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

27

4. Structure of the industry This chapter describes and analyzes the structure of the charter school in LAUSD. We include employment trends in the public education sector as a whole as well as national charter school employment data. We also catalog and evaluate the number of charter schools in LAUSD and important demographic information. This includes an evaluation of the growth of charter schools in the nation, state, and district.

4.1. Employment trends Teachers make up the majority of a public school’s budget. We had some difficulty obtaining exact employment numbers for charter schools alone. Our hypothesis is that state law varies wildly, and collecting administrative data from charter schools may be inconsistent from state to state. While our information for this section is minimal, we have supplemented it with a case study of the Inner City Education Foundation that will further explore employment trends in its Los Angeles schools.

However, overall the number of charter school teachers has been going up nationwide, while the pupil/teacher ratio has been going down (see Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The number of teachers looks to be increasing with the number of schools. The fact that the pupil/teacher ratio is going down indicates that the number of charter school teachers is going up at a faster rate than the number of charter school enrollments. This could potentially be creating competition for teachers in the larger Elementary and Secondary Schools market.

Figure 4-1. Number of charter teachers nationwide

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

28

Figure 4-2. Pupil/teacher ratio in charter schools nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

In 2012, charter schools employed 19,273 full-time equivalent teachers in the state of California. Using the average weekly wages for jobs in the Elementary and Secondary School sector in California for the year 2012 ($827 per week), in 2012 charter schools in the state paid full-time equivalent charter school teachers an estimated $15,938,771 per week (at least on those weeks where it employed 19,273 full-time equivalent teachers). Charter schools employed 6,533 full-time equivalent teachers in Los Angeles County. Using the average weekly wages for jobs in the Elementary and Secondary School sector in Los Angeles for the year 2012 ($878), in 2012 charter schools in the county paid an estimated $5,735,974 to full-time equivalent teachers per week.

4.2. Number of charter schools Nationwide

The number of charter schools in the United States has grown steadily. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2011/12, 5,696 charter schools existed in the country, an increase of 3,703 schools since the year 1999/2000 (see Figure 4-3).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

29

Figure 4-3. Charter school growth nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Figure 4-4. Charter schools growth as a percent of total public schools nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

30

CaliforniaÂ

In California, charter school growth patterns are comparable to those of the United States in terms of both the number of schools and student enrollment. Data from the California Department of Education (2012) shows that between 2011 and 2012, 1,018 charter schools existed in the state, increasing in number by 610 since 2002.

In the US, 42 states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws, which allow the establishment of charter schools using public funds. Charter schools nationwide saw substantial growth during the 2000s. Amongst the states with the largest number of charter schools, California has the most (see Figure 4-5).

However, when charter schools are looked at as a percent of total public schools (see Figure 4-6), the District of Columbia has a much higher percentage, nearly 45, particularly since 2005. Arizona also has a high percentage, nearly 25. Interestingly, Louisiana does not; the New Orleans school district was converted to charter only after Hurricane Katrina. California is similar to the rest of the states that we graphed, with just over five percent.

Therefore, while the national market, in terms of gross numbers, is skewed towards California, the District of Columbia and Arizona have the most highly concentrated markets.

Figure 4-5. Number of charter schools by state

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Figure 4-6. Charter schools as a percent of total public schools, by state

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

31

Distribution of charter schools

In terms of distribution of charters, the large majority are elementary schools. Charters are also heavily concentrated in cities (57 percent). Suburban accounts for 21 percent, town eight percent, and rural 18 percent (see Figure 4-8). By region, the West has the most, with nearly 40 percent, and the Northeast has the least at ten percent (see Figure 4-9).

Figure 4-7. Distribution of charter schools by level, nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

32

Figure 4-8. Locale nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Figure 4-9. Distributions of schools by region

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

33

By racial/ethnic concentration, schools with more than 50 percent white are on top, though it looks to be dropping; from 1999 to 2011, it went from just over 50 percent to just under 40 percent. In 2011, more than 50 percent black and 50 percent hispanic are nearly tied at around 25 percent. Black concentrations have stayed fairly level since 1999, while hispanics have grown from around ten percent. Distribution is skewed towards elementary schools, urban areas, and the Western United States, as well as whites having the highest ethnic/racial concentration in charter schools (see Figure 4-10; see Appendix 4 for greater detail).

Figure 4-10. Racial/Ethnic concentration in charter schools nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

34

As a percentage of schools with students eligible for the free or reduced lunch program, schools with more than 75 percent of students eligible dominate, and have seen substantial growth since 2007 (20 percent to approx. 35 percent in 2012). The zero to 25 percent category has fallen sharply since 1999, from over 40 percent to just under 20 percent. The two middle categories, from 25.1 percent to 75 percent have shown modest growth and in 2012 were around 20 percent. As the free/reduced price lunch program is used as a proxy for low-income and poverty, we can postulate that charter schools are concentrating more and more in low-income, urban neighborhoods.

Figure 4-11. Percentage of schools with students eligible for free or reduced lunch program, nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

LA County and LAUSD

The charter school pattern of growth trend also holds for Los Angeles County. Between the years 2002-14, the number of charter schools in the county rose from 71 to 323 (California Department of Education, 2014). In Los Angeles County, the LAUSD holds the lionshare of charter schools, and student enrollment in charter schools. As of the 2013-14 school year, of the 323 charter schools that existed in the county, 248, or 77 percent, were located in LAUSD.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

35

Figure 4-12. Charter growth L.A. County vs. LAUSD

Source: California Department of Education, 2002-2014

The number of charter schools has been increasing at a rapid rate. From 2002/03 to 2013/14, the number of charter schools in LAUSD increased by 199, averaging an increase of 16.58 charter schools per year (California Department of Education, 2014).

Figure 4-13. Charter growth in LAUSD

Source: California Department of Education, 2014

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

36

Charter schools as a percent of all public schools in LAUSD are on the rise. In 2005, 11 percent were charter schools, while in 2011, 22 percent were, doubling in the seven year period (see Figure 4-14). This signals that the public school market is increasingly within the charter school market, although it still makes up a small proportion of the whole.

Figure 4-14. Percent of charter schools to all public schools in LAUSD

Graph built with data from: "The Public Charter School Dashboard." NAPCS Dashboard.

Charter Management Organizations

Many of LAUSD’s charter schools are operated by non-profit Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), firms that launch and operate charter schools. Figure 4-16 ranks all CMOs operating charter schools in LAUSD according to the number of schools (and number of schools sites) each operates (LAUSD 2014).

Figure 4-16. Charter Management Organizations in LAUSD by number of schools

CMOs

NO. OF SCHOOL SITES

NO. OF SCHOOLS (discluding additional sites)

L.A. Alliance for Public Schools

24

24

Green Dot Public Schools

16

16

KIPP LA Schools

16

11

Partnerships to Uplift Communities

13

12

Inner City Educ. Foundation

11

10

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

37

Aspire Public Schools

10

10

Celerity Ed. Group

10

6

Camino Nuevo Charter Academy

8

6

ME&R Foundation (Magnolia Schools)

8

8

Bright Star Schools

6

5

Citizens of the World

4

3

Larchmont Charter School

4

1

The Accelerated School Foundation

4

3

Academia Moderna, Inc.

3

2

Fenton Charter Public Schools

3

3

Para Los Ninos

3

3

Semillas Sociedad Civil

3

1

Synergy Academies

3

3

Value Schools

3

3

Alternative Schools, Inc.

2

1

Charter HS of Arts Association

2

1

New Designs Charter Schools, Inc. (HTH)

2

2

New Economics for Women

2

2

Partnerships to Uplift Communities Valley

2

2

YPI Charter Schools, Inc

2

2

Big Pictures Schools, CA

1

1

Ednovate, Inc

1

1

Pazlo Education Foundation

1

1

TOTAL CMOs

167

143

% OF GRAND TOTAL

55%

51%

137

137

45%

49%

No CMO % OF GRAND TOTAL

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

38

GRAND TOTAL

304

Discluding additional sites (CMO + nonCMO)

265

Discluding additional sites (non-CMOs)

% OF ALL LAUSD SCHOOLS

280

265

29%

27%

Source: LAUSD Directory of Charter Schools 2014/2015

Types of LAUSD Charter Schools LAUSD (2014) defines charter schools by (1) how they are established (either a “conversion” or a “startup”) and (2) their relationship to LAUSD (“affiliated” or “independent”). The chart below provides the definitions of each kind of school.

Therefore, there are four different kinds of charter schools that can be established in LAUSD, using a combination of the above charter school characteristics. ● ● ● ●

Independent start-up Independent conversion Affiliated start-up Affiliated conversion

Figure 4-17. Definition of Types of Charter Schools Type of Charter

Definition

Affiliated

An affiliated charter school functions under the auspices of the LAUSD Board of Education. LAUSD typically administers all funding programs for affiliated schools.

Independent

An independent charter school operates independently of LAUSD in almost all respects, including finances.

Conversion

A conversion charter school existed as a traditional LAUSD school before converting to charter status.

Startup

A start up charter school begins its existence with the Board’s approval of its charter petition.

(Definitions: LAUSD, 2014)

The graph below shows the breakdown of the 4 different types of charter schools. Start-Up Independent charter schools are clearly the most common type of charter school in LAUSD. All ten of the 2015/16 charter schools slated for approval in LAUSD are independent start-ups (LAUSD Charter Schools Division 2014).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

39

Figure 4-18. Types of Charter Schools by Share

Source: LAUSD Charter Schools Division / School Directories

Case Study: Inner City Education Foundation

Founded in 1994, Inner City Education Foundation is a non-profit charter management organization that operates 14 charter elementary, middle, and high schools in South/Southwest Los Angeles. According to a charter school directory for 2014-2015 on the LAUSD website, 11 of ICEF’s charter schools are within LAUSD. ICEF serves a mostly Black (88.1 percent) and Latino (17.5 percent) student population (ICEF website 2014). Additionally, 81.9 percent of students served by ICEF are free/reduced lunch meal program participants, indicating that the vast majority of students served by ICEF are low-income (ICEF website 2014).

ICEF Mission, Model, and Educational Outcomes ICEF’s mission is to “prepare all students to attend and complete the top 100 colleges and universities in the nation (ICEF website 2014).” To meet its goal, ICEF structures a “blended learning” environment for students, which combines online delivery of educational content, classroom interaction, and live instruction. More specifically, ICEF “uses carefully selected technology based instructional programs which allow the teacher to maximize impact on students by streamlining tasks such as formative assessment, remedial intervention, and independent skill practice (ICEF website 2014).” According to ICEF, “this frees the teacher to focus on the aspects of instruction that only a trained teacher can accomplish: the building of higher order thinking skills, cognitive engagement, and the ICEF College Readiness Model (ICEF website, 2014),” a model that provides individualized college counseling for all of its students beginning in 9th grade.

According to this chart, ICEF’s graduation rates are well above LAUSD, neighboring schools, and schools statewide (ICEF Website, 2014). If this information were valid, it would provide a good indicator that ICEF’s model is working. But since ICEF does not list a clear data source for this information, or even the year in which this information was processed, this data seems rather unreliable.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

40

Figure 4-19. ICEF graduation rates

Source: ICEF website

To dig deeper into studying the educational outcomes of ICEF schools as compared to LAUSD overall, we looked at the performance measures of three ICEF charter schools, ranging from elementary to high school. For the purposes of convenience, we self-identified these three schools: 1) Lou Dantzler Preparatory Elementary School, 2) Frederick Douglass Academy Charter Middle School, and 3) View Park Preparatory Charter High School.

Using standardized testing and reporting results for 2012-2013, the findings are somewhat scattered. Lou Dantzler Preparatory Elementary School scored higher than the LAUSD average in English-Language Arts and Mathematics, but scored lower on Science. When comparing this school to the state average, the school scored lower than the state on English-Language Arts, higher than the state on Mathematics, and lower than the state on Science.

Figure 4-20. Lou Dantzler Preparatory Elementary test scores

Source: Lou Dantzler Preparatory Elementary School Website

When comparing Frederick Douglass Charter Middle School to LAUSD, the school scored significantly lower on English-Language Arts and Mathematics, but scored significantly higher on Science. When comparing the school to the state average, again, the school scored significantly lower on English-Language Arts and Mathematics, but scored two percent higher on Science.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

41

Figure 4-21. Frederick Douglass Charter Middle School test scores

Source: Frederick Douglass Charter Middle School Website

View Park Preparatory Charter High School scored well below the LAUSD average for all subjects (EnglishLanguage Arts, Mathematics, and Science). Further, when comparing the school to the state average, it also scored well below on all subjects.

Figure 4-22. View Park Preparatory Charter High School test scores

Source: View Park Preparatory Charter High School

ICEF expenditures per pupil and teacher salaries According to a school accountability report card for one of ICEF’s charter schools, in the fiscal year 2011-2012, the average ICEF teacher salary was $51,380, about 23.1 percent less than the average teacher salary for LAUSD as a whole ($66,851) (ICEF, 2012). In the same year ICEF spent $8,245 in total expenditures per pupil--a much higher number than the amount spent in per pupil expenditure by LAUSD the same year (LAUSD, 2012).

Figure 4-23. ICEF expenditures per pupil

Source: ICEF website

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

42

When comparing average salaries for teachers and administrators between ICEF and LAUSD, on average, LAUSD pays more at every skill level. For example, ICEF pays an average mid-range teacher salary of $52,800, while LAUSD pays an average mid-range teacher salary of $62,307.

Figure 4-24. ICEF teacher and administrative salaries

Source: ICEF website

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

43

5. Internal composition of the industry This section details how charter schools in LAUSD are structured by evaluating how charter schools are established and how they relate to the rest of LAUSD once in service. The Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Education Code Section 47600) was the first legislation in California allowing the use of charter schools and it continues to govern how the charter school industry operates in California. The research in this chapter describes the processes extending from the initial Charter Schools Act.

5.1. Key Production Processes

Starting and Maintaining a Charter Charter School Authorizer: The LAUSD Board of Education is the authorizer for all charter schools in the district. The Los Angeles County Office of Education also authorizes charter schools that are in the district but not a part of LAUSD (LACOE, 2013; LAUSD, 2013). The Charter Schools Division (CSD) of the LAUSD carries out the administrative procedures and tasks surrounding the charter schools in the district.

Responsibilities of Authorizer: The LAUSD CSD is charged with three main responsibilities; they are the: 1. Review of petitions for the establishment of new charter schools; 2. Oversight of charter schools under its authority; and 3. Review of renewals and material revisions of charter schools (LAUSD, 2013).

Figure 5-1. Charter School Divisions Responsibilities

Source: LAUSD, 2014

Process for Establishing Charter: The process for establishing a charter is explained below and demonstrated in the flow chart (provided by LAUSD, 2014). The timeline for these application depends on the quality of the application and its adherence to petition criteria (described below).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

44

1) Submission of a Letter of Intent 2) Submission of Charter School Petition Application 3) Initial Review of Petition Application 4) Full Review of Petition Application 5) Revisions of Petition Application 6) Recommendation to the LAUSD Board of Education 7) LAUSD Board Action Figure 5-2. Charter Petition Review Flowchart

Source: LAUSD, 2014

Petition Review Criteria: During the full review process, to be completed within 60 days of the petition submission, the application will be evaluated according to three criteria. Successful petitions are all: 1) Reasonably Comprehensive 2) Educationally Sound 3) Likely to be Successfully Implemented (LAUSD, 2014).

Oversight: As previously mentioned the LAUSD Charter Schools Division oversees the performance of charter schools. The Charter Schools Act of 1992 explains that the authorizing entity (LAUSD) is responsible to: 1) Identify at least one staff member as a contact person for the charter school 2) Visit each charter school at least annually A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

45

3) Ensure that each charter school under its authority complies with all reports required of charter schools by

law 4) Monitor the fiscal condition of each charter school under its authority 5) Provide timely notification to the California Department of Education (CDE) if the charter is revoked or if

the charter school will cease operation for any reason 6) Ensure the District's compliance and implementation of Proposition 39 by managing, planning, developing

and executing facility projects as they relate to Proposition 39. The District receives about 80 requests from charter schools seeking about 25,000 seats each year (p. 3).

In turn, the Charter Schools Act explains, the charter school must submit annually: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

On or before July 1, a preliminary budget.

On or before July 1, an annual update On or before December 15, an interim financial report.

On or before March 15, a second interim financial report.

On or before September 15, a final unaudited report for the full prior year.

5.2. New technologies With growth in Internet use, the adoption of computers as teaching aids has spread rapidly, and many school districts have made large investments in information technology. In addition to the familiar desktop machines, many schools have adopted tablets for classroom use, as well as small, cheaper devices specialized for writing or calculation. LAUSD’s own iPad program is currently the subject of of a grand jury investigation after reports surfaced of a plagued bidding process for contracts with companies like Apple and Pearson for the the $1.3 billion dollar plan to bring iPads to every student in the district (Blum, Kim & Rainey, 2014). Fallout from the investigation has been substantial, as Superintendent John Deasy resigned under pressure in October after reports of his close ties with executives at companies that won lucrative multi-year contracts with LAUSD. The district ultimately cancelled it’s iPad program amid the controversy (Chambers 2014).

Nearly all US states have launched online learning programs, with about 30 states running full-time online schools. California has more districts and charter schools recognized for incorporating online or blended learning than any other state (Keeping Pace with K12, 2014). In addition to class curricula, computers are heavily used for administration - in particular for registration and scheduling. Online charter schools are governed by provisions in SB740 that require schools to spend 80 percent of more of total revenue on instruction, spend 40 percent or more of public revenues on staff salaries and benefits, and have a pupil-teacher ratio equal or lower than 25:1 (Keeping Pace with K12, 2014).

Policymakers are drawn to virtual education because it offers the potential to expand education choices, serve a large number of students, and improve efficiency at lower costs. In particular, full-time virtual schools, also known as online schools or cyber schools, have attracted a great deal of attention. Proponents argue that online curriculum can be tailored to individual students and that it has the potential to promote greater student achievement than can be realized in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. Further, lower costs - primarily for instructional personnel and facilities - make virtual schools financially appealing. Assumptions about the costeffectiveness of virtual schools, coupled with policies that expand school choice and provide market incentives attractive to for-profit companies, have fueled a fast-growing virtual school expansion in the U.S (NEPC 2014).

A 2012 NEPC report presented several important findings: ●

A total of 311 full-time virtual schools enrolling an estimated 200,000 students were identified; 67 percent of the identified students were enrolled in charter schools operated by Education Management

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

46

●

Organizations (EMOs). In 2011-12, the largest for-profit operator of virtual schools, K12 Inc., alone enrolled 77,000 students.

Compared with conventional public schools, full-time virtual schools served relatively few Black and Hispanic students, impoverished students, and special education students. In addition, on the common metrics of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), state performance rankings, and graduation rates, full-time virtual schools lagged significantly behind traditional brick-and-mortar schools (Baker & Bathon, 2012).

Researching identifying funding, governance and accountability mechanisms associated with operating virtual schools has proven to be difficult. There are ongoing debates on how to fund full-time virtual schools. Some of the challenges policy makers and researchers face are significant cost differences between virtual and traditional brick-and-mortar schools. Currently, California does not implement a comprehensive strategy that ties actual costs and expenditures of operating virtual schools to funding allocations. As one might imagine, costs can widely vary from traditional brick-and-mortar schools. For example, virtual schools have lower costs associated with teacher salaries and benefits, facilities and maintenance, transportation, food service, and other in-person services than traditional public schools. However, virtual schools may have higher costs linked to acquiring, developing and providing the digital instruction and materials necessary for full- time virtual instruction; they also need to acquire and maintain necessary technological infrastructure (Molnar, 2014).

The earlier mentioned 2012 NEPC report conservatively estimated the “cost for general education services in the online environment is some 70 percent of the cost for comparable services in brick-and- mortar setting (Baker & Bathon 2012).

5.3. Capital/labor intensity Charter schools must spend a substantial amount of their revenues on capital, including equipment like computers, desks, and textbooks. Facilities costs are the largest and most difficult to fund and manage.

Traditional public school facilities are constructed and owned by the Local Education Agency (LEA). Upfront costs are high; however, as urban land values increase, the LEA can recoup its investment. Charter schools, in contrast, often lease facilities. If they do not lease, the private CMO owns the property, not the local public school district. In many cases, charter schools are co-located within the same facilities as an active public school.

Financing facilities To secure financing for school facilities, charter schools rely on several methods, which can be classified in two categories. One, by seeking private funds, primarily in the form of loans and bonds. A study by the Institute for Education and Social Policy (2004) at New York University (looking at 14 states plus DC) found that 20-25 percent of per pupil revenue is spent on debt service. Most startup charter schools incur debt to secure facilities.

Two, through public funds. In California, securing these funds can be done in several ways via the California School Finance Authority (CSFA), an office of the State Treasurer. These include (CFSA 2014): 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

the Charter School Facilities Program the Charter School Facility Grant Program the Charter School Facilities Credit Enhancement Grant Program the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund as well as the LAUSD Charter Augmentation Grant Program

These methods are described in greater detail below: One, the Charter School Facilities Program, “a $900 million program that provides low-cost financing for charter school facilities; 50 percent grant, 50 percent loan.” Propositions 47, 55, and 1D have supported the program. The A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

47

Program is jointly administered by the Office of Public School Construction and the CSFA, and provides funds for “construction of new facilities or rehabilitation of existing school district facilities” that are at least 15 years old.

Two, the Charter School Facility Grant Program, which provides “annual assistance with facilities rent and lease expenditures to charter schools that meet eligibility criteria. The main criteria is that at least 70 percent of enrolled students qualify for free/reduced price meals or that the school is located within an “attendance area” where at least 70 percent of students are eligible. In the 2013/14 funding round, 38 percent (114 of 301) of grantees were in LAUSD. Forty-two percent of the $28,908,692 total disbursement statewide was taken by LAUSD charter schools. In 2011/12, 44 percent (15 of 34) of grantees were in LAUSD, taking 54 percent of the total disbursement ($2,169,856) (see pie graphs). These numbers were taken from lists provided on the CSFA website (see Figure 5-3 and 5-4).

Figure 5-3. LAUSD’s share of the FY 2013/14 California Charter Schools Facility Grant Program disbursements

Source: Charter School Finance Authority website, 2014. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/

Figure 5-4. LAUSD’s share of the FY 2011/12 California Charter Schools Facility Grant Program disbursements

Source: Charter School Finance Authority website, 2014. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/

Three, schools may also use the Charter School Facilities Credit Enhancement Grant Program, “an $8.3 million program, [awarded to CSFA by the US Department of Education], that serves to fund debt service reserves for the financing of acquisition, renovation, or construction of charter school facilities, or the refinancing of existing charter school facility debt.” No information about who money from the program has been awarded to was listed on the CFSA website.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

48

Four, the State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants program is “a federal … program designed to assist California charter schools in meeting their facility needs” and is a fourth strategy schools can use to acquire capital funds. Nine funding rounds have taken place since 2006, for which the CSFA website provided data.

Awardees were elected through a preference point system, which included points for several indicators: lowincome/free or reduced price meals eligibility of the student body; level of overcrowding at the school site; Student Performance API growth; School Choice (according to AYP and API); whether it is a non-profit; and whether it was a first time awardee or not. 54 percent of awardees statewide (107 of 200) between 2006 and 2013 were in LAUSD. Disbursement numbers were not included, but the use for funds was. As Figure 5-5 demonstrates, the large majority of charter schools used the grants to lease facilities, while only 15 used them for construction, purchase, or renovation.

Five, schools may apply for the Charter School Revolving Loan Fund, “a program that provides low-interest loans of up to $250,000 to new charter schools.” The 2013/14 list of schools reveals that everyone received the full $250,000 at an interest rate of 0.0022 percent. Five of the 21 schools (24 percent) were in LA County (but did not specify which school district), accounting for 24 percent of the total $1,250,000 dispensed. (See Appendix 5 for a table detailing the quantity of funds issued and number of students and schools served statewide for the different charter school funding programs) LAUSD itself has a Charter Augmentation Grant Program for schools who can “provide evidence of a gap in financing for their long term facilities project. The charter school is required to contribute a minimum of 65 percent of the total project cost from non-District Sources” (LAUSD Charter School Division).

Figure 5-5. Use of Facilities Incentives Grant Program funds by LA County charter schools (2006-2013)

Source: Charter School Finance Authority website, 2014. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/

Colocation in existing traditional public school facilities

In 2000, California passed Proposition 39, amending Education Code section 47614. Previously, school districts were only required to provide charter schools with surplus space. Proposition 39 expanded this, mandating that “public school facilities should be shared fairly among all public school pupils, including those in charter schools” (King 2011). Colocation was born, a form of public subsidy for charter schools. Charters now have the right to locate within existing traditional public school facilities.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

49

Colocation is common for charter schools in LAUSD. For 2013/14, LAUSD approved 80 traditional school sites for charter co-locations (Niesner 2014, see Appendix 5). In 2013/14, 70 charter schools colocated in traditional public school facilities. 78 traditional public schools served as colocation sites, as seven of the 70 charter schools colocated in two facilities, while one colocated in three facilities (UTLA colocation webpage).

Figure 5-6 breaks down the location of the colocation sites by LAUSD Educational Service Centers (ESC) (Figure 5-7 shows the geographic domains of each ESC).

Figure 5-6. Use of Facilities Incentives Grant Program funds by LA County charter schools (2006-2013) LAUSD EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTERS (ESC) Charter Colocations

ESC East

East & West

North

South

West

ISIC

SUM

1st Site

14

1

11

4

19

21

70

2nd Site

2

1

2

0

2

1

8

3rd Site

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

16

2

14

4

21

22

79

SUM

Source: LAUSD Directory of Charter Schools 2014/2015

The largest amount of colocations are located in two ESCs: the Superintendent Intensive Support and Innovation Center (ISIC), which encompasses the downtown LA area; and West, which encomasses all of West LA as well as the LAX area, Southwest LA to Gardena, and most of Hollywood. North and South ESAs have less colocations, in particular South.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

50

Figure 5-7. Map of LAUSD Educational Service Centers

Source: http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_pageid=33,1257601&_dad=ptl&_schema=PTL_EP

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

51

6. Markets, Customers, and Nature of Competition In additional to ushering in a dramatic education reform, charter schools introduce new markets and change existing ones. This chapter describes the charter school market and the nature of competition within the industry and with surrounding education markets.

6.1. Products and Services Charter schools generally provide the same services as the rest of the public primary and secondary school sector. The main responsibility of the primary and secondary education industry is to provide education through a variety of types of schools and methods. The services provided by the sector include (but are not limited to): ● ● ● ●

Teaching basic literacy and numeracy Providing access to extracurricular activities Meeting funding requirements Administering government and private funding efforts (Yang, 2014).

Charter school services are provided directly to the consumers. The consumers of charter schools are the “households and children who use school services and facilities…[and] other social groups and sporting associations also use public school facilities” (Yang, 2014). As public schools, charter schools cannot require tuition and must implement an “open and fair” admissions process (California Charter School Association, 2010 & 2014).

Charter schools are schools of choice, meaning that enrollment is voluntary and not bound to a specific neighborhood or part of a district. Typically, when charter schools operate with a long waiting list, students are chosen using a lottery system (California Charter School Association, 2010).

Charter schools can also offer a diversity of services that other public schools are unable to provide. For example, charter schools can specialize in specific areas “such as science, technology, engineering and math education, performing arts or college preparation” (Yang, 2014, 10).

According to Yang (2014) of IBISWorld, “profit, measured as earnings before interest and tax, is not applicable to [the primary and secondary public education] industry as all firms are supported by public funds and operate on a nonprofit basis” (p. 22-23). The public source of funds for charter schools is one of their most important characteristics; the support of charter schools from the federal government explains much of their growth in the last few decades. State Education Agencies (SEA), the IBISWorld report explains, receive grants of up to three years through a competitive application process (Yang, 2014).

Charter school management companies can be either nonprofit (CMOs) or for-profit companies (EMOs) (see section 1.6 for a detailed description). For-profit management companies earn a profit through charter schools when they receive more public funds than they spend in operating a charter school (National Charter School Resource Center, 2014).

The funding and profitability aspects of charter schools are arguably the industry’s most polemic characteristics.

The allocation of public funds to an autonomous group concerns charter school critics worried about accountability and the directing of funds away from traditional public schools. These concerns are heightened when management groups earn a profit off of public education funds (Reference for Business, 2003).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

52

6.2. Charter School Market Choice has been the driving force behind charter reform. The public choice rationale maintains that all public schools as well as all student-learning improve when the public schools have to compete for students and students and their parents have the right to choose (Wiel, 2009; p.215). However, our research into the charter sector in LAUSD highlights that the original concept behind charter schools as a tool for raising educational standards is fading, and being replaced by a market-based model of competition.

Competition in the elementary and secondary school sector is a virtue of the market. Charter and Public schools occupy the same market. To better understand the market for elementary and secondary public education in Los Angeles we looked at US Census Bureau and LAUSD data School Choice LAUSD offers a wide variety of school types for students and parents. Within elementary school, students can attend traditional public schools, magnet and magnet center schools and charter schools. Secondary schools encompass magnet schools and magnet centers, senior high schools and traditional public high schools.

Consumers Technically, all people living within LAUSD’s 710 square mile district boundary of elementary and secondary school age are potential consumers. To characterize the student demographic market for LAUSD charter schools we looked at US Census Bureau data. According to the 2013 ACS 1-Year Estimate there are 721,374 people living in the City of Los Angeles between the ages of 5 and 19. Of that total, there are 595,027(83%) students enrolled in public school in the City of Los Angeles (ACS 2013, 3-year). There are 85,049(12%) elementary and secondary school-aged students living in the City of Los Angeles that are enrolled in private schools. The remaining 32,682(5%) residents in Los Angeles between the ages 5 and 19 are not enrolled in a school (or are homeschooled).

LAUSD has the highest total charter school enrollment among school districts (120,958) in the nation. However, LAUSD ranks outside the top 10 in charter market share (18%), meaning percent of students in the district who are enrolled in charter schools. LAUSD ranks seventh in the nation for growth rank, with a 23 percent growth rate in the 2012-2013 school year (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2013)

6.3. The Nature of Competition According to Christopher Lubienski (2003), “few ideas are more closely associated with charter schools than the notion of innovation” (p. 295). Innovation, charter school proponents believe, is stifled by the bureaucratic and uniform nature of traditional public schools. The charter school movement arose out of this criticism of the public school system as a way of encouraging innovation. In this way, charter schools clearly integrate principles used in understanding the consumer products markets into school reform (Lubienski, 2003, p. 396).

Charter schools seek to encourage innovation and competition in a few distinct ways. First, by being schools of choice, charter schools create a more competitive public school environment where parents have a choice in where they send their kids. When families decide to enroll students in charter schools, their residential addresses no longer determine which school they will attend. They are free to choose not only between charter schools and traditional schools, but also between different charter schools. In this way, charter schools and other public schools alike are encouraged to innovate in order to seem more attractive to potential students.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

53

Another way the charter school industry attempts to encourage competition is by requiring charter petition renewals every few years. Charter schools within the LAUSD must apply for the renewal of their charters every five years. The renewal petition process is very similar to the new charter petition process (explained in Section 2 of this study). The LAUSD Charter Schools Division (CSD) evaluates these charter schools based on the following criteria: 1) Student Achievement and Educational Performance: Has the school provided a sound education and increasing academic achievement for all students?

2) Governance and Organizational Management: Has the school’s governing board fulfilled its fiduciary responsibility and effectively led and managed the school?

3) Fiscal Operations: Has the school demonstrated sound management and use of public funds and met all regulatory requirements?

4) Fulfilling the Charter: Has the school consistently, during the term of its charter, implemented and fulfilled the terms of its charter as approved by the LAUSD Board of Education? (LAUSD Charter Schools Division, 2014, p. 1) Based on these categories, the CSD scores and chooses whether or not to recommend the renewal of the petitioning charter school. The LAUSD Board of Education then uses the recommendation to ultimately decide whether or not the school will be renewed or will close.

By requiring this renewal every five years, the LAUSD CSD demonstrates its desire for schools to foster a highperforming and innovating environment. Unlike with traditional public schools, charter schools face the threat of closure if they fail to perform. For example, the LAUSD CSD failed to two of the Magnolia Science Academy charter schools for renewal after they failed to meet the CSD’s financial standards. Their decision also sparked further investigation (still continuing) into the non-profit group that manages these and 5 other Magnolia Charter Schools (Romo, 2014).

Lubienski (2007) discusses the importance of marketing and good consumer information to the charter school industry in his analysis on the marketing of charter schools. If the charter school industry seeks to encourage innovation and competition, the highest performing schools must be able to prove and market their position in a way that encourages higher enrollment. School-choice plans, he maintains, must integrate ways to communicate this information to families who choose where to send their kids. Marketing is becoming an increasingly crucial aspect of public schools as both traditional and schools of choice must compete for student enrollment.

The application of market principles to the charter school industries extends to the leadership of charter schools.

In an article in Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Yemini, Addi-Raccah, and Katarivas (2014) characterize school principals as entrepreneurs. As schools gain autonomy, charter school leadership has more responsibility to lead their schools to innovative outcomes. In this way, charter school principals (often called CEOs) do in fact manage their schools as if they were managing a company in the consumer product market.

While this section describes how the charter school industry theoretically incentivizes better, more innovative public schools, it fails to properly evaluate the extent to which this outcome is achieved and at what cost. It also does not discuss the negative implications of applying consumer product market principles to the public education system. Further research should explore the impact that charter school closures have on the school system.

6.4. Demographics of Students/Consumer Profiles As mentioned above, potential customers for charter schools are all school aged children in any given district.

Charter funds come from public school funds, which means the public has access to the service. Since students are the consumer of a charter schools, drawing conclusions from enrollment data is the best way to explore the A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

54

consumer profile of the charter school industry. National level data comes from the National Center for Education Statistics, while LAUSD data comes from the National Alliance for Public Charter School’s Dashboard. It should be noted that this organization advocates for charter schools and educational “choice” for parents and students.

While it would have been preferable to use state or school district collected data, few existing datasets differentiate between charter and non-charter.

Charter schools are a sector within a sector; the larger sector was traditionally state-run and the lionshare of resources still come from public funds. Therefore, finding charter-specific data is challenging, and generally does not exist before the year 2000. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) data portal does not feature any enrollment or demographics datasets which differentiate between traditional public schools and charter public schools.

Charter school enrollment nationwide

In 2012, an estimated 2,057,599 students were enrolled in charter schools nationwide. This figure has increased dramatically over the last decade, going from 448,343 in 2000-2001 to over four times that figure in 2011-2012 (see Figure 6-1) (National Center for Education Statistics 2012). However, when looking at charter enrollments nationwide as a percent of total public school enrollments (see Figure 6-2), the upwards trend is less dramatic. In 1999, it was only 0.7 percent, and has grown to 4.2 percent in 2011. While less dramatic than looking at simple enrollments, the percentage more than quadrupled in the 12 year period.

Figure 6-1. Charter school enrollment nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

55

Figure 6-2. Charter school enrollment as a percent of total public school enrollment, nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

California leads the pack in charter school enrollment (see Figure 6-3), with over 413,000 students in 2011, rising from 100,000 in 1999, more than quadrupling in 12 years. Texas, the next closest state, had just under 150,000 students enrolled in 2011, growing from around 60,000, doubling in the same 12 year period. Nationwide, charter school enrollment went from nearly 340,000 in 1999 to over two million in 2011. Charter schools are a rapidly expanding market.

Figure 6-3. Charter school enrollment by state

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

As a share of total enrollment, the District of Columbia has the highest percentage, at nearly 40 in 2011, growing from less than ten percent in 1999. In California, it went from 1.8 percent in 1999 to 6.7 in 2011, nearly quadrupling as well (see Figure 6-4).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

56

Figure 6-4. Charter school enrollment by state

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

LAUSD Enrollment

In the 2013-14 school year, of the 179,288 students enrolled in charter schools in Los Angeles County, 136,831, or 76 percent, were enrolled in charter schools located in LAUSD. While charter school student enrollment is on the rise for LAUSD, when considering LAUSD as a whole (charter and non-charter schools), overall student enrollment is declining (California Department of Education 2014).

Figure 6-5. Growth of charter enrollment in LAUSD

Source: California Department of Education, 2014

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

57

Figure 6-6. Decline in LAUSD student enrollment

Source: California Department of Education, LAUSD Enrollment Trends: All Schools, 2005-2014

Figure 6-7. Percent loss in LAUSD student enrollment

Source: California Department of Education, 2014

LAUSD leads Los Angeles County in the number of students enrolled in charter schools. In the 2013-14 school year, 136,831 students were enrolled in charter schools in LAUSD (California Department of Education, 2014).

Due to the rapid increase of charter schools in LAUSD, student enrollment in charter schools has increased exponentially. According to data provided by the California Department of Education via the California Department of Education (2012), the number of students enrolled in charter schools in LAUSD increased by 82,104 in a span of 9-10 years.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

58

Figure 6-8. Charter enrollment L.A County v. LAUSD

Source: California Department of Education, 2002-2014

National Demographic Characteristics A number of selected demographic characteristics further reveal how the national market is distributed. In 1999, there were more male students, 51 percent compared to 49 percent for females. The percent of enrolled males decreased during the 12 year period, while the percent of female students increased. In 2011, females comprised 50.4 percent and males 49.6. In terms of sex, the market is evenly split.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

59

Figure 6-9. Percentage distribution of students by sex nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

By race/ethnicity, white students at the national level appear to have the largest share of enrollment in charter schools (35 percent in 2011), but it looks to be decreasing (see Figure 6-10). Enrollment of black students is decreasing as well (just under 30 percent in 2011), while enrollment of hispanic students is growing steadily, from 16 percent in 1999 to 28 percent in 2011. We have not explored how closely this trend tracks with national population trends, but our suspicion is that, while part of the trend among hispanic students is explained by population growth, the growth still may outpace population growth.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

60

Figure 6-10. Percentage distribution of charter school students by race/ethnicity nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

61

Like schools, enrollments for students eligible for free/reduced price lunch are on the rise (see Figure 6-11). In 2011, the category of more than 75 percent of students eligible had grown to 33.8 percent from 12.4 percent in 1999, more than doubling in the 12 year period. The zero to 25 percent category dropped during the same period to 20 percent. Consumers of charter schools are increasingly students from low-income families.

Figure 6-11. Percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch program nationwide

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

LAUSD Charter School Demographics

At the national level, we see that charter school enrollment is majority white, while LAUSD enrollment data is skewed towards latino communities. Enrollment of black and white students in LAUSD remains roughly even, though by 2012, enrollment of white students as a share of total enrollment is increasing and enrollment of black students as a share of total students is decreasing (see Figure 6-12).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

62

Figure 6-12. LAUSD charter students by race/ethnicity

Graph built with data from: "The Public Charter School Dashboard." NAPCS Dashboard.

Students eligible for free and reduced lunch over time in LAUSD also appears to be falling. This share of total student enrollment reached a peak in 2009 (see Figure 6-13), perhaps tracking with the overall health of the national economy at this time. We will explore where charter schools are opening in later sections, which may help to explain this slight demographic shift.

Figure 6-13. LAUSD charter students eligible for free/reduced price lunch

Graph built with data from: "The Public Charter School Dashboard." NAPCS Dashboard.

LAUSD Demographics: Charter Schools versus Traditional Public Schools

Comparing the above data with traditional public school data is illustrative of charter school consumers and how it differs from traditional public school consumers. Table X.X reveals who the consumers are--and are not--within the local school district. The percent of charter school students to all public school students has increased, from 4.9 percent in 2005 to 14.7 percent in 2011, nearly tripling during the seven year period (see Figure 6-14). The market within a market is growing.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

63

Figure 6-14. Charter vs. Non-Charter: number of enrolled students in LAUSD (2005/06-2011/12)

Graph built with data from: "The Public Charter School Dashboard." NAPCS Dashboard.

By race/ethnicity in 2011, the largest percent of students in charter schools in LAUSD are hispanic (59.5 percent).

Whites comprise 17.4 percent and blacks 13.9 percent. Hispanic students have increased since 1999, while whites and blacks have decreased. The consumer is therefore overwhelmingly and increasingly hispanic.

However, latinos predominate in non-charter LAUSD schools as well. In 2011, 75.8 percent of students were hispanic. Los Angeles is a predominantly Latino city.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

64

Figure 6-14. Charter vs. Non-Charter by race/ethnicity in LAUSD (2005/06-2011/12)

Graph built with data from: "The Public Charter School Dashboard." NAPCS Dashboard.

In terms of eligibility for free/reduced price lunch, enrollments of students have increased from 49.1 percent in 1999 to 61.8 percent in 2011, over ten percentage points in 7 years. The majority of consumers in Los Angeles are low-income families, and have been for at least 7 years (see Figures 6-15 and 6-16).

In terms of grade level, the distribution is somewhat even. The largest concentration of enrollments is in ninth and tenth grade (see Figures 6-15 and 6-16), different from the concentration of schools nationwide, which is overwhelmingly in elementary. Why LAUSD differs from the national trends is unclear.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

65

Figure 6-15. LAUSD demographics: students and parents are the consumers (2011/12 - 2005/06) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Metrics

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

2011/12 No.

%

Students Number of Students

35,310

% of Charter School Students to All Public School Students

.

41,124 4.90%

.

48,014 5.80%

.

58,416 7.00%

.

66,809 8.50%

.

79,418 10.00%

.

97,207 11.90%

.

14.70%

Students by Race / Ethnicity White

7,649

21.70%

7,965

19.40%

8,556

17.80%

9,316

15.90%

9,828

14.70%

11,223

14.10%

17,106

17.40%

Black

6,000

17.00%

7,277

17.70%

8,682

18.10%

11,204

19.20%

11,845

17.70%

12,494

15.70%

13,679

13.90%

19,096

54.10%

22,804

55.50%

26,910

56.00%

33,867

58.00%

40,036

59.90%

47,300

59.60%

58,639

59.50%

2,367

6.70%

2,339

5.70%

3,159

6.60%

3,167

5.40%

2,311

3.50%

2,500

3.10%

3,930

4.00%

American Indian or Alaska Native

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

670

0.70%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

186

0.20%

Other

198

Hispanic Asian

0.60%

739

1.80%

707

1.50%

862

1.50%

2,789

4.20%

5,677

7.10%

4,366

4.40%

49.10%

26,068

63.40%

28,935

60.30%

38,651

66.20%

46,722

69.90%

52,776

66.50%

60,882

61.80%

7.50%

Free or Reduced Price Lunch Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch

17,343

Students by Grade Level Kindergarten

3,009

8.50%

3,208

7.80%

3,428

7.10%

3,961

6.80%

4,522

6.80%

5,852

7.40%

7,415

First Grade

2,794

7.90%

3,036

7.40%

3,461

7.20%

3,681

6.30%

4,552

6.80%

5,299

6.70%

7,887

8.00%

Second Grade

2,610

7.40%

2,887

7.00%

3,244

6.80%

3,565

6.10%

3,742

5.60%

4,936

6.20%

6,441

6.50%

Third Grade

2,556

7.20%

2,739

6.70%

3,176

6.60%

3,468

5.90%

3,745

5.60%

4,495

5.70%

5,769

5.90%

Fourth Grade

2,457

7.00%

2,705

6.60%

3,122

6.50%

3,457

5.90%

3,700

5.50%

4,403

5.50%

5,595

5.70%

Fifth Grade

2,400

6.80%

2,818

6.90%

3,317

6.90%

3,654

6.30%

4,013

6.00%

4,529

5.70%

4,793

4.90%

Sixth Grade

3,034

8.60%

3,646

8.90%

4,024

8.40%

5,108

8.70%

5,506

8.20%

6,636

8.40%

8,398

8.50%

Seventh Grade

2,486

7.00%

2,944

7.20%

3,555

7.40%

4,208

7.20%

4,970

7.40%

6,197

7.80%

7,819

7.90%

Eighth Grade

1,888

5.30%

2,474

6.00%

2,676

5.60%

3,572

6.10%

3,975

5.90%

5,282

6.70%

6,813

6.90%

Ninth Grade

4,895

13.90%

5,691

13.80%

6,867

14.30%

7,863

13.50%

9,016

13.50%

9,941

12.50%

10,925

11.10%

Tenth Grade

3,473

9.80%

4,142

10.10%

5,019

10.50%

6,783

11.60%

7,576

11.30%

8,491

10.70%

10,343

10.50%

Eleventh Grade

1,953

5.50%

3,038

7.40%

3,548

7.40%

5,370

9.20%

6,288

9.40%

7,070

8.90%

8,956

9.10%

Twelfth Grade

1,415

4.00%

1,796

4.40%

2,577

5.40%

3,726

6.40%

5,204

7.80%

6,063

7.60%

7,422

7.50%

Table built with data from: "The Public Charter School Dashboard." NAPCS Dashboard.

Figure 6-16. LAUSD demographics for non-charter schools (2011/12 - 2005/06)

Table built with data from: "The Public Charter School Dashboard." NAPCS Dashboard.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

66

6.5. Access to Market: Admissions Policies To understand the access to the market of charter schools we must answer the question, “How do parents get their child admitted to a charter school?”

California Education code mandates that a charter school shall admit all pupils who wish to attend the school §47605 (2)(A). As is often the case, more students may apply for enrollment to a charter than can be admitted, creating the need for an admissions process. Charter schools are required by federal law to have a fair and open admissions process; however, the exact admissions process can vary from state to state, district to district, and school to school.

According to California Education Code §47605 (d)(1): “admission to a charter school shall not be determined according to the place of residence of the pupil, or of his or her parent or legal guardian, within this state, except that an existing public school converting partially or entirely to a charter school under this part shall adopt and maintain a policy giving admission preference to pupils who reside within the former attendance area of that public school.”

When a charter school receives more new student applications than they can accept, students are admitted through a lottery system. According to the California Education code §47605 (2)(B): “Preference shall be extended to pupils currently attending the charter school and pupils who reside in the district except as provided for in Section 47614.5. Other preferences may be permitted by the chartering authority on an individual school basis and only if consistent with the law.”

Lotteries that give preference to one set of students over another are called weighted lotteries. Weighted lotteries are only permitted when they are necessary to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, or applicable state law (Department of Education 2004). The Education Code emphasizes that charter schools receiving Charter School Program (CSP) funds must inform students in the community about the charter school and give them an “equal opportunity to attend” the charter school, without discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or disability. It should be noted that the broad regulatory policies from the state and federal level do not attempt to stipulate what might constitute a fair and equal recruitment process and charter schools in LAUSD have been scrutinized for employing less than equal recruitment and admissions processes.

Charter schools may also exempt certain applicants from the lottery process. Specifically, the following categories of applicants may be exempted from the lottery (Department of Education, 2004): ● ● ●

●

students who are enrolled in a public school at the time it is converted into a public charter school; siblings of students already admitted to or attending the same charter school; children of a charter school's founders (so long as the total number of students allowed under this exemption constitutes only a small percentage of the school's total enrollment - 10 percent in California); ○ In some cases a parent can become a charter founder by volunteering at the school for a certain number of hours (usually 150+ hours). children of employees in a work-site charter school (so long as the total number of students allowed under this exemption constitutes only a small percentage of the school's total enrollment - 10 percent in California).

In 2014, the US Department of Education posted new guidelines related to the Charter School Program to address the issue of diversity in existing charter schools. One of the 16 elements required by California Education Code §47605(b) is “a racial and ethnic balance among (a charter school’s) pupils that is reflective of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the school district to which the charter petition is submitted.”

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

67

The new guidance adds a circumstance where weighted lotteries are allowable, permitting a charter to weight its lottery to give “slightly better chances for admission” to ethnic minorities and some or all students in a group of “educationally disadvantaged students” as consistent with State law. A few examples of indicators of groups with limited opportunities include eligibility for free or reduced price lunch or English language learners.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

68

7. The Industry as a Cluster: Commodity Chains

While the previous chapter detailed the market and competition of the charter school industry, this chapter expands on how the industry clusters and interacts with other related industries. These clusters are changing the landscape of public education and illuminate important aspects of charter schools that would otherwise be left undiscovered.

7.1. Commodity chain identified The public school sector utilizes a number of other industries to support its operations. Many firms have specialized specifically around charter schools services, development, finance, and management. The website Charter School Tools was used to identify related sectors (see Figures X.X and X.X at the end of this section, under “Linked Industries”) and build a table of firms that serve the Los Angeles charter schools market (See Appendix 7). Firms were investigated both via their websites and the Charter School Tools Vendor Guide (Charter School Tools 2014). Firms that are located in or serve Southern California were targeted. The following section zooms in on one charter school CMO to look at how these associated sectors relate.

Appendix 7 maps out the landscape of charter school support services by looking at firms. In some cases, such as the firms that provide school materials and equipment (the Purchasing category) or Academics and Blended Learning materials, there is a notable lack of charter school specific specialization. These firms provide materials for the entire elementary and secondary school market. However, the rest of the sector categories show clear specializations for charter schools.

For example, Charter School Management Corporation (Appendix 7), located in Temecula, California, “offers charter schools comprehensive back office services, including bookkeeping, HR, payroll, state and local reporting, and operational services.” Other firms, like Grant Strategies LLC, offer “charter petition writing/editing to grant/contract proposal writing, as well as marketing services. As a trusted consultant, it provides value as a onestop shop for charter schools with discounts for multiple services. Government grants and private sector grants such as the Walton Family Foundation charter school grants are popular services.” CharterSafe Insurance Program in Aliso Viejo specializes in insurance for charter schools. Multiple other firms offer services in financial management without specializing specifically in the charter schools market.

The same is true for human resources services. CharterBenefits.com of the Regional Employee Benefits Council provides employee benefits and human resources services, while websites like CharterSchoolJobs.com help with teacher recruitment. Other firms, like Redwood Circle Consulting in Oakland, California provide a wide array of services to schools, but without a particular emphasis on charter schools.

The school operations sectors also tell a similar story. Several firms offer services like building maintenance and repair and software and business management to the broader elementary and secondary schools market. The firm School Nutrition Plus, located in Sherman Oaks, does have a charter school focus and operates in several charter schools in the LA area. It provides food service consulting, which “includes assistance with all the facets of the National School Lunch Program.”

Technological services firms do not appear to have a charter-exclusive focus. A few do specialize in charter services, including CharterEd. Technology, a national firm, and Innovative School Solutions, Inc., located in Fair Oaks, California CharterEd. provides services in computers and electronic equipment, teacher training, and web A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

69

development and hosting. Innovative School Solutions focuses on learning management systems.

ABCmouse.com in Glendale, amongst many other services, acts as a virtual charter school provider.

A closer look at one‐stop shops for charter schools development and management A few firms have specialized specifically in charter schools and offer services across all identified sectors. These include 4th Sector Solutions, EdTec, Inc in Emeryville CA, and EdEx in Los Angeles. They work with startup charter schools from the beginning to develop schools, providing consulting in facilities location, school development, and services in fundraising, grant writing, financial accounting, and back office work. The existence of at least three highly specialized one-stop shops, two located in California, indicates the growth and dynamism of the charter school sector. In other words, it is a sector to make money in, and has created substantial specializations across other sectors for consulting and services outsourcing.

Related sectors: A closer look at real estate development and financing firms Given the major challenges in facilities procurement and financing for charter schools, real estate development and financing firms deserve special attention (see Appendix 7). Buck Financial Advisors LLC has specialized in charter school financing and has completed several projects with major LA CMOs, including Green Dot and KIPP. In June of 2014, Buck Financial helped KIPP LA Schools get $28,275,000 in Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds via the California School Finance Authority in order to establish permanent facilities (Buck Financial website). In 2011, Buck procured $22,941,081 for Green Dot Public Schools in LA; the funds came from a mix of a Department of Education Grant ($2.5 million) and New Markets Tax Credits Financing. 2008 is the earliest entry on the website for LA charter schools. Between 2008 and 2014, Buck Financial has procured financing for Green Dot five times, totaling $60,241,796.

Randy Huttenberger and Associates, located in Trabuco Canyon south of LA, specialize in school facilities construction management. PFIC in LA specializes in “the development, renovation and financing of charter school facilities. PFIC‘s comprehensive program includes site location, entitlements, design, construction and 100% financing for the total project cost. To date, PFIC has completed over 200 public and private projects nationwide” (PFIC website). Several modular building and portable classroom firms work with charter schools to provide low cost school facilities. Finally, real estate brokers have specialized in charter schools development. The Educational Services Group of Colliers International, located in downtown LA, has a charter schools division headed by Matthew Massman. “Leveraging his experience in the sale and leasing of commercial properties throughout California and his in-depth knowledge and understanding of Charter School operations, he is able to locate and secure optimal locations at optimal prices for Charter Schools operators” (Charter Schools Tools website).

Again, many firms serve the larger real estate and school facilities market; yet, as these few firms show, specialization around charter schools is occurring in the LA area.

Real Estate Development and Finance Firms Specializing in Charter Schools Several multidisciplinary real estate development and financing firms illustrate this trend towards specialization (see Appendix 7). Acre Education, located in Pleasanton, California proclaims itself “The Charter School Landlord”, and has the goal of creating “Charter School Owned Real Estate.” InSite Charter School Services is another one-stop shop, located in LA. InSite describes itself: InSite Charter School Services mission is to help charter schools find the best site for their needs. We also offer related services such as asset sales, assistance in financing, entitlement approvals and construction management. We work only with charter schools and property owners, meaning that all of our attention and expertise is brought to bear on your needs. InSite CSS is the only real estate brokerage firm in Southern A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

70

California dedicated to providing real estate services to charter schools. No matter your need, whether it is site location, financing, construction or other related services, we are the charter school broker that is a one-stop-shop for all of your charter school development needs. Temporary site location – Permanent site location – New construction & development services – Initial site and floor plan design studies – Lease negotiations – Local and state government approvals/entitlement – Construction costs analysis – Initial site study and location analysis for submittal to a school board – Assistance with facility financing – Landlord representation, lease negotiations and entitlement services (InSite CSS website).

The exclusive focus and bundling of services into one firm indicates strong specialization of related sectors in charter schools real estate development and finance.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

71

7.2. Linked industries

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

72

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

73

7.3. Related Sectors and Firms Case‐Study: Inner City Education Foundation This section explores the relationships between charter schools and the firms that supply them with products and services by providing a case study of one Charter Management Organization (CMO) operating within LAUSD. The case study pays particular attention to the products and services from which the CMO benefits, the firms providing these products and services, the geographic proximity of these firms to the CMO, and the means by which the CMO funds the acquisition of these products and services. Our case for this example is the Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF).

Development Services CMOs often partner with other organizations to develop charter schools. For example, ICEF has previously partnered with Pacific Charter School Development (PCSD), a nonprofit charter school developer based in Los Angeles that provides a range of development services to nine CMOs operating within LAUSD. Such services include, but are not limited to: consulting services, project management, real estate acquisition, and financial assistance. For some CMOs, PCSD acts as a full service provider, managing the bulk of the charter school development process from start to finish. According to its website, PCSD: has built 47 campuses serving 20, 300 students in California, is typically able to develop a charter school within 18 months, and has secured over $200 million in financing.

Figure 7-1. LAUSD CMOs that partner with PCSD NO.

CHARTER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

1

Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools

2

Aspire Public Schools

3

Green Dot Public Schools

4

Inner City Education Foundation

5

KIPP LA

6

Partnership to Uplift Communities

7

Fenton Charter Public Schools

8

Equitas Academy Charter Shool

9

Environmental Charter Schools

Source: PCSD website

One of the major roles PCSD plays is marshalling the “resources of the leading members of the philanthropic and socially-conscious community to produce new school seats in low income communities…(PCSD website).” For example, PCSD connects CMOs in LAUSD to the resources of some of the leading foundations working on education reform both locally and nationally, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, NewSchools Venture Fund, and the Weingart Foundation.

Additionally, because developing charter schools often requires leveraging both public and private funds, PCSD works with CMOs to leverage funding from LAUSD. Publishers A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

74

ICEF works with a network of publishers to acquire instructional materials for the number of charter schools it operates, which typically come in the form of textbooks and supplementary workbooks. Following is a non exhaustive list of publishers that supply ICEF - sub-bullet points serve to identify publishers that are part of larger publishing company. ● ● ● ●

McGraw-Hill (Columbus, OH; Boston, MA; Dubuque, IA; Bothell, WA) ○ Glencoe Heinemann (Portsmouth, NH) Pearson (New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, California) ○ Prentice hall Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (Boston, MA) ○ McDougal Littel

All of the firms listed above are located outside of the Los Angeles Region. While we were unable to find information related to the amount ICEF paid to each publisher, in 2012 ICEF spent an estimated $3,091,661 on books and supplies (ICEF Form 990, 2012).

Information Technology & Educational Software Like many other charter schools, ICEF utilizes information technology and educational software to nurture educational growth and track student development, often referred to as ‘blended learning,’ a learning approach that “combines online delivery of educational content with classroom interaction and live instruction to personalize learning for students (ICEF website).” For example, IStation, an educational software company that supplies ICEF, provides computer adaptive-learning programs, programs that adapt to the examinees ability level, in topics ranging from reading to math. This software provides lessons, student assessment, and reports for teachers that track individual student progress. Below is a list of firms that supply ICEF with services/products that utilize educational software and technology: ● ● ● ●

IStation (Dallas, TX) Dreambox Curriculum (Bellevue, WA) Curriculum and Associates (North Billerica, MA) Revolution Prep (Los Angeles, CA)

Similar to the firms ICEF receives the bulk of its textbooks and supplemental materials from, almost all of the firms ICEF acquires its informational technology and educational software from lie outside of the Los Angeles Region.

Of the three firms listed above, Revolution Prep is the only firm located in the region. We were unable to find information identifying the cost of the products and services provided by these firms, but it is safe to assume that the costs incurred are a part of the $3,091,661 spent by ICEF on books and supplies in 2012.

Food Services ICEF contracts its food services out to a private food catering firm in Los Angeles named Tisket A Tasket Catering & Food Services. According to its website, this firm manages the ins-and-outs of food provision for its clients, like filling out tedious state documents and hiring and managing cooks and servers, leaving clients free from having to worry about additional operational tasks. In 2012, food services cost ICEF $838,352 for all of its campuses combined. Considering that ICEF operates a total of 14 charter schools in Los Angeles, in 2012, food services cost roughly $60,000 per school (ICEF Form 990, 2012).

Firm Map: Local and Nonlocal Space A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

75

Taking from a framework developed by Markusen (1994) that studies the local and nonlocal, also referred to as regional and extra-regional, relationships of firms, this section maps the relationships of ICEF to other firms.

Markusen’s approach was developed as a mechanism for mapping information related to local and nonlocal firm relationships obtained by conducting interviews with firms. Unlike Markusen, the information included on our map does not come from interviews with firms. Instead, we utilized information found from different sources, like ICEF’s tax form 990, ICEF’s website, which provides access to financial information, PCSDs website, and the websites of the different firms included in this firm map.

Figure 7-2. ICEF firm map

Suppliers

As mentioned previously, ICEF works mostly with firms outside of the Los Angeles Region to acquire educational materials and software, like textbooks, supplementary workbooks, and computer adaptive programs. Not following this pattern, ICEF acquires most of its financial support, development services, food services, and some educational services locally.

Competitors Most of ICEF’s competition comes from within the Los Angeles Region where it competes with other major CMOs for private and public funding, and for students, which are a vital component necessary for any CMO to receive A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

76

district funding. Outside of the region, ICEF indirectly competes with other CMOs for funding from major foundations. While ICEF itself is not directly funded by some of the major foundations (i.e., Walton Family Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), PCSD, the nonprofit charter developer that works closely with ICEF, is directly supported by some of these major foundations. As such, ICEF’s ability to develop charter schools is directly tied to whether or not, and how much, the big foundations contribute to PCSD. Customers ICEF’s customer base is specific to students served by LAUSD. As such, ICEF does not have any non-local customers. In terms of its local customer base, ICEF tends to serve mostly low-income students of color that are geographically situated in Southwest Los Angeles. According their website, the student population served by ICEF is 88 percent Black and 17 percent Latino.

Trade associations ICEF, like other CMOs, benefits from the support of national and statewide trade associations that advocate for and market charter schools and educational reform. The California Charter School Association is the statewide trade association that benefits ICEF. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the Center for Education Reform are the nationwide trade associations supporting the work of ICEF and other CMOs across the country.

As can be seen, ICEF works with firms both locally and non-locally to operate its charter schools. Our firm map shows that while ICEF acquires much of its educational textbooks and supplementary materials, software, and information technology from firms located outside of the region, much of its other relationships to firms are located within the region.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

77

8. Geographical dimensions of the industry This section expands on the discussion of industry clustering above by describing the geographic aspects of the charter school movement. The spatial concentration of charter schools in regions across the United States and in LAUSD speaks to the importance of industry clustering. We visually examined the location of charter schools at three scales: (1) the state of California; (2) LA County and the counties adjacent; and (3) the City of LA (LAUSD) and the cities adjacent (these three maps appear in the following three pages). An evaluation of the geographic dimensions of the industry will allow for a richer final analysis of the power structure of the industry by hinting even further at the webs of important relationships within the charter school world.

8.1. Spatial concentration

Statewide (Figure 8‐1) Charter schools clearly cluster around the two major metropolitan areas in California, the San Francisco Bay Area and the greater Los Angeles area. There is also a cluster around Sacramento, as well as around San Diego.

Many of the counties bordering other states, and distant from the two metropolitan areas, such as Inyo, Mono, Lassen, Modoc, Siskiyou, etc., have very few to no charter schools. All the coastal adjacent counties have at least one charter, and it appears that the majority of charter schools concentrate in these counties. Charter locations likely follow population patterns.

LA County and surrounding areas (Figure 8‐2) Within LA county, charter schools are heavily concentrated within the City of LA. Several factors likely contribute to this concentration: (1) the City of LA is more densely populated than surrounding cities, which are largely suburban; (2) LAUSD may be more inclined to authorize charters than other neighboring school districts; and (3) as Chapter 12 illustrates, LA has a clustering of pro-charter education reform organizations, including wealthy private foundations and major CMOs. The relatively small number of schools outside the city are scattered inland northeast of downtown, as well as another scattered array in the northern central area of the county. There are also some scattered directly south of South LA. The arrays outside the City of LA appear to still be within LAUSD. Substantial clusters show in the Inland Empire/Riverside area, as well as some scattered small clusters in Orange County. San Bernardino has a cluster while Ventura appears to have a concentration that parallels the coast.

City of LA and surrounding cities (Figure 8‐3) Within the City of LA, charter schools clearly concentrate in two areas: the greater South LA and Central City areas, and scattered across the neighborhoods of the San Fernando Valley (the map divides the city up by its Community Plan areas, which are the 35 areas that comprise the city’s Land Use Element). In the Valley, the Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland Hills-West Hills area shows a concentration of schools, in particular elementary schools.

Some areas show relatively few charter schools, including Brentwood-Pacific Palisades, West LA, Westwood, Bel ir-Beverly Crest, Hollywood, Wilshire, Sunland-Tujunga-Lake View Terrace, Shadow Hills-East La Tuna Canyon, LAX, Wilmington-Harbor City, and the Port of LA. Without doing an analysis of income distributions, it appears that relatively wealthy areas have few charter schools, while low-income areas like South LA have the most.

There are also concentrations in the areas southeast and southwest of South and Southeast LA, including in the City of Inglewood.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

78

Figure 8-1. Charter school locations in California (2014-2015)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

79

Figure 8-2. Charter school locations in LA County (2014-2015)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

80

Figure 8-3. Charter school locations in the City of LA (2014-2015)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

81

Charters by Municipality within LAUSD

While charters in LAUSD are overwhelmingly located within the City of LA (181 school sites), they are spread out across 44 municipalities in total. A few cities like Woodland Hills and Huntington Park have 10 charters; the majority however have one to three.

Figure 8-4. Locations of Charters by Municipality within LAUSD (2014/2015)

Source: LAUSD Directory of Charter Schools 2014/2015

8.2. Location quotient The location quotient is a tool that helps us dive deeper into how the state of California, Los Angeles County and LAUSD compare with the rest of the nation in terms of percent of all public schools that are charter and percent of A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

82

total enrollment in charter schools. This will help us better understand any characteristics that might encourage a greater presence of charter schools.

Location quotients are calculated with the following formula:

Author designed, Source: “Understanding Location Quotient.” 2014.

Typically, location quotients are used to understand whether a region has an export advantage of a product. In our case, we use location quotients to understand whether our geographic areas of interest have a higher concentration of charter schools than the rest of the country. Location quotients normalize data so that it can be understood across units of analysis. If a location quotient equals a value of 1, we know that there is no difference between the reference area and location i. If the location quotient is less than 1, than the reference area (like the United States) has a higher concentration of charter schools or enrollment in charter schools, so location i has a smaller concentration of charter schools. If the location quotient is greater than 1, the percentage of charter schools or enrollment in charter schools is greater than the reference area. If the location quotient is greater than 1, this would signal that we need to conduct a further exploration of why location i has a higher concentration.

(Understanding Location Quotient 2014) For the below four graphs, we calculate the location quotient compared to the number of charter schools or enrollment numbers from 2005 to 2012. The time frame is limited to national data being used, which did not capture charter schools nationally from 2002-2004 or after 2011. A table with the calculations that populate Figures 8.5 through 8.8 can be found in Appendix 8, along with source information for data at the national, state, county and district level. Typically, location quotients are calculated using employment information. However, our focus in this paper is the number of charter schools and the number of students enrolled in charter schools. Since these inputs measure the same metric at all units of analysis (state, national, county and district), this measure will illustrate whether our district has a concentration of charter schools or enrolling students.

In Figure 8-5, the United States is our reference area. The charter school share of total establishments at the state, county and district level are compared to the United States. This table supports our initial conclusion that comparatively, the state of California’s charter school share is not much higher than national levels. From 20052012, California’s location quotient hovers between 1.5 and two. A location quotient of 2 signals that an area’s charter school share is twice that of the U.S. However, looking at both the county and district data comparatively suggests that California’s charter school share is relatively unimpressive. From 2006 to 2012, LAUSD’s charter school share grew from three times the national average to over four times the national average. Los Angeles County also seems to be growing comparatively. Across all three categories, we note an increase of the location quotient around 2008. Nationally, the total number of schools was actually decreasing, while the percent of charter schools continued to increase. This does not explain the increase at the state, county and district location quotient, but may suggest that the location quotient would have been higher if national total number of schools A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

83

had not increased. Most important, Los Angeles County schools have a clear advantage to charter school levels at the national level. State and county location quotients suggest that while state and county level policies and dynamics may be increasing LAUSD’s comparative advantage, we must also explore policies and characteristics specific to LAUSD and the City of Los Angeles that may influence that number.

Figure 8-5. Location Quotient by Total Number of Schools for National Comparisons

Figure 8-6 presents much the same data as Figure 8-5, using different reference areas. We compared LAUSD and LA County data to statewide data and we find that LAUSD has a comparative advantage at the state level and county level, which reinforces what we gather from Figure 8-5. Figures 8-7 and 8-8 compare parallel information, using enrollment data as the measurement instead of schools. This was measured to see whether schools were increasing nationally, while enrollment was failing, perhaps signaling smaller class sizes. Using this metric, we find that the location quotient for LAUSD enrollment in charter schools compared to national levels was about 2.5 in 2005, which is slightly lower than its location quotient for percent charter schools. This might suggest that class size was smaller in 2005. By 2012, the location quotient for enrollment had spiked to nearly 4, nearly the same as the location quotient for number of charter schools for LAUSD. This deserves further exploration, but may be supported by our empirical understanding that charter schools have attempted innovative practices like small classroom sizes in the earlier years of charter school development, but that practice may no longer keep charter schools smaller than their traditional public school counterparts.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

84

Figure 8-6. Location Quotient by Total Number of Schools for State and County Comparisons

Figure 8-7. Location Quotient by Total Enrollment for National Comparisons

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

85

Figure 8-8. Location Quotient by Total Enrollment for State and County Comparisons

Source for Statewide: California Department of Education, Statewide Profile, 2005-2012 http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanelPopup.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/StudentTrendsNew.as p?reportNumber=128&fyr=2002&level=04&report=charterpublicschools Source for US: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey," 1990-91 through 2011-12. (This table was prepared September 2013.)

Source for County: California Department of Education, Countywide Profile, 2005-2012 http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?Tab=0&level=05& reportnumber=16 Source for LAUSD: California Department of Education, LAUSD Profile, 2005-2012 http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?reportNumber=16 &level=06&fyr=1112&county=19&district=64733

8.3 Charter School Expansion Patterns In a span of 20 years, the number of charter schools in LAUSD has grown at a rapid rate. In this section we provide maps that help visualize the geographic characteristics of charter school growth, as well as maps that show where charter school closures are happening.

LAUSD charter school expansion: 1994‐1999

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

86

Between 1994 and 1999, charter schools were still a relatively new concept. After the passing of the California Charter Schools Act of 1992, the legislation that gave origin to charter schools, in 1993 LAUSD designated certain staff to provide oversight to charter schools to guarantee that each charter school works in observance with all pertinent laws and terms of its charter (LAUSD). Still getting its footing in Los Angeles, six charter schools were developed in LAUSD between 1994 and 1999. Development during this period was geographically scattered throughout different parts of Los Angeles County.

Figure 8-9. LAUSD charter school expansion: 1994-1999

Source: California Dept. of Education Public Schools Database

LAUSD charter school expansion: 2000‐2004

Between 2000 and 2004, charter school development increased significantly in LAUSD. According to data on California public schools from the California Department of Education, 49 charter schools were developed during this period. As shown in the below map, charter school growth happened around a few different areas in Los Angeles. The clustering of charter school expansion occurred in areas around Downtown, Southwest Los Angeles, and in different areas throughout the San Fernando Valley.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

87

Figure 8-10. LAUSD charter school expansion: 2000-2004

Source: California Dept. of Education Public Schools Database

LAUSD charter school expansion: 2005‐2009

Charter school development exploded in LAUSD between 2005 and 2009, marking the largest expansion of charter schools of all the periods we focus on here. During this period, the number of charter schools in LAUSD grew by 104 and expanded to new areas, such as areas south of Downtown Los Angeles. While there were various clusters of charter school expansion around Los Angeles County between 2005 and 2009, most of this growth clustered around Downtown Los Angeles, Southwest Los Angeles, and Northeast Los Angeles.

Figure 8-11. LAUSD charter school expansion: 2005-2009

Source: California Dept. of Education Public Schools Database

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

88

LAUSD charter school expansion: 2010‐2014

During the period between 2010-2014, there was a notable expansion of charter schools around East Los Angeles. Following the pattern of previous periods, charter schools continued to expand in some of the same major hubs of activity, like Downtown Los Angeles and Northeast Los Angeles. Resembling the pattern of expansion between 2005 and 2009, charter schools continued to grow in and around South Los Angeles. Like in all of the previous periods covered here, charter school expansion continued to grow steadily in the San Fernando Valley.

Figure 8-12. LAUSD charter school expansion: 2010-2014

Source: California Department of Education Public Schools Database

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

89

LAUSD charter school closings: 2002‐2014

Since the year 2002, the year a charter school closed in LAUSD for the first time, a total of 47 charter schools have shut down in the district. Following charter school expansion patterns, the major hubs where charter schools are closing are located in some of the same areas where clusters of charter school expansion occur.

Figure 8-13. LAUSD charter school closings: 2002-2014

Source: California Dept. of Education Public Schools Database

Due to time constraints, we were unable to identify any spatial variables that that contributed to charter school closures. However, we hypothesize that charter school closures in LAUSD can be attributed to either, or a combination of, 1) poor API scores, 2) poor financial planning by entities managing a charter that has closed, such as a CMO, 3) and business/financially driven decisions to shut-down or relocate a charter school by the entity managing it. Our reasoning for this is as follows: 1. Charter school performance is measured by how students perform on state mandated standardized tests.

Due to a high emphasis on performance for charters, they risk being shut-down if students fail to perform well on standardized tests.

2. There have been documented instances of poor financial planning by charter management organizations that have resulted in school closures (Romo, 2014).

3. There have been documented instances of charter schools closing or relocating due to business/financial decisions (Walker, 2012).

8.4. Access to Transportation Consumers of charter schools, or students of charter schools, are dependent on transportation to attend the charter school. Unless the charter school service is being offered online and accessible from home, students must rely on biking, walking, carpooling, parental chauffeuring, or public transportation to attend school. Charter A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

90

schools also rely on transportation to access food services and the transport of school/office supplies to the school. Since the availability of these products are not typically bound by location, the location of charter schools is not dependent on its ability to locate near these products.

However, a charter schools ability to provide transportation access to its customers does affect the diversity and environment of the school. According to the executive director of Utah Charter Network, Kim Frank, “a lack of access to transportation impedes low-income students from attending many charter schools. Unlike traditional school students who are bused by the school district...the majority of charter school students rely on their parents to drive them to and from classes each day.” (Utah charter schools score low on diversity, 2001) The state of California has passed legislation to insure that charter schools in California ensure diversity in schools. For instance, the “County board of education will deny a charter petition if the board finds that the petition does not reasonably specify means by which a school’s student body will reflect racial and ethnic balance of the general population living in the school district granting the charter.” (Frankenberg, 2011) In other words, this policy is reviewed only once in the lifetime of a charter school, and only as a preliminary approval process.

Additionally, “charter schools are expressly included in state education laws providing for after school programs that require safe transportation be available to transport participating pupils to locations off school grounds if necessary. Charter schools identified for corrective action under [No Child Left Behind] must authorize transfer of pupils to better performing schools and provide transportation to such schools.” (Frankenberg, 2011) In other words, if a charter school provides certain after school programs, like sports teams, safe transportation must be available to take students back home afterwards. And if a charter school is under-performing according to the No Child Left Behind Act, pupils must have access to transportation for better performing schools. According to Frankenberg, California is more aggressive about diversity and transportation for charter school students than most other states because of these provisions.

It appears that the new Local Control Funding Formula (which we have mentioned previously and will explore in greater detail, will account for transportation costs. More research must be done on how this funding formula will change the provision of transportation to charter school students.

8.5 Determine reasons for location

Facility Requirements Examining charter school facility requirements provides an interesting look into charter school legislation and its relation to traditional public schools. As previously mentioned, the Charter School Act of 1992 made it so that charter schools are mostly exempt from the provisions and regulations of the State Education Code to which traditional public schools must adhere. Charter schools must comply with the provisions set out in their charter in addition to those that the Charter School Act of 1992 made to the education code: section 47600-47604.5.

47600. It is important to mention, however, that this section of the education code specifies that charter schools must comply with the The California Building Standards Code (Part 2 (commencing with Section 101) of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) (California Education Code, 2013).

Section 11969.3 of the education portion of the CCR maintains that the conditions provided by charter schools must be “reasonably equivalent” to those in traditional public schools. To determine whether or not these conditions are reasonably equivalent, it is necessary for the charter school to compare itself to a comparable traditional public school.Comparability is determined by looking at the school type, grades served, school location, and other factors that would make a traditional public school a charter school’s equivalent. The student capacity of a charter school facility is the first factor that is examined to determine if it meets facility standards. Next, the condition of the facilities provided by the charter school is compared to the conditions of traditional public school facilities.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

91

The California Education Code and the California Code of Regulations do not supply a lot of information regarding the specifications for traditional public and charter school facilities. These specifications are found in the California Building Standards Code, amended by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. The Low-Income Investment Fund (2007), provides a handbook to charter school developers with guidelines for appropriate facility requirements based on established charter schools. The projected or actual Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of a charter school determines the appropriate size of the school. Below are the Low-Income Investment Fund’s (2007) recommendations for charter school size based on ADA: 

“Classrooms: 700 to 1,000 square feet



Administrative Offices: 70 to 100 square feet per office



Bathrooms and Circulation (including hallways, storage space, etc.): Approximately



30 percent of overall square footage



Gymnasium: 5 to 6 square feet per student











(Note: Dedicated recreational space is generally hard to find, so most schools come up with creative ways to accommodate recreational activities, such as using a multi- purpose room, parking lot, or nearby park or recreation center.

Cafeteria: 4 to 8 square feet per student (Note: As with gyms, few charter schools have dedicated cafeterias.)

Library: 3 to 4 square feet per student Parking: One space per 500 square feet for an elementary/middle school, and one space per classroom for a high school (Note: Parking needs vary depending on access to public transportation and local city requirements.)” (p. 6).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

92

9. Financial situation/Source of Capital

How do charter schools pay for this marked growth? We explore the financial solvency and sources of capital for four charter schools within LAUSD: ● ● ● ●

KIPP LA Green Dot Charter Schools Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF) Magnolia Charter Schools

We call these charter schools “chain schools”, defined as CMOs that have more than one school.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

93

9.1. Fast Facts about the California School Finance Authority’s Charter School programs State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants Program Total Awarded: $85,362,637 Total Charter Schools: 255 Total Students: 80,651

Charter School Facilities Program (Props 47, 55, 1D, and 2010 Re-Appropriation) Total Awarded: $900,000,000 Total Schools: 56 Total Students: 21,546

Charter School Facilities Credit Enhancement Grant Program Total Awarded: $7,897,865 Total Schools: 30 Total Students: 11,135

Bond Financing Program Bonds Issued: $199,383,325 Schools Served: 41 Students Served: 22,809

Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) RANs Issued: $46,923,959 Schools Served: 78 Students Served: 31,691 Source: California School Finance Authority’s webpage: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

94

9.2 KIPP LA Schools The KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) acts as a small, independent school district, with private non-profit management, within the boundaries of LAUSD. All 11 KIPP LA schools (in 16 campuses) are startup independents (Appendix 9, KIPP schools in LAUSD).

KIPP is one of the largest charter school networks in the United States, with 162 schools across 20 states and the District of Columbia. It has 58,000 students currently enrolled. KIPP subsidiaries are mostly located in major urban centers, including Houston, the Bay Area, New Orleans, and New York City. KIPP LA is an important subsidiary of the nationwide network (Hoovers).

Figure 9-1. Timeline of KIPP school openings 2003

2008

2010

2012

2013

2014

KIPP Academy of Opportunity

KIPP Raices Academy

KIPP Empower Academy

KIPP Philosophers Academy

KIPP Iluminar Academy

KIPP Vida Preparatory Academy

KIPP Comienza Community

KIPP Scholar Academy

KIPP Sol Academy

KIPP Academy of Innovation

KIPP LA College Prep.

Source: Los Angeles Unified School District, Charter Schools Division, School Directories + Public Schools Database, California Department of Education.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

95

Figure 9-2. Map of KIPP school locations in LAUSD

Source: KIPP LA website + Google Maps Engine

Business plan While we were unable to locate a business plan for KIPP LA, secondary sources provide a rough picture of KIPP’s future plans. A recent LA Times article relates KIPP LA’s plans for a major expansion. The CMO currently operates 11 schools (across 16 campuses) with 4,000 students, and intends to more than double enrollment to 9,000 students in 20 schools (nine new schools in six years) (Blume 2014). Such a major expansion will require massive investments, including most likely new sources of private funding and donations.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

96

Profitability

Charter schools’ major source of funding, just like traditional district schools, is per pupil revenue awarded at the state and local levels. As Figure 9-3 attests (KIPP 2013 annual report), 59 percent of KIPP’s revenue comes from state and local funding. Charters maintain profitability by maintaining full enrollment. Charter schools maintain stability by adhering to their charters; charter schools are not beholden to some standards that district schools are, and in return are assessed on their Academic Performance Index scores. Any charter school that does not deliver high scores runs the danger of having their charters revoked by their authorizer (LAUSD in this case) (Wallace 2014). The following section, funding sources, breaks down revenue sources and expenditures in greater detail.

As Figure 9-4 demonstrates, KIPP’s profits have grown over the past five years from $363,432 to $1,025,240 (a difference of $661,808). However, as a percent of both total revenues and expenditures, there is a 0.1 percentage point decrease from 2008/09 to 2012/13. 2011/12 saw higher profits, but only by around one percent. Overall, profits or the balance of revenue minus expenditures sticks between 3.70 percent of revenue/expenditures and 5.43 percent (see BALANCE in Figure 9-5). This matches with the curves for total revenue and total expenditures in Figure 9-6, which closely mirror each other. When the growing scale of the firm, in particular the opening of new schools shown in the timeline above, is taken into consideration, profits remain fairly even. However, this greater economy of scale most likely translates into greater stability and continued profits over time.

Figure 9-3. Revenue for KIPP LA 2012/13

Source: KIPP LA annual reports 2012/13

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

97

Figure 9-4. Profits or balance of finances (revenue minus expenditures, 2008/09 - 2012/13)

Source: KIPP LA annual reports 2008/09 - 2012/13

Figure 9-5. Balance as Percentage of Total Revenue, 2008/09 - 2012/13

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

98

Funding sources

As Figure 9-6 shows, state and local funding consistently makes up the greatest share of KIPP’s revenues, followed by federal funding, and finally private, which most likely includes loans and donations. The proportion of state and local funding has gone from 64 percent in 2008/09 to 55 percent in 2010/11 to 59 percent in 2012/2013.

Meanwhile, private funding has grown from 16 percent to 28 percent over the five year period.

Figure 9-6. KIPP LA Total Revenue Over Time (2008/09 - 2012/13)

Source: KIPP LA annual reports 2008/09 - 2012/13

Figure 9-7. Finances (2008/09 - 2012/13) 2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

TOTAL Revenue

$9,565,742

$10,839,941

$16,852,469

$20,230,350

$27,720,59 1

State + local funding

$6,093,803

$6,267,952

$9,247,693

$12,092,103

$16,225,95 1

Federal funding

$1,304,959

$1,250,032

$2,570,076

$2,372,932

$2,979,545

Private funding

$1,582,917

$3,180,290

$4,397,137

$5,553,785

$7,840,820

$584,063

$141,667

$637,563

$211,530

$674,275

TOTAL Expenditures

$9,202,310

$10,367,675

$16,233,500

$19,187,760

$26,695,35 1

School-based personnel

$5,460,256

$6,411,830

$9,567,311

$9,489,987

$12,003,47 1

Other

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

99

Instructional expenses

$2,094,655

Support center personnel Operational expenses

$3,742,054

Facilities/ occupancy

$2,305,611

$3,448,344

$2,283,488

$2,856,442

$3,045,707

$3,055,920

$3,127,229

$3,288,285

$910,138

$1,416,427

$1,184,842

$2,898,809

$99,187

$796,603

Other KIPP Empower Academy Facility

BALANCE

$2,200,000

$363,432

$472,266

$618,969

$1,042,590

$1,025,240

Percent of revenue

3.80%

4.36%

3.67%

5.15%

3.70%

Percent of expenditures

3.95%

4.56%

3.81%

5.43%

3.84%

*Assumption of the authors Source: KIPP LA annual reports 2008/09 - 2012/13

KIPP’s 2011 annual report confirms the general makeup of KIPP’s funding, in which the lionshare comes from public funds, but also the increasing need to raise private funds: “KIPP LA primarily finances its operations through a combination of local, state, and federal funding. However, with California’s low level of public funding and high operating costs, KIPP LA must fundraise from private sources in order to provide our students with the excellent, well-rounded education they deserve. Over the next year, we must raise roughly $4.75 million to fund our operations” (see Appendix 9 for a comparison of states per pupil funding).

Private donors are an important source of funding for KIPP LA (see Appendix 9). Several names from the Board Membership section, like Karsh and Broad, show up again. The ties between donors, board members, foundations, and other actors is explored in Chapter 12 (about the power structure of the industry).

Assets and liabilities Figure 9-8 details KIPP LA’s assets and liabilities for the school years 2009/10 and 2010/11. The 2009/10 numbers appear to check out with the financials listed in the 2009/10 KIPP LA annual report (Appendix 9).

Tangible fixed assets make up the large majority of KIPP’s fixed assets, most likely in the form of facilities. KIPP is not a publicly-traded company and is non-profit, therefore has no assets in stocks. From 2010 to 2011, KIPP’s total assets decreased by over two million dollars. The largest decrease was in the “other fixed assets” category.

This may have something to do with the change in liabilities from 2010 to 2011, which decreased dramatically.

The assets and liabilities listed in the table give the appearance of a company that is stable and growing stronger as it minimizes its liabilities while maintaining assets.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

100

Figure 9-8. Assets and liabilities (2009/10 - 2010/11) Balance sheet (USD)

30/06/2010

30/06/2011

3,710,425

1,083,967

Intangible fixed assets

0

0

Tangible fixed assets

0

1,035,806

3,710,425

48,161

7,178,416

7,094,987

0

0

Debtors

4,380,267

3,045,909

Other current assets

2,798,149

4,049,078

Cash & cash equivalent

2,636,712

2,744,807

10,888,841

8,178,954

1 YEAR CHANGE

-2,709,887

0

6,941,513

6,103,160

0

0

0

6,103,160

0

n.a.

0

4,785,681

1,237,441

3,954,456

0

831,225

0

10,888,841

1,237,441

1 YEAR CHANGE

-9,651,400

Fixed assets

Other fixed assets

Current assets Stock

TOTAL ASSETS

Shareholders funds

Non-current liabilities Long term debt Other non-current liabilities Provisions

Current liabilities Loans Creditors

TOTAL LIABILITIES

Source: Mint Global company report on KIPP LA Schools

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

101

Property tenure of school sites: lease vs. own vs. colocation

Information about owning vs. leasing all sites was not identified. The LAUSD charter schools database reveals that two of KIPP’s schools colocate in district schools. KIPP Iluminar Academy is colocated in Hamaski Elementary and KIPP Sol Academy is colocated in Belvedere Middle School. In October of 2014, KIPP opened a brand new facility in South LA for KIPP Empower Academy, which it constructed and owns. According to KIPP’s financial information, the facility cost over $2 million (see Figure 9-8). “Since its founding, KIPP Empower has operated in temporary facilities and on split campuses” (Sentinel News Service 2014). Therefore, KIPP schools are a mix of colocation, firm-owned, and leased.

Other details

Financial pressures are unknown; KIPP’s financials appear stable, especially given the fact that the two major dangers for charter schools are not being able to cover operating costs, in particular facilities costs, and having their charter revoked due to low student performance. KIPP schools are some of the highest performing in the state and the country (Blume 2014). It is not unionized.

Ownership

The tree pictured here shows KIPP LA’s ownership structure (Mint Global company report). It is a subsidiary of the national KIPP Foundation, headquartered in San Francisco. It in turn has one subsidiary, KIPP Raices, which is one of its schools. The other schools most likely pertain directly to KIPP LA itself. Since KIPP is non-profit, it has no owners.

Board of directors + trustees

The Board of Directors (see Appendix 9) is comprised largely of individuals trained in finance and business, and who head businesses unrelated to education. The Chair, Loren Bendele, is the CEO of Savings.com and has no education experience and was presumably put on the board for his business expertise and connections to private funding sources. The same can be said for Joe Cilic, Secretary of the board, in particular because of his position with the influential firm Sotheby’s International Realty. A few members stand out. Jane Harris was a former principal in the Compton Unified School District and has substantial education experience. Gregory McGinity is the Senior Managing Director of the Eli and Edith Broad Foundation, a key source of finance for the charter school movement which is based in Los Angeles. KIPP has received over $15 million in donations from the foundation since 2008 (KIPP website).

According to his bio, McGinity has “extensive experience in education policy at the federal, state and local levels” and was the chief of staff for Richard Riordan, former state Secretary of Education and Mayor of LA. Riordan is also the current Chair of ICEF Public Schools and sits on the board of Green Dot. Connections between business and finance networks on the board are strong, while connections to education networks are largely missing. The same is true of the trustees. Martha Karsh, attorney and Chair of the Board of Trustees, is also co-founder of the Karsh Foundation, which has given over $160 million in donations to education. Martha and Bruce Karsh have donated over $20 million to KIPP LA since 2008 (KIPP LA website). She also sits on the Board of the KIPP Foundation. She has no experience or training in education. These networks are explored further in Chapter 12.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

102

Management KIPP LA has a headquarter office, which manages the KIPP LA network. Each school in turn has an administrative staff that sees to the running of their individual schools (see Appendix 9). Marcia Aaron, Executive Director, is an interesting figure. Her professional background is in finance. She currently serves as Charter Management Organizational representative on the California Charter Schools Association Member Council, the central organizing body of the charter school movement in California. She also serves on the Board of Directors of KIPP LA and has donated $100,000 or more to KIPP LA since 2008 (see Appendix 9).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

103

9.3 ICEF Public Schools Background ICEF operates 14 schools in Southwest Los Angeles educating 4,200 students in grades K through 12. Founded in 1994, ICEF was the first charter management organization in Los Angeles. ICEF currently serves an 82 percent African-American and 16 percent Hispanic student population with over 80 percent of students eligible for the federal free and reduced price lunch program, a nationally recognized measure of economic poverty.

Figure 9-9. List of ICEF charter schools by year established NAME OF SCHOOL

CITY

YEAR FOUNDED

View Park Preparatory Accelerated Charter Elementary School

Los Angeles

1999

View Park Preparatory Accelerated Charter Middle School

Los Angeles

2002

View Park Preparatory Accelerated Charter High School

Los Angeles

2003

Frederick Douglass Academy Elementary School

Los Angeles

2008

Frederick Douglass Academy Charter Middle School

Los Angeles

2006

Frederick Douglass Academy Charter Middle School

Los Angeles

2006

Lou Dantzler Academy Elementary School

Los Angeles

2008

Lou Dantzler Academy Preparatory Middle School

Los Angeles

2007

Lou Dantzler Preparatory High School

Los Angeles

2007

Thurgood Marshall Middle School

Los Angeles

2007

ICEF Vista Academy Elementary School

Los Angeles

2008

ICEF Vista Academy Middle School

Los Angeles

2008

ICEF Inglewood Elementary Charter Academy

Inglewood

2009

ICEF Inglewood Middle Charter Academy

Inglewood

2009

Source: ICEF Financial Audit Conducted by Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman LLP, 2013

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

104

Figure 9-10. ICEF charter schools

Source: Campus Addresses Obtained via ICEF Website, BatchGeo 2014 Note: Some of ICEF’s charter schools are on the same campus (i.e., Frederick Douglass Elementary and Frederick Douglass High)

Balance of finances

ICEF’s financial stability has been improving since facing a major financial emergency that almost forced the CMO to close in 2010. Going from a -$3,189,502 financial deficit in 2009, ICEF, thanks to the support of foundations supporting education reform, like The Broad Foundation and The Riordan Foundation (Top-Ed, 2010), was able to make a quick comeback in 2010, ending the year with a $10,212,762 surplus, followed by a $5,799,508 surplus in 2011, and a $10,978,085 surplus in 2012 (ICEF Public Schools IRS Forms 990, 20102012).

Figure 9-11. ICEF Public Schools revenue over time

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

105

Source: ICEF Public Schools IRS Form 990 via Guidestar.com

Figure 9-12. ICEF Public Schools balance of finances

Source: ICEF Public Schools IRS Form 990 via Guidestar.com

According to an article on an online forum on education policies in California and Silicon Valley, Thoughts on Public Education (Top-Ed), in 2010 “the trustees of ICEF came within days of declaring bankruptcy and closing schools immediately, leaving students to transfer to Los Angeles Unified schools and other charter schools.” This setback was a result of ICEF’s decision to expand too quickly combined with poor financial planning . According to the same Top-Ed article, “ICEF developed 11 schools in three years and then failed to make tough choices when state budget cuts hit hard (Top-Ed, 2010).” To turn things around, “ICEF laid off 100 employees, changed its spending habits and scrutinized every line item on its budget (KPCC,2012).” In 2008, founder of ICEF, Mike Piscal, had an ambitious goal of expanding ICEF to 35 schools by 2016 (Los Angeles Times, 2008). While there is a little over a year left before 2016 hits, it is clear that ICEF will fall well short (21 campuses short to be exact) of the goal set by Piscal in 2008.

Sources of Revenue

ICEF receives revenue from multiple sources.The majority of ICEFs revenue ($16,249,680 in 2013) comes from apportionment revenue, which is generally acquired through what is known as a “general purpose block grant.” A “general purpose block grant” is based on the state average district revenue limit by grade level. All charter schools receive the same rate per grade level, but this rate does not consider variances in costs of living or revenue limits from district to district. The funding is allocated based on average daily attendance (calcharters.org).” In 2013, ICEF received $2,409,500 in “categorical revenue,” which comes in the form of a “categorical block grant.” A categorical block grant is also allocated based on average daily attendance. This is a needs-based grant provided to schools with a higher need of resources for supporting lower-performing students, such as English learners and economically disadvantaged students (calcharters.org). Further, in 2013, ICEF received $5,424,646 in property tax revenue, $6,360,928 in other state revenue, $4,742,714 in federal revenue, and $3,872,606 from other local revenue sources.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

106

Figure 9-13. ICEF sources of public revenue 2013

Source: ICEF website

ICEF also receives revenue from private donations, which comes mostly from foundations and individual private donors. We were not able to find a breakdown of private donations gifted to ICEF per year, but we were able to find a list of donors on the ICEF website that have donated to ICEF since July 1, 2011. This list was broken down according to level of donation (as can be seen in Figure 9-14). Unfortunately, the list does not state the exact amount provided by each donor. Thus, it is unclear exactly how much donors who donated more than $1,000,000 donated to ICEF. Figure 9-14. Private donations to ICEF Public Schools

Source: ICEF Public Schools website

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

107

Figure 9-15. Names of ICEF private donors ICEF private donors $1,000,000+

$50,000+

L.K. Whittier Foundation

Bridgid Coulter and Don Cheadle

The Riordan Foundation

Joseph and Dione Smith

$500,00+

Mr. and Mrs. James Maguire

Frank McHugh-O’Donovan Foundation

$25,000+

Ralph M. Parsons Foundation

John W. Carson Foundation

$200,000+

Kellner Trust

Fletcher Jones Foundation

Mercury Airgroup

Linda Pierce Agency

Phelps Family Foundation

Stuart Foundation

Renaissance Charitable Foundation

$100,000+

Rob Santos and Stacy Santos Charity Fund

Austin and Virginia Beutner

Rock Construction and Management

California Community Foundation

Success Through the Arts

C. Mathewson Lewis Trust Linda Pierce Agency Michael Lerch of Evolution Capital Ambassador and Mrs. Frank Baxter

ICEF Public Schools expenditures The majority of ICEFs expenditures (69 percent) go toward instructional services, such as teacher salaries.

Unfortunately, the information that we have obtained does not state what things are considered to be instructional services. Thus, while we believe that it is safe to assume that teacher salaries are included under instructional services, we are not sure whether educational supplies and equipment are also categorized under instructional services. The rest of ICEF’s expenditures go toward supporting services (26 percent), which we think includes administrative staff and other support personnel, and management (5 percent).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

108

Figure 9-15. ICEF Public Schools expenditures 2012

Source: ICEF Public Schools audited financial statements, 2013

Loans payable

As of 2013, ICEF has a total loans payable balance of $16,104,706. Below is a pay schedule for ICEFs loans. As can be seen, the majority of ICEFs loan payments are due in 2014 and 2015, after which the loan amounts due shrink dramatically.

Source: ICEF Financial Audit Conducted by Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman LLP, 2013

Property, plant and equipment

This section focuses on ICEF’s fixed assets that are used to manufacture, display, warehouse and transport the company's products and house its employees. According to a financial audit conducted in 2013 by Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman, ICEF’s property and equipment assets consist of the following:

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

109

Source: ICEF Financial Audit Conducted by Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman LLP, 2013

Operating Leases

ICEF leases various facilities under operating leases with various terms. Future minimum lease payments under these leases with initial or remaining terms of one year or more, consist of the following:

Source: ICEF Financial Audit Conducted by Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman LLP, 2013

Assets & liabilities

In 2013, ICEF’s total assets were $26,329,202, a $10,630,579 increase from 2012. As can be seen below, ICEF more than doubled its cash and cash equivalents from 2012 to 2013, and also increased its accounts receivable.

Unfortunately, we are not currently able to pinpoint exactly where this increase in cash/cash equivalents and accounts receivable have come from. In 2013, ICEF’s current liabilities totaled $12,777,164 and its long-term liabilities totaled $6,270,986. General wisdom explains that financially solvent companies have assets in excess of liabilities, generally meaning that it has the ability to pay its own debts. In 2013, ICEF’s assets exceeded its liabilities (current and long-term) by $7,281,052.

ICEF board and management

ICEF’s Board of Directors is comprised of members who have financial investment experience, or are so-called experts in educational reform. Richard Riordan, former Mayor of Los Angeles, is the Chairman of the board.

Riordan’s foundation (the Riordan Foundation), has made significant financial contributions to ICEF, upwards of $1,000,000. Riordan played a big role in saving ICEF from financial insolvency in 2010, working with other A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

110

foundational heads to cough up the funding necessary to keeping ICEF afloat. Frank E. Baxter, Julie Kellner, and William Lucas all have financial investment and banking experience, a primary reason for why they were selected to serve on ICEF’s board. Simeon Sovacek, a professor at Cal State Los Angeles, is a proclaimed education reform expert who brings years of experience in moving forward education reform. He is also a founding board member of another CMO based in Los Angeles, The Accelerated Schools.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

111

Figure 9-16. ICEF Public Schools board membership Board member

Institutional affiliation

Bio

Richard Riordan (Chairman)

Riordan Foundation, Binham McCutchen Law firm

-B.A. Princeton -Michigan Law School -Mayor of L.A. (1993-2001) -California Secretary of Education (20032005)

Frank E. Baxter

Jeffries and Company Inc (global investment bank)

-Ambassador to Uruguay (2006-2009) -Previously served as Chairman of After School Allstars -Boardmember of Cal Institute of Arts -Member of Governors commission for jobs and Economic Growth

Julie Kellner

Community Shul of Montecito

-Graduate of Brown University -Executive Vice President of Mercantile National Bank - Los Angeles Division

William Lucas

Cataumet Partners

-A.B. Princeton -MBA Dartmouth College -Co-Founder and Principal of Cataumet Partners (investment management and advisory firm) -Previously Vice President in Corporate Finance at H.J. Meyeres Company (investment bank)

David G. Moore

Interconnect Solutions Group, Inc.

-B.A. Dartmouth College -CEO President of Interconnect Solutions Group, Inc. (manufacturers representative group) -View Park Parent (ICEF charter school)

Simeon Slovacek

California State University, Los Angeles

-B.A. Syracuse University -M.S. Cornell University -Ph.D. Cornell University -Professor at Cal State LA (considered school reform expert) -Founding trustee of the Accelerated School in Los Angeles (CMO)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

112

Source: ICEF Public Schools website

Management ICEFs management team has plenty of experience working in charter schools, notably Parker Hudnut, Linda Christiansen, and Marie Morelock. Parker Hudnut (CEO) brings a wealth of experience to the ICEF team, which is noted in Hudnut’s Linkedin profile. Graduating from the Broad Center for the Management of School Systems, a training program aimed to grow the leaders of education reform facilitated by the Broad Foundation (a major funder of education reform locally and nationally) in 2007, Hudnut was essentially groomed to play a leadership role in the movement for education reform. Hudnut has previously worked as COO/CFO for Alliance for CollegeReady Public Schools (2004-2009) and Executive Director of Innovation and Charter Schools for LAUSD. Linda Christiansen is ICEFs Director of Real Estate, she was also formerly Director of Real Estate for the Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools between 2009-2012. Marie Morelock has much professional experience working in leadership positions in charter schools, and CMOs. Before joining ICEF, Morelock held multiple positions in the Aspire Public Schools, another Los Angeles based CMO. Figure 9-17. ICEF Public Schools management team Name

Position

Professional Experience

Parker Hudnut

Chief Executive Officer

-ICEF Public Schools - CEO (2011-present) -LAUSD - Executive Director of Innovation and Charter Schools (2009-2011) -Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools - COO/CFO (2004-2009) -Broad Center for the Management of School Systems - Broad Resident (2005-2007) -Imagine Schools - Director of School Development (2002-2004)

Greg Brendel

Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer

-ICEF Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer

Linda Christiansen

Director of Real Estate

-ICEF Public Schools - Director of Real Estate (2012-present) -Alliance for College Ready Public Schools Director of Real Estate (2009-2012)

Megan Hayward

Development & Communications Coordination

-ICEF Public Schools - Development and Communications Coordinator (08/2014-Present) -Children’s Institute, Inc. - Training Manager (2010-2014) -Voices for Children, Inc. - Development Coordinator (2006-2009)

Marie Morelock

Chief Academic Officer

-ICEF Public Schools - Vice-President of Instruction (2013-present) -Aspire Public Schools - Director of Principal Residency Program (2012-2013)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

113

-Aspire Public Schools - Lead Principal (20112012) -Aspire Firestone Academy, Aspire Public Schools - Founding Principal (2010-2011) -Antonio Maria Lugo Academy, Aspire Public Schools - Principal (2007-2010) Source: ICEF Public Schools website

Other than financial challenges, ICEF’s management faces challenges that have been outlined by community members and employees. For example, some parents have expressed concern over large class sizes and that ICEF’s internal operations are too secretive (Blume 2010). In interviews, employees of ICEF expressed concerns “over supply shortages and being expected to work extra hours without compensation (Blume 2010)”. However, we were not able to find any direct evidence as to whether, and if so, how, community members and employees are pressuring ICEF to change its ways. Further, we were unable to find evidence as to how ICEF’s management is handling this pressure.

9.4 Green Dot Public Schools Background Green Dot Public Schools (GDPS) was founded by Steve Barr in 1999 in Inglewood, CA. The explicit focus of Green Dot is to influence the LAUSD to convert its low performing high schools into collections of successful small schools predicated on a two-pronged approach: (1) the "Six Tenets of High Performing Schools" and (2) recommended practices for all GDPS schools to follow (Cevallos Jr. 2009).

These include that all students are required to wear uniforms, all curriculum and assessment must be standardsbased, the size of each school cannot exceed more than 525 students and every teacher can only have 22 students per class, schools must remain open until 5 P.M., families must volunteer a minimum of 35 hours per school year and each Green Dot school site principal has autonomy over hiring, firing and budgets (Cevallos Jr., 2009).

Today, Green Dot manages and operates high schools and middle schools in Los Angeles, Tennessee, and Washington State.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

114

Figure 9-18. Map of Green Dot Charter Schools in LA

Source: Greendot.org

Figure 9-19. Green Dot Charter Schools Information

Name

Address

Type Students Year

Animo Leadership Charter High School

11044 South Freeman Avenue, Inglewood, CA, 90304

HS

616

2000

2

Animo Inglewood Charter High School

3425 West Manchester Boulevard, Inglewood, CA, 90305

HS

630

2002

3

Ánimo Oscar De La Hoya Charter High School

1114 South Lorena Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90023

HS

601

2003

4

Ánimo South Los Angeles Charter High School

11130 South Western Avenue, Los Angeles, CA

HS

629

2004

Ánimo Charter Middle School 3

12226 South Western Avenue, Los Angeles, California, 90047

6-8

581

2011

Ánimo Charter Middle School 4

12226 South Western Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90047

6-8

578

2011

Ánimo Venice Charter High School

820 Broadway Street, Venice, CA, 90291

HS

580

2004

Ánimo Westside Charter Middle School

7615 Cowan Avenue, Los Angeles,

6-7

250

2011

1

5

6

7 8

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

115

CA, 90045 3500 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90007

HS

579

2006

10 Ánimo Jefferson Charter Middle School

1655 East 27th Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90011

6-8

536

2010

11 Ánimo Ralph Bunche Charter High School

1655 East 27th Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90011

HS

694

2006

12 Ánimo Pat Brown Charter High School

8255 Beach Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90001

HS

589

2006

13 Ánimo Watts College Preparatory Academy

12628 Avalon Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90061

HS

525

2007

HS

809

2008

2265 East 103rd Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90002 HS

482

2011

9

Ánimo Jackie Robinson Charter High School

325 East 111th Street, Los 14 Ánimo Locke 1 College Preparatory Academy Angeles, CA, 90061

15 Ánimo College Preparatory Academy Source: Greendot.org

Business Plan We began our research into the Green Dot Public School Charter Management Organization by reading Green Dot’s Business Plan. We used the 2004 Business Plan to gain insight into the CMO’s plans for future growth, financial strategy and to see whether Green Dot was able to accomplished some of the goals laid out in the business plan. Green Dot’s mission is spelled out in the business plan: “Green Dot is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization incorporated in California in 1999 to create a network of exceptional, small charter high schools and transform secondary education in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

Green Dot will drive substantive change in Los Angeles’ high schools to help ensure that all young adults in LA receive the high school educations they deserve to prepare them for success in college, leadership and life. In carrying out its mission, Green Dot will alter the landscape of secondary education throughout California as successful reform in Los Angeles will influence major changes in other school districts throughout the State.”

Growth Plan Green Dot sets some ambitious goals in its business plan for future growth. According to the Business plan, “Green Dot expects to open 2 new schools in Fiscal 2005, 4 new schools in Fiscals 2006 and 2007 and 6 new schools each year thereafter.” Green Dot ultimately plans on opening “100 successful charter high schools in areas of Los Angeles that currently have high concentrations of underperforming and overcrowded schools.”

Green Dot is focused exclusively on opening high school but “may expand its strategy to include opening middle schools, however, if the number of high performing middle schools in the district does not increase in the near future.“ The 2004 business plan lays out a more detailed timeline for future growth: Within 5 years, Green Dot will be educating approximately 6,000 students in LAUSD and within 10 years it will be educating over 20,000 students in the district. Given its current assumptions, Green Dot projects that after 10 A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

116

years, it will be a self-funded organization and will not need to raise any additional philanthropy to maintain its schools and open 6 new schools annually. The total philanthropy required over that ten year period is $26.5 million dollars. Since its inception, Green Dot has raised over $14.5 million in private donations and State grants.

The organization is confident that it will raise the additional $26.5 million needed to achieve sustainability.

Growing large quickly seems to be a part of Green Dot’s strategy. After reading the business plan it is clear Green Dot knows exactly who it is competing with. Under the strategy section of the business plan it reads: Such a substantial presence of small successful high schools in the market will put significant pressure on LAUSD to accelerate its small school efforts. In addition to pressuring LAUSD from the outside, Green Dot will continue to proactively collaborate with LAUSD to influence the district to transform its large existing (and future) high schools into groups of small learning academies. Green Dot will aggressively publicize its successes to develop the political will required to compel LAUSD to take a small schools approach to all of its schools. With a large number of successful schools in Los Angeles and a proactive effort to drive small school education reform, Green Dot can trigger a domino effect throughout the State for creating high quality, small public high schools.

Nearly 10 years since the release of their Business Plan, Green Dot has indeed expanded but not at nearly the pace outlined in the plan. Today Green Dot serves 10,300 students in 14 high schools and four middle schools reaching about half of the goals stated in the 2004 document (see Figure 9-20).

Figure 9-20. Green Dot Public School Enrollment Over Time (Los Angeles)

Source: Greendot.org

Geographic Focus

Green Dot built its first two high schools in Inglewood, CA. Green Dot later opened its first school within the area served by LAUSD in fall 2003 when it opened the Oscar De La Hoya Animo Charter High School in the Boyle Heights community. According to the business plan, “Green Dot plans to open all future schools within LAUSD and is currently targeting Boyle Heights, Downtown, South LA and the Southeastern cities as the most immediate targets for new school clusters.”

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

117

Green Dot details its clustering strategy: New schools will be built in clusters of 4-6 in target locations throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan area to maximize operational efficiencies and allow students to receive a wider variety of courses and extracurricular activities than they would receive if the schools were isolated (p. 8).

When mapping the locations of Green Dot Public Schools one can see a clustering of schools in south and southeast LA. Despite the 2004 objectives, Green Dot Public Schools are not very prevalent in downtown and east Los Angeles - Animo Oscar De La Hoya Charter High School in Boyle Heights is the only GDPS currently operating in East LA. Facilities The Business plan goes on to explain Green Dot’s facilities strategy: Green Dot’s current model has each new school moving into a temporary facility for its first two years before moving to a permanent site (which will be either leased or purchased). Temporary facilities are typically shared facilities (Universities, Junior Colleges, Boys & Girls Clubs, etc.) buildings that require minimal tenant improvements (such as churches with classrooms), old private schools, similar use buildings or modular classrooms. Green Dot will find one to two temporary facilities within the vicinity of a cluster of schools in order to reuse those facilities for other Green Dot schools opened in that particular cluster and spread tenant improvement costs of temporary schools across multiple schools.

Green Dot begins looking for a permanent facility for each school during the school's’ first year of operation with the goal of moving each school into a permanent site after its second year of operation. Green Dot’s permanent sites will be smaller than district public schools (likely 2 to 3 acres) and multi-story. Schools in the same Green Dot clusters will share fields, assembly halls and other large spaces.

The 2004 business plan mentions active discussions with LAUSD about sharing space at some of the district’s existing schools or occupying some of the district’s new schools that will be opening over the next few years, with predictions that at least one new Green Dot school will be operating in a building owned by LAUSD within the next two years.

The Business plan also provides the organization’s strategy for acquiring the capital required to purchase and lease facilities. According to the business plan: Green Dot employs the following strategy to overcome the significant challenge of paying for property in a very expensive and crowded Los Angeles market.

1) Aggressively leverage all legislation / public funds available ● Prop 39 / Measure K: Use Prop 39 to force the district to provide facilities for new schools at a reasonable cost or use it to enact concessions from the district such as co-signatures on loans or cash payments. ● Prop 47: Apply for Prop 47 funds for all schools. ● SB 740: Apply for SB 740 funds for all schools (as long as legislation exists).

2) Structure Creative Deals to Offset High Costs of Land ● Engage in innovative deals and partnerships with LAUSD, New Schools Venture Funds REIT, non-profits, land developers, and other key organizations in order to lower the costs of facilities.

3.) Utilize attractive financing and leasing options

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

118

●

Develop close relationships with groups such as the Low Income Investment Fund (LIIF) and ExEd that have money set aside to provide low interest loans to charter schools.

4.) Influence additional legislation reform to help solve the facilities challenge ● Collaborate with groups such as EdVoice to lobby for the creation of more legislation such as Prop 47 that ease the facilities financing burden.

Assets/Liabilities When analyzing Green Dot’s Assets, Green Dot’s 2013 Annual Financial Report shows that most of GDPS’ assets are fixed assets, and the majority of the fix assets are tied to land, building improvements and lease improvements.

Figure 9-21. Green Dot’s Assets and Liabilities (2013)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

119

Source: Green Dot’s Annual Financial Report (2013)

Sources of Capital

When looking at unrestricted revenues for Green Dot, one can see that a bulk of the organizations funding comes through state apportionments and other state revenue. Federal and Local revenue are relatively even in 2013. It is interesting to note a slight decrease in contributions and grants in GDPS from 2011-2013.

Figure 9-22. Green Dot’s Unrestricted Net Assets for the Year ending 6/30/2013

Source: Green Dot’s Annual Financial Report (2013)

Notable Grants

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation have been two of Green Dot’s strongest supporters, designating grants totaling approximately $20 million between 2006 and 2007.

Figure 9-23. Notable Grants Received by Green Dot Public Schools

Year

Amount

Foundation

Purpose

2006

$1.8 million

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

designed to replicate its original school model and brand

2006

$10.5 million

Broad Foundation

create twenty-one new small high schools in Los Angeles by 2010

2007

$7.8 million

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

earmarked to open 10 secondary schools in the Watts community to compete directly with Locke High School

Source: Cevallos Jr., 2009

Supporters Private support is critical to Green Dot’s success. We have listed some of Green Dot’s largest supporters to date:

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

120

Figure 9-24. Green Dot Public School Supporters $1,000,000 and above

$500,000 and above

Broad Foundation Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Edna and McConnel Clark Foundation Michael and Susan Dell Foundation Wasserman Foundation Oscar De La Hoya Foundation New Schools Venture Fund The Walton Family Weingart Foundation Pisces Foundation Carnegie Corporation of New York AEG

The Ahmanson Foundation W.M. Keck Foundation Cortopassi Foundation John W. Corson Foundation Stuart Foundation The California Wellness Foundation Begin Today for Tomorrow Wells Fargo Annenberg Foundation Prudential The Ralph M. Parsons Foundations Westly Foundaion United Way Joseph Drown Foundation

Source: Greendot.org

Financial Pressures Unlike most charter school management organizations, whose leaders staunchly oppose teachers unions, Green Dot teachers are unionized. But one thing Green Dot teachers cannot bargain for is tenure (Calefati, 2009) Former CEO Steve Barr believes Green Dot’s success is possible because its teachers aren’t part of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) but rather Asociacion de Maestros Unidos (AMU). AMU, an affiliate of the California Teachers Association (CTA), was organized by teachers at Animo Leadership and Animo Inglewood in 2003. Green Dot signed a three year agreement with the AMU in May 2003 according to the Business Plan.

The AMU’s collective bargaining agreement is 33 pages compared to UTLA’s 330 page document (Robelen, 2007). Some other key reforms written into the contract, according to the CDPS’ business plan, include the following: no tenure, teacher performance evaluations, longer school years and flexibility to adjust the contract in critical areas over time.

Green Dot outlines its reason for unionizing teachers in the 2004 business plan: Teachers unions are another constituency that Green Dot works closely with to influence change. Working with the teachers union is a significant advantage for Green Dot as it enables Green Dot to attract and retain top talent. A collaborative relationship with the teachers union is also beneficial since the union is a key influencer in driving education reform throughout the State. Getting teachers unions excited about Green Dot’s small, urban high schools will unlock an enormous asset that can be used to accelerate the pace of transforming California’s urban high schools. Creating unionized schools also improves Green Dot’s relations with LAUSD and provides Green Dot schools with access to best practices and other resources.

Capital Leases GDPS has entered into agreements to lease various equipment. Such agreements are, in substance, purchases (capital leases) and are reported as capital lease obligations. GDPS' liability on lease agreements with options to purchase is summarized below:

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

121

Ownership

Green Dot was founded by Steve Barr in 1999. Barr quickly gained a reputation as an outspoken critic of LAUSD’s traditional schools and a bit of an instigator (McGray, 2009).

As polarizing a figure as founder and CEO Steve Barr was, one thing remains clear; Barr was an effective organizer and fundraiser. As of 2009, Barr had raised more than $40 million from philanthropies and other donors to support his educational reform efforts (Cevallos Jr. 2009).

Barr stepped down from day to day operations at Green Dot in 2009 amid controversy. In 2009 he was ordered to repay his own organization more than $50,000 after an internal review found that expenses he had charged were undocumented or unjustified (McGray, 2009). Barr eventually resigned from Green Dot’s board of directors in 2012 (Guzman-Lopez, 2012).

Figure 9-25. Green Dot’s Management Team

Name

Title

Bio

Marco Petruzzi

Chief Executive Officer, Green Dot Public Schools National

●

founded r3 school solutions

Dr. Cristina de Jesus

President and Chief Executive Officer, Green Dot Public Schools California

●

English and History teacher for seven years in the Santa Monica/Malibu School District

Sabrina Ayala

Chief Financial Officer

●

10 years of Wall Street experience

Dr. Kevin Keelen

Chief Information Officer

●

Director of Curriculum for Revolution Prep

Damien White

Chief Operating Officer

●

engineer with General Motors and held strategy and marketing positions with Toyota Motor Sales

Annette Gonzalez

Chief Academic Officer

●

previously the Vice President of Education for Green Dot Public Schools

Kelly Hurley

Chief Talent Officer

●

educational career in the Long Beach Unified School District

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

122

Megan Quaile

Chief Growth Officer

●

Chief Executive Officer and cofounder of Civitas Schools

Leilani Abulon

Cluster Director

●

teacher at Animo Inglewood Charter High School

Dr. Gordon Gibbings

Dr. Gordon Gibbings

●

Principal of Animo South Los Angeles Charter High School (ASLA)

Michelle Green

Cluster Director

●

principal of Benton Middle Magnet School of Visual and Performing Arts

Chad Soleo

Vice President of Advancement

●

founding principal of Ánimo Pat Brown Charter High School, and an assistant principal at Locke

Nithya Rajan

Vice President of Strategic Planning

●

Interim Executive Director at the College-Ready Promise

Source: Greendot.org

Figure 9-26. Board of Directors (National) Name

Title

Bio

Marlene Canter

Board Chairman

●

Former LAUSD Board President

Jess Womack

Board Vice Chairman, Attorney

●

former Inspector General to LAUSD

Brad Rosenberg

Board Secretary

●

Chairman of Imagine L.A.

Roy Romer

Director

●

Former Governor of Colorado and Superintendent of LAUSD

Paul Miller

Director

●

Program Officer at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

● Timothy Wahl

Director

●

Faculty Member, Cal State Northridge

Source: Greendot.org

Figure 9-27. Board of Directors (California) Name

Title

Kevin Reed

Board Vice Chairman

●

Vice Chancellor of Legal Affairs at UCLA

Jon Goodman

Board Secretary,

●

President, Town Hall Los Angeles

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

Bio

●

123

Ref Rodriguez

Director

●

President and CEO of Partners for Developing Futures

Peter Scranton

Director

●

Venture Entrepreneur

Bradley Tabach-Bank

Director

●

General Counsel, RP Realty Partners

Gilbert Vasquez

Director

●

Managing Partner, Vasquez & Company, LLP

Salina Joiner

Director

●

President, Asociacion de Maestros Unidos (AMU)

Source: Greendot.org

9.5 Magnolia Public Schools Background Magnolia Educational and Research Foundation (MERF) doing business as Magnolia Public Schools (MPS) is a non-profit charter school management organization that controls 12 charter schools in the State of California.

MERF, headquartered in Westminster, California, was founded in 1997 and began as a volunteer tutor organizer for subjects in mathematics and science departments. The early focus on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) has remained an essential part of MPS. According to MPS’ website, these schools can be organize by level accordingly: ● 3 middle schools (grades 6-8), ● 1 elementary school (grades K-5), and ● 8 high schools (grades 6-12) (“About”, 2014).

Although the website claims to manage 12 charter schools, it only gives information for 11 on its website. While the chain of schools is called MPS, each school is called a Magnolia Science Academy (MSA) with either a number and/or a locational identifier at the end. There are MPS (MSAs) in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, and San Diego. Los Angeles, the home of MERF, houses the following 8 of the 11 total schools. ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

MSA-2 Valley MSA-3 Carson MSA-4 Venice MSA-5 Hollywood MSA-6 Palms MSA-7 Van Nuys MSA-8 Bell MSA-1 Reseda

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

124

Figure 9-28. Locations of Magnoila Charter Schools

The following sections are taken directly from MPS’ website and lists the organization’s Vision, Mission, and Core Values (“About”, 2014). Careful attention is paid to the emphasis MPS places on preparing its students for careers in STEM-related industries.

Vision Graduates of Magnolia Public Schools (MPS) are scientific thinkers who contribute to the global community as socially responsible and educated members of society.

Mission MPS provides a college preparatory educational program emphasizing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) in a safe environment that cultivates respect for self and others Core Values MPS has identified the following core values, which are reinforced through its “Get Ready for Life (GRFL)” curriculum, expected schoolwide learning results (ESLR), and all school activities.

• Value: Scholarship GRFL: Success GRFL: Self Discipline • Value: Critical Thinking GRFL: Citizenship GRFL: Personal Qualities • Value: Effective Communication GRFL: Conflict Resolution GRFL: Human Relations • Value: Social Responsibility GRFL: Respect GRFL: Responsible Choices Leadership

While more research needs to be devoted to the structure and identities of leadership of MPS, a brief analysis reveals the importance of STEM professionals in the hiring/assigning of leadership. For example, all but one of the board members (see chart below) did not study a STEM profession in undergraduate and graduate work. The website (“About”, 2014) flaunts the academic and professional achievements of its board members, many of

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

125

which are highly published and/or have patents pending. Only one board member has a background in financial and charter school management.

Figure 9-29. Magnolia School Management Team Name

Title

Email

Murat Biyik

Interim Chief Executive Officer, coo@magnoliapublicschools.org Chief Operations Officer

Michelle Crumpton, M.Ed.,MA.CI

Chief Academic Officer

cao@magnoliapublicschools.org

Kelly Hourigan

Director of Student Services

sped@magnoliapublicschools.org

Derya Hajmeirza

Human Resources

hrmanager@magnoliapublicschool s.org

David E. Yilmaz, M.S.

Director of Accountability

accountability@magnoliapublicsch ools.org

Rasul Monoshev

IT Director

it@magnoliapublicschools.org

Lydiett Vega

Executive Office Manager

eomanager@magnoliapublicschool s.org

Figure 9-30. Board Members for Magnolia Charter Schools Name

Current Position/Employer

Education

Other Information

Saken Sherkhanov, Board Secretary

Current Ph.D. Student/UCLA Chemistry & Biochemistry

B.S. in Biology

Former MPS Teacher

Bayram Yenikaya, Ph.D.

Algorithm Engineer/Invarium, Inc.; Senior Consultant/Cadence Design Systems

Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics

Member of Development team for Magnolia Science Academy - Santa Barbara

Mustafa Kaynak, Ph.D.

Technical Staff Member/STMicroelectr onics, Data Storage Division

Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering

Former charter school volunteer

Umit Yapanel, Ph. D.

Senior Algorithm Developer/Audience Speech Recognition

PhD. Automatic Speech Recognition

Former founding board member of Lotus School for Excellence in Colorado

Francisco Huidobro

Small Marketing Business Owner/Selfemployed

M.S. Astrophysics

15 years of teaching at high school and college levels;; member of Parent Task Force for an MPS

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

126

charter school.

Noel RussellUnterburger

Executive Level Accountant/Various

B.S. Business Management

Financial advisor for a number of charter schools

Finances

MPS provides an interesting financial case study in charter school management financial practices. According to a ProPublica (2013) analysis of IRS information, in the fiscal year ending in 2012, MPS ran a deficit of over $1 million.

Since 2012, it appears that MPS have fixed this financial situation, although there remains a lot of uncertainty surrounding the issue. The following tables (MPS, 2014) outline the Total Revenue and Expenditures of the fiscal year 2013. While ProPublica (2013) and National Center for Charitable Statistics (2014) research puts both the total revenue and expenditures in the $30,000 range, the expenditures and revenues provided by MPS (“Financial”, 2013), only track between $3-$4 million on each side. There may be a simple explanation for this, but unclear information keeps us from understanding where each sources gets its number.

Figure 9-31. Magnolia Charter Schools Expenditures and Revenue

NET ASSETS AND LEVERAGE RATIOS Figure 9-32 is provided by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS, 2014) describes the net assets ratio (or the proportion of net assets to its overall expenditures) of MPS. The graph reveals that MERF expenditures since 2001 come very close to, and sometimes overpass, its net assets, which is very different from its peer group.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

127

Figure 9-32. Magnolia Charter Schools Net Assets Ratio

Figure 9-33 also comes from NCCS (2014) and demonstrates the leverage ratio (total liabilities over total assets) for MERF. According to this depiction, MERF’s liabilities outweigh its assets in large and sporadic ways, especially when compared to the steady and small peer group.

Figure 9-33. Magnolia Charter Schools Leverage Ratio

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

128

Future Research: School Closure Threats and the Gulen Charter School Movement In the summer of 2014, the LAUSD CSD decided NOT to recommend two MPS for renewal based on its failure to meet renewal criteria. Very serious allegations surrounding financial details of this case further put the entire organization under scrutiny. While a judge overturned this decision, the two schools are now operating on a sort of probation. The details of this case are vast and complicated and strewn with conspiracy theories.

Many search results of online inquiry into MPS and MERF yield a connection of the organization to the Gulen Charter School Movement. According to an article by an advocacy group called Citizens Against Special Interest Lobbying in Public Schools (2014): A Gulen charter school is a publicly-funded charter school that was founded and is run by individuals who are secretly followers of a Turkish imam named Fethullah Gulen. Gulen's followers are called Gulenists, and collectively they form a worldwide covert network called the Gulen Movement. The key defining feature of Gulen charter schools is that control of the schools' policies and (most importantly) finances lies entirely in the hands of Gulenists.

NOTE: this report does not intend to validate the strong and harmful accusations made by these parties. The scope of this report did not allow for a deep evaluation of these ties. We feel confident saying that the network of individuals across boards and companies, while interesting, is not inherently different than the nature of networks spanning the entire charter school industry.

9.6 Synthesis: comparison of case studies Based on our research, we observed the following trends: First, these charter schools are committed to growth goals that explicitly stated how many students they plan to enroll and schools they plan to open. However, while these charter school chains are indeed growing, they are not growing as fast as they committed.

Second, we found that, if attempting to grow, charter school chains must maintain financial solvency, or the ability for a charter school to meet its long term financial goals. One element of this financial solvency is a charter school’s ability to meet its long term growth goals. A charter school’s long term financial plans are predicated on its growth. An indicator of financial solvency is whether a charter school’s revenue exceeds its costs--in other words, whether a charter school can maintain a profit margin. The CMOs in our analysis operate as non-profits, but this does not imply that they are disinterested in turning a profit. In fact, this profit margin creates a revenue stream that can be used to acquire more property, which allows charter school chains to open new schools and expand their brand. Profit margins are generally inconsistent across the charter schools in our analysis.

Finally, charter schools, like traditional public schools, seek funding from government funding streams. The majority of revenue comes from state sources. Like traditional public schools, the biggest expenditures are teacher services. However, in order to acquire more property and finance facilities, charter schools must seek money from private donors. Charter school facilities costs are typically only calculated when the school plans to purchase a facility. Charter schools argue that public sources do not account for the entire cost of purchasing facilities when calculating apportionment. While some public revenue streams exist to support facility acquisition, charter schools seek loans, donations, and investments from private sources to cover facility costs. We explore these costs in greater detail throughout the paper.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

129

See Appendix 9 for a side-by-side comparison of CMO indicators.

Figure 9-34. Comparison of CMOs finances

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

130

10. Relationships of the Industry to Government The public sector acts as both a supplier to charter schools (through funds, for example) and provides the consumers of their education product. The introduction through charter schools of the private sector into the public education sector demands that attention be paid to the nature of this relationship. This chapter studies the evolving relationship between the charter school industry and the public education sector.

Government regulations and programs clearly connect the public sector and charter schools. This chapter provides an overview and an analysis of these regulations and programs in order to elucidate the nature of this relationship. We pay careful attention to the public funding of charter schools in this section. We then discuss the concerns that the community has with the restructuring of the public education sector by charter schools.

This chapter also evaluates the power structure of the public education sector as it relates to the charter school industry in Los Angeles and beyond. Examining the relationships between the multitude of parties involved in the charter school industry provides this analysis.

10.1. Forms of Government Impacts – Fees and Regulation Almost every level of government influences public charter schools. The table below is our attempt to understand, at a macro level, all of the governing agencies that rule public schools, and the ways in which these entities leverage power. The purple text connotes that the law or program is exclusively related to charter schools.

Broadly, the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the operation of any public schools, since education was not explicitly called out in the U.S. Constitution. While the legislative branch of the U.S. government has passed certain laws affecting schools, the true power of the federal government over schools is budgetary. For the most part, full governing power rests within individual states. At the state level, the main law governing schools is the California Education code. This code is a permissive code, which means that school districts have the power to govern as they wish unless prohibited in the code. This gives school districts more power than any other local entity in California. (California Department of Education, 2014) Under the Charter School Act of 1992 §47610-47615, charter schools are exempt from most of the codes in the California Education Code. The state still has the power to regulate school districts’ operations and district boundaries, through the State Board of Education (SBE). The State also controls the policy direction for education, through the office of the Governor and the State Legislature. The State Legislature has passed a number of bills specifically related to charter schools, a few of which are highlighted below. Many of these bills allocate funding for charter schools and regulate petitions for charter schools.

Figure 10-1. Governing Agencies that oversee Charter Schools and Related Prominent Laws Government

Key Agencies/Legislative Body

Prominent Laws and Programs

Federal

● ●

Department of Education Department of Agriculture (for nutrition programs)

●

All Federal Programs (Grants and Funding) ○ Federal Charter School Program (1994) ○ No Child Left Behind (2001) ○ Race to the Top Fund (R2T) ○ Common Core ○ Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) ○ The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ○ National School Lunch Program (NSLP) ○ Higher Education Act ○ Higher Education Opportunity Act

State

●

Governor ○ Appointments

●

These do not include grants and funding sources

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

131

● ● ●

● ● ● ● LA County

●

● ●

LAUSD

● ● ●

City of Los Angeles

○ Policy Direction State Legislature (Assembly and Senate) ○ Policy Direction California State Board of Education (SBE) ○ Oversight of Districts California Department of Education ○ Research ○ Review ○ Legal Counsel Commission on Teacher Credentialing California Supreme Court ○ Cases affecting laws California Building Standards Commission CalOSHA

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

California Education Code (permissive) California Charter School Act (1992) Prop 187 (Immigration status of Students, 1994) AB 544 (1998) (Petitions for Charter Schools) SB 740 (2001) (Charter Schools Facility Grant Program) Prop 39 (2003) AB 740 (2005) (Categorical Block Grant Program) Parent Empowerment Law (2009) (Parents Petition for Charter Schools) Prop 20 (Tax policy, 2012) Local Control Funding Formula (2014) Vergara v California (2014)

LA County Office of Education (LACOE) ○ Research ○ Review ○ Counsel County Superintendent of Schools ○ CEO of LACOE and secretary of LABOE LA County Board of Education (LABOE) ○ Authorizes Charter Schools LAUSD District Offices Charter School Division (1993) Special Elections ○ School Bond Elections ○ Parcel Taxes

●

Charter Augmentation Grant Program

Does not control Charter Schools but votes on measures (mentioned above) to increase local funding for public schools. These funding sources are not always used for Charter Schools.

Source: Author compiled, see list of references for more information

We have highlighted some of these prominent laws below.

According to the California Education Code (47601), the California Charter School Act is intended to “provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure, as a method to accomplish all of the following: ● ● ● ● ● ●

Improve pupil learning.

Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving.

Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods.

Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the schoolsite.

Provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school system.

Hold the schools established under this part accountable for meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

132

●

Provide vigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools.”

Charter schools came to California after the California Charter School Act (SB 1448) was signed into law in 1992

by Governor Pete Wilson. (CSBA 2009) The California Charter School Act provided for the establishment of 100 charter schools in the State. In 1998, that number increased to 250, and was designed to increase by 100 after every year after the passage of AB 544. (California Education Code 47602) AB 544 also restricted the School Board of Education’s ability to deny petitions for new charter schools, reinforcing the establishment of charter schools in California’s educational system. (CSBA 2009) Statewide ballot measure Proposition 39 was passed into law in 2003. This proposition reduced the required voting majority that was needed to issue bonds for charter facilities from two-thirds to a 55 percent vote. The proposition also mandated that public school buildings be shared among all public school pupils, including those in charter schools. The proposition required each school district to provide facilities sufficient for charter schools located within the districts geographical boundaries regardless of whether the district approved the charter (CSBA, 2009). The State court system may also impact charter schools, as with the passage of Vergara v California, as we have outlined previously.

In, 1994, the Federal Public Charter School Program (CSP) was made law as part of 1994 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Act. The program is designed to help charter schools in states where they are legally allowed. President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, holding schools accountable for student achievement levels through standardized testing and providing penalties for schools that do not make adequate yearly progress toward meeting the goals of NCLB. Additionally, NCLB allowed students attending schools labeled as under-performing by state standards the option to transfer to a different school in the district, either public or charter.

State-wide ballot measure Proposition 39 went into effect in 2003. The primary impact of Prop. 39 was reducing the threshold required to pass California school district bond issues for facilities from a two-thirds supermajority vote to a 55 percent vote. Prop. 39 also mandated that public school facilities should be shared fairly among all public school pupils, including those in charter schools. The proposition required each school district to provide facilities sufficient for charter schools located within the district’s geographical boundaries regardless of whether the district approved the charter (CSBA, 2009).

Charter schools became a key element of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) supported standards-based education by placing extensive requirements on states and districts to respond to academic underperformance. NCLB outlined a system of escalating sanctions for schools that receive Title I funding and do not meet yearly progress goals (CSBA, 2009). If a failing traditional school cannot show adequate yearly progress it may be designated a charter school under NCLB. Additionally, NCLB allowed students attending schools labeled as under-performing by state standards the option to transfer to a different school in the district, whether it is a traditional public or charter school.

So how does California charter legislation compare to the rest of the country? The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools releases an annual report where they rank states with charter legislation by strength of state charter school laws. NAPCS evaluates each state’s charter school law against 20 essential components NAPCS has defined as indicators of strong public charter school law. Out of all 42 States and the District of Columbia that currently have charter school laws, California ranked as the state with the ninth strongest charter laws in the nation. For a brief summary of California charter law stacked against the NAPCS components, please see Appendix 10.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

133

10.2 Government Regulations and Economic Structures The State of California sets the formula for how much money public schools are allocated. In essence, the state sets the parameters for the economic structure of schools by dictating budget allocations. Government agencies, usually the State of California, also define how money should be spent within each category of the budget. We have outlined the major categories below, including enrollment, facilities, food, and teacher salaries.

School districts in California, as mentioned above, exercise greater flexibility in determining budget allocations than most other municipal entities. The new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) further reinforces local control, which passed the state legislature in 2013 and is being implemented this year. LCFF is a funding mechanism that calculates how much school districts, charter schools, and community colleges will receive from the state government based on a new formula, which provides greater revenue for students of higher need.

(LAUSD, 2014) All local education agencies (LEAs) must comply with LCFF, including school districts and directfunded charter schools.

Prior to LCFF, California schools relied on general purpose funding, or funding based on student enrollment, in addition to 50 separate grant programs that were administered by the State. Almost all 50 of these funding programs have been discontinued in light of LCFF. While LCFF will take about eight years to fully unroll, the new LCFF represents a progressive shift in how LEAs are funded, which provides more guaranteed funding based on demographic profiles of the students and increases accountability requirements. (California Department of Education, 2014) Instead of schools receiving the same base funding per pupil and then applying for grants and special programs for low-income and high needs students, these needs will be factored into funding first.

Two regulatory agencies determine how state money is allocated to charter schools. Affiliated charter schools, under the local education agency’s (LEA) jurisdiction like LAUSD, may receive state allocated funds through the LEA if the LEA oversees the charter for the school. Direct-funding charter schools, or independent charter schools, can receive funding directly from the state. Independent charter schools operate like their own local control agency and must complete a local control funding formula for each charter school with a separate petition.

(Education Code §47605 (k)(1)) The new funding formula allows for greater flexibility to improve student outcomes. Charter schools and LEAs will be allocated similar amounts per pupil, in addition to the Charter School Categorical Block Grant, which will remain active. However, much of this categorical funding will pay for service fees to LAUSD, for special education services, and to pay for facilities. (LAUSD, 2014) Enrollment Charter school budgets are based primarily on student enrollment. Student enrollment for a charter school must conform to education code §47605 (2)(A). In other words, how much revenue a charter school can bring in has been explicitly defined and regulated by the state education code, creating certain limits on this source of revenue generation. This is very similar to traditional public schools. California Education code mandates that a charter school shall admit all pupils who wish to attend the school (EC §47605 (2)(A)). As is often the case, more students may apply for enrollment to a charter than can be admitted, creating the need for an admissions process. Charter schools are required by federal law to have a fair and open admissions process. When a charter school receives more new student applications than spaces they can accept, students are admitted through a lottery system. Lotteries that give preference to one set of students over another are called weighted lotteries. In 2014, the US Department of Education posted a new guidance related to the Charter School Program to address the issue of diversity in existing charter schools. One element required by California Education Code §47605(b) is “a racial and ethnic balance among (charter school) pupils that is reflective of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the school district to which the charter petition is submitted.” In accordance with this new stipulation and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Equal Protection Clause of the A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

134

Constitution, or applicable state law (Department of Education, 2004), a charter school may use weighted lotteries that give low income and minority students a better chance at admissions.

Since this new funding mechanism gives priority to students of ethnic minorities and students receiving free or reduced lunch, charter schools may have an incentive to implement weighted lotteries exclusively.

Facilities The typical charter school budget allocates money for facilities, food, staff salaries, and transportation. If an agency directs charter schools on how to spend that money for each of these categories, this can also affect the economic structure of the school. Traditional public schools do not have to pay for renting or owning a facility, thus the cost of renting, buying or rehabilitating a school building is unique to charter schools and can be the biggest burden of starting a charter school.

As previously mentioned, the Charter School Act of 1992 exempted charter schools from the regulations of the State Education Code; however, charter schools must still comply with the The California Building Standards Code (Part 2 (commencing with Section 101) of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) (California Education Code, 2013). Section 11969.3 of the education portion of the CCR maintains that the conditions provided by charter schools must be “reasonably equivalent” to those in traditional public schools. Traditional public school facilities are constructed and owned the Local Education Agency (LEA). Upfront costs are high; however, as urban land values march inexorably higher, the LEA recoups its investment. Charter schools, in contrast, often lease facilities. If they do not lease, the private Charter Management Organization (CMO) owns the property. The student capacity of a charter school facility is the first factor that is examined to determine if it meets facility standards. Next, the condition of the facilities provided by the charter school is compared to the conditions of traditional public school facilities.

Food Charter schools may apply for a for a subsidy from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide lunch services for their students; however, they are exempt from providing at least one meal to students a day, as traditional public schools must do. (MacVean 2011) Some administrators claim that their schools do not have enough funds to provide meal service and kitchen staff, despite having student populations that overwhelmingly qualify for free or reduced lunch. Other administrators also say that they do not have the staff capacity to maintain records for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to receive meal service. (MacVean 2011) Schools that are co-located in public schools, or that are an affiliated charter school, can pay the local school district to rent out their services, though they are not required. Above all, the flexibility of not providing food services gives charter schools greater flexibility on their budgets compared to traditional public schools.

Teacher Quality Teacher salaries are a large share of charter school budgets. Whether a government entity requires schools to pay teachers at a certain wage, explicitly or implicitly, would also affect budgets. According to California Education Code (§47605(l)), teachers in charter schools are required to hold a certificate, permit, or other document equivalent. The California Commision on Teacher Credentialing acts as the regulating and oversight board for local education agencies, including charter schools. According to a comparison of traditional public school employees and charter school employees, traditional public schools are far more likely to establish salary schedules than charter schools, which means traditional public school teachers are more likely to be paid based on experience (97% of public schools and 62% of charter schools studied reported using salary schedules to determine compensation). (Malloy and Wohlstetter, 2003) Instead, charter schools base pay on student performance and other factors, hoping to increase innovation. (Exstrom, 2012) Charter schools can exercise more discretion over teacher salaries and payrolls because many do not use the salary schedule; however, charter

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

135

schools must hire teachers with state-approved credentials, and theoretically must offer salaries to those teachers that are competitive with traditional public school salaries.

10.3. Available Funding Before we address the subsidies available to charter schools in LAUSD, we will first provide some context on how public schools in California receive funding.

Funding for California public schools was historically based on local property tax revenues. This approach led to wide interdistrict spending inequalities because a school district with high property values could raise more revenue per pupil than a district with lower property values. These sometimes dramatic differences in school district funding led to the ruling in Serrano v. Priest (1976), which declared the existing system of financing schools unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the State Constitution (LAUSD, 2014).

The ruling called for a general equalization of the state apportionment revenue to school districts through property tax rates and per pupil expenditures.

Property tax revenues available to school districts were significantly reduced after California voters approved Proposition 13 in 1978. California legislation tried to cushion the impact of reduced property tax revenues on school districts by shifting state money to Elementary and Secondary public schools. Propositions 98 and 111 helped guarantee a minimum funding level from State and property tax revenue for K-14 public schools. The minimum guarantee allocates around 40 percent of the State’s general fund revenue (primarily from income taxes, sales taxes and lottery revenue) to fund public K-14 schools. Of that 40 percent of the State’s general fund, anywhere between 88 percent-91 percent of the revenue is allocated to elementary and secondary schools while the remaining amount is given to Community Colleges (LAUSD, 2014).

The shift from property tax to State funding revenue for California public schools has also led to more cyclical funding variations based on the State’s economy. Sales and income taxes are more volatile sources of revenue than property taxes and tend to fluctuate more dramatically based on the economy (LAUSD, 2014). This was evident during the recent economic recession when Prop. 98 revenue fell 13 percent to $49 billion between 2008 and 2009 (EdSource, 2014). Further, California’s Governor and State Legislature, whose vote on the State Budget Act determines how State funds may be spent, have enormous control over the ability of local school districts to utilize funding to meet the specific needs of their students (LAUSD, 2014). School district funds in California are split approximately 60-40 for general purpose and specific purpose respectively. Examples of specific purpose needs include special education, low income, limited English-proficient students and specific grade levels.

As mentioned earlier, public school district funding underwent one of the largest changes to its structure in 2013 after Governor Brown established the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). LCFF is California’s new formula for determining the level of state funding provided to districts. Under LCFF, the state provides a base grant for all students and additional grants for high-need students such as English Learners and socio-economically disadvantaged pupils (LAUSD, 2014).

The LCFF structure implemented very recent changes to charter school funding in California, which made our research both challenging and exciting. Until 2013, public school funding was based on a complicated system of general and categorical program funding streams. The LCFF eliminated the revenue limit and most of the state categorical programs funding streams. The categorical programs that are folded into the LCFF are not bound by the program compliance requirements that existed before the implementation of LCFF. Below is a list of charterspecific categorical programs participated in by LAUSD that are now folded into the LCFF. 1. Charter School Categorical Block Grant 2. Charter School In-lieu of EIA A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

136

3. Core Academic Program (Supplemental Instruction) 4. New Charter School Supplemental Categorical BG After providing a brief overview of how charter schools and public schools in LAUSD receive funding, we will now explore some of the various District/State/Federal opportunities for charter schools to receive additional funding.

Below we have listed categorical programs and subsidies available to charter schools in LAUSD that have not been discontinued as of the 2013-2014 fiscal year or are not a part of LCFF. **The following information was found from the “Finance and Grants” section of the California Department of Education website and the Charter School Development Center.

Name: Charter School Program (CSP) Agency: U.S. Dept. of Education Type: Competitive grant Description: The purpose of the Charter Schools Program (CSP) is to increase the national understanding of the charter school model by (1) expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation by providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and (2) by evaluating the effects of charter schools, including their effects on students, student academic achievement, staff and parents.

The Secretary awards grants to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) on a competitive basis to enable them to conduct charter school programs in their States. SEA’s use their CSP funds to award subgrants to non-SEA eligible applicants in their State. These subgrants are used for two primary purposes: (1) initial planning, program design, and implementation of new charter schools; and (2) dissemination of information, including best practices, by charter schools open at least three consecutive years with demonstrated success in several areas, as specified by statute.

Name: Public Charter Schools Grant Program (PCSGP) Agency: U.S. Dept. of Education Type: Competitive grant Descrption: The PCSGP 2010-15 is a subgrant program funded by the federal CSP that funds planning and implementation (P/I) and dissemination grants. The P/I grant provide grants of up to $575,000.00 to plan and implement new charter schools. It serves California's public charter schools by providing startup and initial operating capital to assist schools in establishing high quality, high performing charter school operations for California students and their families. The dissemination grant provides grants to charter schools to disseminate best practices likely to significantly improve academic achievement in California's K-12 public education system.

Name: Lottery Agency: State of California Type: Revenue Description: Lottery Funds are provided to local school districts on the basis of lottery sales and districts’ annual Average Daily Attendance (ADA). These funds may be spent for various instructional purposes and may not be used for land, building repair, construction or research. Under Proposition 20, passed by the voters in March 2000, 50 percent of new lottery revenue above the 1997-98 level must be used for instructional materials only.

This component of the lottery funds, because it is restricted, is not included in the per pupil funding model.

Name: Charter School Facility Grant Program Agency: California School Finance Authority (CSFA) Type: Noncompetitive grant Description: The Charter School Facility Grant Program is a noncompetitive program that provides assistance with facilities rent and lease expenditures for charter schools that meet specific eligibility criteria. The grant program was enacted in 2002 to reimburse charter schools for rental and lease costs in low-income areas. This program is targeted toward schools and communities with high proportions of economically disadvantaged students. Eligible applicants must have at least 70 percent of students enrolled at the charter school who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals or the charter school must be physically located in an elementary school attendance area where at least 70 percent of students enrolled are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The charter school must also give a preference in admissions to students who reside in the elementary school A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

137

attendance area. The charter schools are funded $750 per unit of classroom-based average daily attends, up to 75 percent of its annual facilities rent and lease costs for the school.

Name: Charter School Facilities Credit Enhancement Grant Program Agency: California School Finance Authority (CSFA) Type: grant Description: An $8.3 million program, [awarded to CSFA by the US Department of Education], that serves to fund debt service reserves for the financing of acquisition, renovation, or construction of charter school facilities, or the refinancing of existing charter school facility debt.

Name: Charter School Facility Program Agency: Office of Public School Construction and CSFA Type: grant Description: A $900 million program that provides low-cost financing for charter school facilities; fifty percent grant, fifty percent loan.” Propositions 47, 55, and 1D have supported the program. The Program is jointly administered by the Office of Public School Construction and the CSFA, and provides funds for “construction of new facilities or rehabilitation of existing school district facilities” that are at least 15 years old.

Name: Charter School Revolving Loan Fund Agency: California School Finance Authority (CSFA) Type: loan Description: The Charter School Revolving Loan Fund (CSRLF), established in California Education Code sections 41365, 41366.5, 41366.7, and 41367, provides low-interest loans of up to $250,000.00 to new charter schools to help meet purposes established in the school's charters. The CSRLF serves California's public charter schools by providing startup and initial operating capital to assist schools in establishing high quality, high performing charter school operations for California students and their families.

Name: Mandate Block Grant Agency: State of California Type: grant Description: Provide funding to county offices of education (COE), school districts and charter schools to fund the costs of various mandated programs and activities identified in Government Code (GC) Section 17581.6(e).

Name: Charter Augmentation Grant Program Agency: LAUSD Type: grant Description: LAUSD is committed to developing long term solutions and assisting charter schools who have a perceived gap in the financing of their projects. The District has determined that the best method of leveraging Charter Bond funds for long term projects is to provide augmentation grants to charter operators. The Charter Augmentation Grant Program (Program) provides funds to charter schools who provide evidence of a gap in financing for their long term facilities project. The Charter is required to contribute a minimum of 65 percent of the total project cost from non District Sources. Any grant funds not redeemed within two (2) years of award are deemed forfeit and the District reserves the right to cancel the award and return the funds to the Program.

Name: Common Core Standards Implementation Fund Agency: Federal Type: Revenue Description: School districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and the state special schools use these allocated funds to support the integration of academic content standards in instruction adopted pursuant to 60605.8, 60605.85, 60605.10, 60605.11, and 60811.3 of Education Code (EC), for kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, for purposes of establishing high-quality instructional programs for all pupils.

Name: Tier III Agency: State of California Type: Revenue Description: In order to assist districts with funding shortfalls related to the State budget crisis, the State budget allows Districts to use funding from certain categorical programs for general purposes instead of for the purposes established by those programs. These programs include the Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant, Adult Education Entitlement, Regional Occupancy Center Program, School & Library Improvement Block Grant, Instructional Materials Realignment, Deferred Maintenance, Supplemental Counseling Program, School Safety & Violence Prevention, CAHSEE, Pupil Retention Block Grant, Gifted & Talented, Arts and Music Block Grant, Supplemental Hourly Programs, Professional Development Block Grant, 9th grade Class Size Reduction, and others.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

138

Name: California Career Pathways Trust Agency: State of California Type: Competitive Grant Description: This new program will provide $250 million in grants, ranging up to $15 million each, to provide funding to establish local career pathway programs to connect schools, community colleges, and businesses.

Direct-funded charter schools are eligible applicants - locally funded schools may apply in coordination with their chartering authority. The program emphasizes regional collaborative efforts, working in partnership with businesses, to establish standards-based career pathways aligned to high-growth job areas. The grant program is intended to kick-start California’s dying career-technical education system (or lack thereof) by providing seed funding to new regional collaborative organizations (Charter School Development Center).

Name: Prop. 39 - California Clean Energy Jobs Act Agency: CDE and California Energy Commission Type: Apportionment Description: This new program provides grants on a per-ADA basis to schools to support energy efficiency projects. The program is jointly administered by the CDE and California Energy Commission and funding is contingent on gaining plan approval by the California Energy Commission. Proposition 39 provides funding to local educational agencies for improving energy efficiency and creating clean energy jobs.

Name: School Nutrition Program Agency: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Type: Apportionment Description: Funding supports five school meal and milk programs to assist schools, districts, and other nonprofit agencies in providing nutritious meals and milk to children at reasonable prices or free to qualified applicants. The five programs are the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Seamless Summer Feeding Option (SSFO), Special Milk Program (SMP), and State Meal Program (STMP).

10.4. Tax and Investment Policy Impacts New Market Tax Credits were created through the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 (H.R. 5662 2000), which provides tax incentives to businesses that locate in and hire residents of economically depressed areas.

This generous tax break can be used for charter school development, and also allows investors to combine this tax credit with interest that they can collect on any money they lend, combined with other tax breaks. According to Alan Singer of Hofstra University, the credit may allow investors to double their investment within the seven years that they are given to collect the tax credit. (2014) This also benefits foreign investors who invest at least $500,000 into charter school companies can buy immigration visas under federal program EB-5. (Singer, 2014; Simon, 2012; Strauss 2014) Supporters of these tax credits might argue that these tax credits allow more charter schools to open, by lowering the barriers to entry of charter schools.

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) estimated that 195 New Market Tax Credits have been awarded to organizations involved in charter school development. These tax credits total $10.8B. Much of this was used for low income housing development, economic development, and investments beyond charter schools. Yet, LISC estimates $1.6 billion of these funds are being used for charter schools.

As these barriers lower, more innovative charter schools can open, thereby increasing the access that students have to innovative charter schools. However, given the attention that investors have made to the charter school movements, motivations are likely not altruistic. Singer (2024), Simon (2012) and Strauss (2014), mentioned above, have drawn connections between investors of charter schools and charter school management corporations, suggesting that these investors stand to gain higher return on investment as both the loan guarantor to start up charter schools and the lessor of facilities. Singer attributes the ambiguity of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act as the reason investors stand to gain a windfall from the tax credit.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

139

10.5. Community concerns with the industry The charter school movement increases and diversifies the parties involved in the funding and delivery of public education. There are numerous community concerns associated with the restructuring of the public education sector. The influx of private parties into the public education sector causes any to be at least wary of the charter school industry. This sub-section briefly explains the ways in which the private sector has entered the public education sector and then describes the concerns that the community raises with this entrance.

Charter Management Organizations Charter school management organizations (CMOs) illustrate the most obvious point of private party entrance into the public school sector. While this has been discussed at length in other sections, it is worth reiterating the concerns associated with the private management of public schools.

CMOs are given much more autonomy than their traditional public school counterparts. While this may encourage innovation, it also raises questions concerning the accountability and transparency of charter schools. As private entities, it is much more difficult to discern where and why funds are being spent, for example.

The entrance of charter schools into public school systems raises concerns about its impact on the surrounding public schools. One of the central tenets of the charter school movement is that inter-school competition will result in better-performing, more-efficient public school systems. Charter schools don’t just compete against each other; they also compete against traditional public schools that have not had to compete for students and funding prior, but without the autonomy and independence to compete that charter schools enjoy.

Venture Philanthropy A growing body of literature studies the increased role of philanthropists in the education sector due to the charter school industry (Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Scott, 2009). These scholars analyze the role that philanthropic organizations play in the politics of public education. Scott (2009), for example, discusses how venture (or “new”) philanthropies differ from traditional forms. Venture philanthropies do not seek to only support certain sectors; they seek to influence and reform the areas in which they are involved. She argues that these venture education philanthropies that are “pouring large sums into education reform...have become among the most prominent and influential educational leaders and policy makers currently influencing state departments of education and the leadership within many urban schools systems” (Scott, 2009, p. 107).

Reckhow and Snyder (2014) discuss how educational philanthropic donations have changed in recent years.

THere has been a notable increase in contributions to educational research and policy advocacy organizations since 2000. This points to the increase role that private philanthropic foundations are playing in education reform.

The remainder of the chapter focuses on the implications of the entrance of charter schools to the public education sector in terms of power structures and relationships. How are private organizations such as CMOs and venture philanthropists changing the power relationships between parties in public education?

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

140

11. The power structure of the industry The previous chapters lead us to an evaluation of the power structure of the charter school industry that is only possible with an understanding of the sector itself.

11.1. Advocacy organizations/Trade Associations

The National Education Association (NEA) “The National Education Association (NEA), the nation's largest professional employee organization, is committed to advancing the cause of public education. NEA's 3 million members work at every level of education—from preschool to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States.”

“NEA believes that charter schools and other nontraditional public school options have the potential to facilitate education reforms and develop new and creative teaching methods that can be replicated in traditional public schools for the benefit of all children.”

“State laws and regulations governing charter schools vary widely. NEA's state affiliates have positions on charter schools that are appropriate to the situation in their states. NEA's policy statement sets forth broad parameters, and minimum criteria by which to evaluate state charter laws. For example: A charter should be granted only if the proposed school intends to offer an educational experience that is qualitatively different from what is available in traditional public schools.

Local school boards should have the authority to grant or deny charter applications; the process should be open to the public, and applicants should have the right to appeal to a state agency decisions to deny or revoke a charter.

Charter school funding should not disproportionately divert resources from traditional public schools.

Charter schools should be monitored on a continuing basis and should be subject to modification or closure if children or the public interest is at risk.

Private schools should not be allowed to convert to public charter schools, and private for-profit entities should not be eligible to receive a charter.

Charter schools should be subject to the same public sector labor relations statutes as traditional public schools, and charter school employees should have the same collective bargaining rights as their counterparts in traditional public schools.”

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools “The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools is the leading national nonprofit organization committed to advancing the quality, growth, and sustainability of charter schools.”

The Center for Education Reform “It is the mission of the Center for Education Reform to accelerate the growth of the education reform movement in ways that make available to families new and meaningful choices, give parents fundamental power over their children’s education, and allow teachers and schools to innovate in ways that transform student learning.”

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

141

“We believe that school choice means giving parents the power and opportunity to choose the school their child will attend. It means that the quality of a student’s education should not be dictated by their zip code. A variety of school choice options exist today including tuition vouchers, private scholarship programs, and charter schools, which provide an alternative to the cookie-cutter district school model.”

Institute of Education Sciences (IES) “Our mission is to provide rigorous and relevant evidence on which to ground education practice and policy and share this information broadly. By identifying what works, what doesn't, and why, we aim to improve educational outcomes for all students, particularly those at risk of failure. We are the research arm of the U.S. Department of Education, and by law our activities must be free of partisan political influence..”

California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) “The California Charter Schools Association advances the charter school movement through state and local advocacy, leadership on accountability, and resources for member schools.”

11.2. Web: network of key players in the industry In order to begin understanding the power structure in the Los Angeles and California charter industry, we mapped the linkages between key players and prominent figures and organizations. First, we built a spreadsheet cross listing the different types of players with the top ten Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) in LA, which account for 39 percent of the current charter schools in the district.

Categories of key players for cross-listing with the top ten CMOs: ● CMO admins ● CMO boards, trustees, and senior advisors ● Foundations and funds, which typically donated at least $1 million last year ● Major private individual donors ● Politicians/public figures ● Advocacy organizations ● Related firms Figure 11-1. Top 10 Charter Management Organizations in LAUSD by number of schools (2014/15) NO. OF SCHOOLS TOP 10 CMOs

NO. OF SCHOOL SITES

(discluding additional sites)

1

L.A. Alliance for Public Schools

24

24

2

Green Dot Public Schools

16

16

3

KIPP LA Schools

16

11

4

Partnerships to Uplift Communities

13

12

5

Inner City Educ. Foundation

11

10

6

Aspire Public Schools

10

10

7

Celerity Ed. Group

10

6

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

142

8

Camino Nuevo Charter Academy

8

6

9

ME&R Foundation (Magnolia Schools)

8

8

6

5

TOTAL

122

108

% OF CMOs

73%

76%

% OF ALL CHARTERS

40%

39%

% OF ALL LAUSD SCHOOLS

12%

10%

10 Bright Star Schools

Source: LAUSD Directory of Charter Schools 2014/2015

The web This cross-listing was used in a mapping exercise (see the following two page spread).

All the interesting relationships could not be represented in the diagram due to the complexity of the network involved. For example, several of the boardmembers of Green Dot Public Schools have ties to LAUSD: Marlene Canter, the Chair, was the former LAUSD Board President; Jess Womack, the Vice Chair, was the former Inspector General of LAUSD; and Roy Romer was a former LAUSD superintendent. Several senior advisors at Alliance work at the Broad Foundation (Dan Katzir, who does appear on the diagram, is the Managing Director).

Marcia Aaron, the Executive Director of KIPP LA is also a major private donor. The number of foundations and funds included on the diagram had to be limited. Moreover, direct ties between some CMOs and key players could not be identified, which does not mean they do not exist.

The web, however, includes the most important players and reveals patterns in the charter industry network. It places an emphasis on following the money and the political relationships in the charter network. Deeper analysis of a few key players is included in the next section.

Major patterns in the web There is a clear concentration of relationships between the top five CMOs and the top three private foundations (Broad, Gates, and Walton). These foundations also fund Teach for America (TFA) and organizations like the California Charter School Association, Students First, and Parent Revolution.

Richard Riordan, profiled below, also stands out, as both a political figure and a board member of two top CMOs (Chair of ICEF, board member of Alliance).

The recent 2014 race for State Superintendent of Schools--the most heavily funded race--was a telling moment, and casts the web in an explicitly political light. Marshall Tuck, the losing candidate, pulled millions from procharter groups. Eli Broad made an individual contribution of $1 million. Alice Walton of the Walton Foundation and Doris Fisher, owner of the gap with her husband and founders of the KIPP Foundation, also contributed $450,000 and $950,000 respectively (Osborn, 2014). He received endorsements from the key charter political advocacy organizations, California Charter Schools Association and Students First. Tuck is a supporter of radical, marketbased education reform, charter schools, and tying teacher performance to standardized test scores. He was a board member of Teach For America and former President of Green Dot Public Schools in LA. A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

143

TOP 10 Fishers

Martha Karsh

INDIVIDUAL DONORS

NO. 1

LA Alliance for NO. 2

Green Dot Pu Eli Broad

NO. 3 Alice Walton

KIPP NO. 4

Ref Rodriguez

BOARD OF DIRECTORS + TRUSTEES

Richard Riordan

Frank Baxter

Dan Katzir

Partnership to Up NO. 5

Inner City Educa NO. 6

Aspire Publ NO. 7

Celerity Educ NO. 8

Richard Riordan

POLITICIANS/ PUBLIC FIGURES

Gov. Jerry Brown

Marshall Tuck

Camino Nuevo C NO. 9

ME&R Foundat NO. 10

Bright Sta TOTAL AS PERCENT OF ALL CHARTERS

0 CMOs 24 SCHOOLS

Broad

Public Schools Gates

16 SCHOOLS

FOUNDATIONS/ FUNDS

ublic Schools Walton

11 SCHOOLS

P LA

NewSchool Venture Fund

12 SCHOOLS

plift Communities

TFA

10 SCHOOLS

ation Foundation 10 SCHOOLS

lic Schools 6 SCHOOLS

ExED

RELATED FIRMS PCSD

InSite

TFA Teach for America PCSD Pacific Charter School Development

cation Group 6 SCHOOLS

Charter Academy 8 SCHOOLS

tion (Magnolia) 5 SCHOOLS

ar Schools

CCSA

Students First

ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS

Parent Revolution CCSA CA Charter Schools Assoc.

108 SCHOOLS 39%

11.3. Who are the industry leaders?

“The strongest evidence of converging grantmaking in Los Angeles is in the charter school sector”, writes Sarah Reckhow (2013, 65) in her book Follow the Money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public School Politics.

Studying the power structure of the charter sector in LA is largely an exercise in studying large foundations and who they fund. Therefore, this section looks at power in the charter sector via the ties between foundations and other important actors in the charter landscape in LA, including the top ten Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), advocacy organizations, private individual donors, CMO board members, politicians and public figures, and related firms. Los Angeles is an epicenter for the development, growth, and politics of the charter school reform movement. Reckhow (2013) adds: “Of the $20.7 million in major foundation funding for grantees in Los Angeles, $16.2 million went to organizations supporting charter schools” (65).

The major foundations that fund top CMOs are the Broad Foundation, headquartered in LA, and the Gates Foundation. The Walton Foundation has tended to fund individual charter schools. However, as Reckhow (2013) points out the largest grant from all three foundations was not to a CMO or charter school, but to Pacific Charter School Development (PCSD), who constructs charter school facilities in LA. New Schools Venture Fund is another important tie that links major players together in LA. It’s major purpose is to fund CMOs; both Gates and Broad are investors in the Fund. Since 2002, the Fund has raised over $50 million to support CMOs. Moreover, New Schools Venture Fund was a cofounder of PCSD. “Representatives of the Broad Foundation, New Schools Venture Fund, and Green Dot Public Schools sit on the board of PCSD” (Reckhow 2013, 66).

Nationally, grants to charter support organizations in LA during 2005 comprised 28 percent of all grant dollars awarded by major foundations for charter schools and charter-related organizations. Moreover, during the same year, no funding by major foundations was awarded to LAUSD itself, instead going to nonprofits who support charter school expansion and compete directly with LAUSD (Reckhow 2013).

The evolution of firms like the New Schools Venture Fund and use of New Market Tax Credits is emblematic of the power structure and interests of key charter sector players in Los Angeles. It is the ethos of having your cake and eating it too; philanthropists and large foundations that support neoliberal education policies as the best path to reform, of which charter schools are the poster child, have begun not only to supply a key funding stream via donations, but to invest in the sector with hopes of returns. Having your cake and eating it too is the philosophy of ideologues: market-driven policies support their free-market ideology while simultaneously feeding their taste for cake.

11.4. Profiles of key players in the industry In this section we study a few key players (foundations, advocacy organizations and politicians) in education reform in LA and nationally, including: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation The Walton Family Foundation The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Parent Revolution Richard Riordan

While we would have preferred to have profiled a larger network of entities engaged in charter school development and, more generally, education reform, due to time constraints, we were unable to spend more time A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

144

exploring further organizations. We do, however, briefly mention a few other organizations involved in education reform throughout this section.

The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation The Broad Foundation, an avid supporter of education reform, plays an instrumental role in the charter school movement in multiple ways throughout the nation, notably through providing direct funding to CMOs, pro-charter school advocacy groups, programs that train pro-charter school leaders and teachers that find work in charter schools, and other organizations involved in education reform. Through its leadership development programs, Broad Academy (an advanced development program that identifies and prepares experienced leaders to successfully run urban public education systems) and Broad Residency (a leadership development program that places qualified participants into high-level managerial positions in school districts, CMOs and federal/state departments of education), The Broad Foundation has been key in developing pro-education reform leaders that currently work in notable organizations, like Teach for America, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, KIPP Foundation, Broad Foundation, and Walton Family Foundation, and many others.

The Broad Foundation is a big player in the Los Angeles charter school movement. Between 2010 and 2012, it has provided financial support to the following CMOs that operate in Los Angeles: Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, Aspire Public Schools, Green Dot Public Schools, Inner City Education Foundation, and KIPP (the Broad Foundation Tax Forms 990 2010-2012). Further, it funds organizations that provide turnkey development services to charter schools, like Pacific Charter School Development, an organization that has worked with these L.A. based CMOs: Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, Aspire Public Schools, Green Dot Public Schools, ICEF Public Schools, KIPP LA, Partnership to Uplift Communities (PCSD website).

Through its programs, the Broad Foundation has also helped develop some local leaders in the Los Angeles charter school movement. Some of these leaders include: Parker Hudnut (CEO, ICEF Public Schools, formerly Executive Director of Innovation and Charter Schools, LAUSD), Matt Hill (Chief Strategy Officer, LAUSD), Damien White (Chief Operating Officer, Green Dot), Kyle Sayler (CFO, KIPP LA), and John Deasy (Former Superintendent, LAUSD). What is more, through its financial contributions to Parent Revolution, an organization based in Los Angeles that is a major proponent of parent trigger laws and focuses on organizing parents to convert “failing” traditional public schools into charter schools, the Broad Foundation, among other foundations, is helping to develop a cadre of local community leaders to move forward market-driven education reform in Los Angeles.

The Walton Family Foundation Like the Broad Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation’s influence over education reform efforts is large across the nation. According to a 2014 New York Times article, “the foundation has awarded more than $1 billion in grants nationally to educational efforts since 2000, making it one of the largest private contributors to education in the country.” Further, in 2013, “the Walton foundation spent more than $164 million across the country.”

Additionally, according to Marc Steinberg, the director of K-12 education reform for the foundation, “Walton has given grants to one in every four charter start-ups in the country.” In addition to the foundation’s activities, many individual members of the Walton family have made millions of dollars in campaign donations to candidates for local school boards and state legislatures who support causes funded by the foundation (New York Times, 2014).

According to the same New York Times article: “Walton’s largest recipients include the Charter School Growth Fund, which helps charter school networks expand ($101.6 million since 2000); Teach for America, which recruits high-achieving college graduates for two-year teaching stints in poor districts and now places about a third of its corps members in charter schools ($67.2 million); KIPP, one of the country’s best-known and largest charter school networks ($58.7 million); the A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

145

Alliance for School Choice, a national advocate for private school vouchers ($18.4 million), whose board includes Carrie Penner, a member of the Walton family; and GreatSchools Inc., an online schools information database ($15.5 million.)

The Walton Foundations focus on education reform emphasizes expanding parent choice, limiting teacher tenure, softening rules for dismissing teachers, and making student test scores the major factor in an instructors evaluation. According to the U.S. Department of Education website, “If a school is identified for school improvement, corrective action or restructuring, in accordance with requirements under the law a district must provide all students in the school the option to transfer to another public school or public charter school no later than the first day of the school year following identification.” The Walton Foundation supports parent choice through shaping public policy and contributing to the development and growth of charter schools. To shape public policy, the foundation supports advocacy groups promoting public charter school choice and district reforms promoting choice, like parent trigger laws, a legal maneuver through which parents can change the administration of a poorly performing public school, often by transforming it into a charter school. According to the New York Times, “last year, the foundation announced a two-year, $8 million grant to StudentsFirst, an advocacy group led by Michelle A. Rhee, the former schools chancellor in Washington who oversaw many of the policy changes funded by Walton. StudentsFirst now pushes for the extension of many of those same policies in states across the country, contributing to the campaigns of lawmakers who support the group’s agenda.”

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, the Walton Family Foundation “has focused on Los Angeles since 2007, along with other urban districts where [they believe] the environment is hospitable to choice and reform.” In 2010, the Walton Foundation “gave donations to more than 30 Los Angeles-area charter schools, as well as to eight organizations that [seek] to shape public policy in ways that will create more choices for students.”

The Walton Family Foundation has also played a significant role in helping charter schools in Los Angeles access educators through its partnership with Teach for America. In 2013, the Walton Family Foundation provided a grant to Teach for America that supported about 500 Teach for America teachers in Los Angeles, many of which teach in charter schools.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation The Gates Foundation is another big player in the movement toward education reform nationally, and in Los Angeles. While the Gates foundation also provides funding to large CMOs, like Green Dot, KIPP, and Aspire Public Schools, and other organizations who play a role in moving forward education reform, it has been the subject of much controversy for heavily funding efforts to implement “Common Core Standards” across the nation.

In simple terms, Common Core Standards seek to create a common set of educational standards from which student, teacher and school performance can be assessed (think standardized tests). Common Core is touted by some as being a useful and much needed tool for keeping schools, teachers, and students accountable in a time when schools are failing children. At the same time, others dismiss Common Core as a deliberate attempt to move forward the agenda to privatize public education.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

146

Figure 11-2. Common core grants awarded by Gates Foundation

Source: Layton, Lindsey. 2014. “How Bill Gates Pulled Off the Swift Common Core Revolution.”

FIgure 11-3. Common core grant dollars awarded by Gates Foundation

For example, in an opinion piece in Education week by a teacher named Anthony Cody, Cody makes this connection by stating that “Measurement is the means by which markets are able to operate. In a business you have a profit and loss, you have a bottom line. The problem with our schools was there was no bottom line to open and close, or to declare schools bankrupt. So we got No Child Left Behind, and now we have the Common Core, to declare our schools bankrupt if they don't raise their test scores. The reason we need to declare schools bankrupt is we need to disrupt the public education system - the democratically controlled, taxpayer-funded public education system, and replace it with profit-driven schools.”

According to an article in the Washington Post, “the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.” With the support of studies by organizations like the Center for American Progress and the American Legislative Exchange Council that support Common Core Standards (that just so happened to be funded by Gates), Gates has been successful in influencing policy makers and civic leaders across the country to A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

147

support its cause. One notable success for Commore Core was the decision by the Obama administration, who just so happens to be populated by former Gates Foundation staffers and associates, to use “economic stimulus funds to reward states that accepted the standards (Layton, 2014). In this process, the Obama administration created a $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” contest to spur innovation and reforms in states and local districts offering K-12 education. States were awarded points for satisfying certain educational policies, such as performance-based standards for teachers and principals, complying with Common Core standards, lifting caps on charter schools, turning around the lowest-performing schools, and building data systems (Wikipedia).

Just two years after the announcement of this decision, 45 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the standards. Since 2008, the Gates Foundation has awarded millions of dollars in grant money to entities supporting Common Core Standards.

Other important foundations and funds ● NewSchools Venture Fund ● Annenberg Foundation ● Ahmanson Foundation ● Ralph M. Parsons Foundation ● Weingart Foundation ● Karsh Family Foundation ● Meyer and Morris Kaplan Foundation ● Charter School Growth Fund ● Turner-Agassi Charter Schools Facilities Fund (for-profit; has not yet worked in LA)

Parent Revolution Parent Revolution was developed in 2009 by former Green Dot Public Schools Executive Director, Steve Barr with the overarching goal of empowering parents to make use of parent trigger laws to transform schools by either: 1. bringing in new school leadership (e.g. principal) 2. bringing in new school staff (replacement of at least 50 percent of staff) 3. bringing in new school management (convert school into a charter or engage in charter relationship with existing school district) 4. leveraging to bargain with school and district leaders for changes needed at their children’s schools Source: Parent Revolution website

Barr helped launch Parent Revolution with the belief that “parents would wrest political control of the L.A. school system from unions, school bureaucrats and other entrenched interests”...”by forming chapters all over town and improve schools, one by one, using the growing leverage of the charter school movement (Muray, 2014).” Parent Revolution, who is funded by the Broad Foundation, the Walton Foundation, the Gates Foundation, among others, helps parents organize into “Parents Union Chapters,” independent, parent-led, parent-based, membership organizations whose objective is to improve their school. The organizations organizers “show parents how to conduct effective house meetings, distribute flyers in front of schools, canvass door-to-door, write letters, and create surveys and petitions. They also inform parents about their rights and student’s rights, and about how the educational system works, how to judge a school’s state tests scores, for example (Hoag, 2011).”

While Parent Revolution claims to do grassroots community organizing, some critics beg to differ, describing the campaigns for parent trigger laws as “astroturfing,” a fake popular movement which is actually originated by a wealthy elite. For example, some draw attention to a movie promoting parent trigger laws titled Won’t Back Down A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

148

that was financially supported by Walmart as proof that efforts, like those by Parent Revolution, are really topdown efforts lead by wealthy business interests, and not community led efforts as they are often claimed to be.

Information released in 2013, states that the Walton Foundation has poured more than $6.3 million into Parent Revolution since 2009 (Cohn, 2013).

Richard Riordan Riordan plays several roles in the development and growth of charter schools in LA and California. He founded the Riordan Foundation, which donates millions to charter schools, and he has been an influential political figure supporting charter schools as the Mayor of Los Angeles (1993 - 2001) and the California Secretary of Education under Governor Schwarzenegger (Dec 2003 - June 2005). He is also chairman of the Board of Directors of ICEF, the fifth largest CMO in LAUSD, as well as a board member of the L.A. Alliance for Public Schools, the largest CMO in LAUSD. His bio on the Alliance website describes his important role: As the former California Secretary of Education, the honorable Richard Riordan brings expertise in managing the politics of change and relationships with key people that can help the Alliance in Los Angeles and throughout the state.

During his controversial 17 month tenure as Secretary of Education, Riordan “[championed] charter schools” for education reform. Though he championed charter schools during his appointment, he had little influence on state education policy during his tenure (Nicholas and Merl 2005). He has had greater impact as the founder of the Riordan Foundation, which supports charter school development.

More recently, Riordan has invested in the Turner-Agassi Charter School Facilities Fund, a “for-profit investment fund for construction of as much as $750 million worth of charter schools in urban communities across the country” (Vincent 2011). Of the fund, Riordan said: " ‘This is a way to make some money and help charter schools. Then the money I make I can give back to charity. It's sort of a way to have your cake and eat it too’ " (quoted in Vincent 2011).

11.5. Legislative concerns for the sector Of primary importance for the hybrid public-private charter school industry are state legislation and the Education Code. The table identifies some major legislation and the interest the charter sector has had in them. State education law directly affects how the sector functions and makes money. Much effort has been directed at increasing the state’s share of charter school operations and facilities costs, as well as creating legal mechanisms for targeting low-performing traditional public schools for charter school conversion. Several bills, in turn, have targeted the growing power of the charter sector and have been fiercely opposed by the California Charter School Association (CCSA) and their constituents.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

149

Figure 11-4. Legislation Concerning Charter School Industry Legislation

Details

Interest for the charter sector

California Charter Schools Act (1992)

Second law in the country after Minnesota. Authorized the opening of charter schools.

Created the legal foundation for creating charter schools in California.

AB 544 (1998)

“The original California charter school legislation limited the number of schools to 100, with a maximum of 10 charter schools per district. However, the state board of education used its authority to waive the cap in 1997 and approved 137 charter schools. The legislation was modified (AB 544) in 1998 to adjust to the demand for these schools, raising the cap to 250 plus an additional 100 new charter schools in each subsequent year. The maximum per district was also removed” (RAND 2011, 3)

Allowed the emergence of a charter schools industry in California and its continued growth.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2011/RAND_MR1 700.pdf Proposition 30

Temporary increase to sales tax to generate public schools funding

Budget cuts for education funding impacted both traditional and charter public schools; CCSA supported this proposition

Proposition 39

“Proposition 39, introduced in the November 2000 ballot, amended California Education Code (EC) Section 47614, with the intent that public school facilities should be shared fairly among all public school pupils, including those in charter schools. EC Section 47614 requires that school districts make available, to all charter schools operating in their school district with projections of at least 80 units of average daily attendance (ADA), facilities that will sufficiently accommodate all of the charter’s in-district students, and that facilities be “reasonably equivalent” to other classrooms, buildings, or facilities in the district. EC Section 47614(b)(1) states that school districts may charge a charter school a pro-rata share of the facilities costs which the school district pays for with unrestricted general fund revenues. The pro-rata share is based on the ratio of space allocated by the school district to the charter school divided by the total space of the district. Charter schools shall not be otherwise charged for use of the facilities” (CA Dept of Education website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/as/proposition39.asp).

A key piece of legislation for charter school expansion, allowing for colocation in existing district school facilities.

Facilities pose major challenges to charter schools, particularly in cost as well as the frequent need to move temporary facilities.

Parent Empowerment Act (2010)

“The Parent Empowerment Act enables parents and legal guardians who are dissatisfied with their children’s struggling schools to voice their discontent and overhaul the structure and operations of their schools. The law creates a process which allows parents of students in low-performing schools to sign a petition to implement one of the intervention models – replacing all or some of the staff, turning the school over to a charter operator, transforming it through some programs, or closing the school altogether” (CA Dept of Education website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/pe/).

A key mechanism for further charter schools growth, particularly in lowincome, poorly funded areas of urban school districts.

Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012

AKA Parent trigger law

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

150

SB (2014)

1263

Vetoed by Gov. Brown; would have limited charter schools abilities to operate outside their authorizing school district. LAUSD currently suing Acton Agua Dulce School District over their authorization of charter schools outside their boundaries.

Would have limited the autonomy of charter schools and ability to establish facilities on cheaper property.

Local Control Funding Formula

Put in place by Gov. Brown. Eliminates different funding stream for traditional public schools and charter schools. Both are now funded in the same way.

Will supposedly eliminate the state education funding gap between charter schools and traditional public schools (charter schools receive less per pupil funding)

SB 740

SB 740: Provides funding for charter school facilities. Charter schools located in areas where 70% of students are low-income can get up to $750 per student to pay for facility rental and lease costs.

“Facilities continue to be one of the biggest challenges for charter public schools. AB 948 will increase the number of charter schools eligible for this important and needed grant money.

Many charter schools spend upwards of 20% of their budget on facilities. AB 948 will help schools spend more money in the classroom instead of on the classroom” (CCSA website).

Charter School Facility Grant Program AB 948: Would expand eligibility of Facility Grant Program; sponsored by CCSA. Approved by the Legislature, but awaits signature of Gov. Jerry Brown. Would lower the threshold for eligibility to charter public schools below 70% of students eligible for the Free-Reduced Price Meal program, if there are funds available to do so, down to schools with 60% of students eligible.

AB 948 Expansion of Facility Grant Program

AB 1262 AB 401

Would impose a cap of 1,450 schools in California through January 1, 2017 and would place new restrictions on hiring relatives. Currently stalled.

Fiercely opposed by CCSA and charter sector because it would limit charter schools growth statewide.

AB 1172

Would have allowed local school boards to block the creation of a new charter school if it would have a “negative fiscal impact” on the school district. Failed to pass the Assembly Education Committee

Fiercely opposed by CCSA and charter sector

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

151

because it would limit charter schools growth statewide.

AB 86

“Current law requires the signatures of parents or teachers when submitting a charter school petition, either for a new charter school or the conversion of an existing school, as a way of demonstrating support for the school. This bill requires that, if you're submitting teacher signatures, you also submit signatures of at least one-half of the classified employees you estimate will be employed at the charter school during its first year (or one-half of the classified employees already employed, if it's a conversion)” (CCSA website: http://www.calcharters.org/advocacy/statewide/ab86.html). Vetoed by Gov. Brown.

Would have given unionized school staff such as bus drivers and office workers the power to veto a charter conversion at the schools where they work.

Opposed by CCSA and charter sector because it would limit charter schools growth statewide.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

152

12. Characterization of the labor force There is a saying in the education sector, “a school is only as good as its teachers.” This section presents an overview of the workforce composition of charter schools in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

We relied heavily on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), California Department of Education, (CDE) and US Census Bureau data for this report.

First, we look at demographic data to explore exactly who works in public schools. We analyze gender, ethnicity, migrant, and wage statistics for the public elementary and secondary school labor force at the MSA and school district level.

Next we look at education levels for all employees in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Using a CDE report from 2011, we calculated education levels for employees with administrative positions, teacher positions, and pupil services positions within LAUSD. To better understand the charter sector, we examine education levels for employees from a select group of charter schools in LAUSD. To round out our research on educational attainment, we compare LAUSD numbers to that of the State and Nation.

We then investigate major occupations within the sector by looking at job position statistics for select charter schools within LAUSD, compared to all employees in LAUSD overall. Graphs are used to visually display trends in employment type over time in LAUSD. In order to provide a clear picture of all of the people employed by a Charter school, we examine the Inner City Education Foundation’s (ICEF) directory. From there, we gathered official occupation titles from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) related to the professions that ICEF employs.

The section shifts away from quantitative data momentarily to explore the occupational structure, ladder, and skill requirements for employees of charter schools. We use information from LAUSD handbooks and manuals to illustrate the occupational structure for teachers and administrators of charter schools in the district.

We continue our research by looking at workforce residential patterns for all employees in LAUSD. Using the US Census LEHD data with On the Map, we were able to calculate the origin-destination patterns of LAUSD employees from home to work. To get a better sense of worker residence patterns on a more local scale, we analyze workforce residence locations at individual schools managed by Green Dot and KIPP. We highlight a case study on the labor force at ICEF utilizing teacher and staff data provided by the CDE and ICEF’s annual “School Accountability Report Card.”

The section concludes with a look at rates of turnover and tenure among charter school teachers. Research shows high rates of teacher turnover and lower rates of tenure among charter school teachers compared to traditional public school teachers.

12.1. Demographics Data limited to charter school teachers is largely unavailable. Therefore, we looked at all public school teachers, in LA county and LAUSD. Teachers and librarians in primary and secondary public schools are overwhelmingly female (see Appendix 12; US Census Bureau EEO Tabulation 2006-2010 (5-year ACS data)), as Figure 12-1 illustrates. At the extreme end, only three percent of preschool and kindergarten teachers are male. Female dominance holds true across the specific occupation categories except in a few cases: males make up 47 percent of secondary school teachers and 40 percent of “Other teachers and instructors”.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

153

The large majority are white, with nearly 80,000. Again, these workers are largely female. White Latinos are the next closest group, with nearly 23,000. Other substantially represented groups are black and Asian. American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups are clearly underrepresented. Two or more races only have a handful of people, the most significant being white and Asian males, with 30 individuals in all of LA County.

Figure 12-1. All LA County Primary and Secondary School Teachers by Sex

Source: US Census 2010

Figure 12-2. All LA County Primary and Secondary School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity + Sex

Source: US Census 2010

Looking at migrant status via teachers demographics for non‐citizens

The breakdown by sex for non-citizens is nearly identical to all teachers (and librarians), citizen and noncitizen above. Approximately 8.3 percent of all teachers are non-citizens (Appendix 12).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

154

Figure 12-3. All LA County Primary and Secondary School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity + Sex, non-citizen

Source: US Census 2010

In contrast to all teachers, non-citizens are majority Asian, with most being female. The other substantially represented groups are Latinos (white and “all other”) and whites, Again, other groups are poorly represented in these occupations.

Figure 12-4. All LA County Primary and Secondary School Teachers by Race/Ethnicty + Sex, non-citizen

Source: US Census 2010

LAUSD employees demographic information

A direct comparison with the LA County numbers is a bit misleading, as it focuses mainly on teachers, while the LAUSD data included all LAUSD employees. Also, the LA County census data by occupation did not allow differentiation between public and private schools. However, the breakdown by sex in LAUSD also largely favors females (CDE File Staff Demographics 2011).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

155

Similar to all LA County teachers, the majority of employees are white (and female), followed closely by Latinos.

Also represented are black and Asian, as well as Filipinos.

Figure 12-5. All LAUSD Employees by Sex

Source: CDE File Staff Demographics 2011

Figure 12-6. All LAUSD Employees by Ethnicity/Race and Sex

Source: CDE File Staff Demographics 2011

12.2. Occupational Structure Based on an employee sample of Charter Schools from Alliance, Green Dot, and KIPP Schools (see Appendix 12 for the complete list of charter schools we used in this sample), we calculated that the major occupations appear to be administrative positions (6% of total staff), pupil services positions, like counselors, social workers, and education specialists (7% of total staff), and teaching positions (87% of total staff). We compare this will all LAUSD staff, and it appears charter schools employment a greater share of teachers. See Figure 12-6 and 12-7

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

156

below. A historical analysis for those percentages was not available. However, we were able to calculate for all LAUSD staff over time using California Department of Education Staff data. See table below.

Figure 12-6. Breakdown of Employment in Charter Schools - 2013/14

Source: California Department of Education, File Staff Data. 2014. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/df/filesstaffdemo.asp. Accessed Nov. 9, 2014. Web

Figure 12-7. Breakdown of Employment Types in ALL Schools - 2013/14

Source: California Department of Education, File Staff Data. 2014. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/df/filesstaffdemo.asp. Accessed Nov. 9, 2014. Web

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

157

Figure 12-8. Los Angeles Unified School District Profile of Staff by Type LAUSD Staff

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Admin

8.12%

9.15%

9.37%

9.46%

9.64%

9.82%

10.26%

10.37%

9.23%

8.82 %

Pupil Services

6.85%

7.27%

7.44%

8.46%

9.43%

9.84%

9.18%

9.41%

7.91%

7.75 %

Teachers

85.03%

83.58%

83.19%

82.08%

80.93%

80.34%

80.56%

80.22%

82.87%

83.43 %

Source: ED DATA, Profile of District, 2002-2011. Accessed Nov. 9, 2014. Web http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/fiscal/TeacherSalary.asp?tab=0&level=06&Re portNumber=4096&County=19&fyr=1112&District=64733#teacherexperience

There appears to be a difference between Charter schools and LAUSD. Charter schools appear to employ a larger share of teachers than all of LAUSD, but this cannot be substantiated until we can locate data from Charter schools over time and calculate statistical significance of these differences.

Using the data from Figure 12-8, we also analyzed how these percentages have changed over time graphically.

From 2002-2011, we see the largest absolute number of employees in LAUSD during 2007, followed by 2008.

The fewest absolute number of employees in LAUSD appears to be 2011. Figure 12-9 shows that in 2007, when total employees was the highest, the share of pupil service professions was larger than in years previous. This may suggest that the growth in employment was oriented towards pupil service occupations as oppose to administrative positions or teachers. From 2008-2011, the first table suggests that most of the job loss was among pupil service positions. This is also reflected in Figure 12-10.

In Figure 12-11 included in this series, we have also calculated the percent change year to year among the various occupation classifications (administration, teachers, and pupil services). Figure 12-11 also suggests that pupil services employment has experienced the most mercurial change over time, followed by administrative positions.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

158

Figure 12-9. Total Employment Over Time by Type of Employee in LAUSD

Source: ED DATA, Profile of District, 2002-2011. Accessed Nov. 9, 2014. Web http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/fiscal/TeacherSalary.asp?tab=0&level=06&Re portNumber=4096&County=19&fyr=1112&District=64733#teacherexperience 4

Figure 12-10. Percent Share of Total Employment Over Time by Type of Employee in LAUSD

Source: ED DATA, Profile of District, 2002-2011. Accessed Nov. 9, 2014. Web

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

159

http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/fiscal/TeacherSalary.asp?tab=0&level=06&Re portNumber=4096&County=19&fyr=1112&District=64733#teacherexperience

Figure 12-11. Percent Change of Total Employment Over Time by Type of Employee in LAUSD

Source: ED DATA, Profile of District, 2002-2011. Accessed Nov. 9, 2014. Web http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/fiscal/TeacherSalary.asp?tab=0&level=06&Re portNumber=4096&County=19&fyr=1112&District=64733#teacherexperience

Teachers, Administrators, and employees that fall under pupil services are not the only professions employed by charter schools. In order to provide a clear picture of all of the people employed with a Charter school, we searched for the Inner City Education Foundation’s (ICEF) directory. As one of the largest CMOs in Los Angeles, we thought that getting a sense of whom ICEF employs would give us a clear picture of the kinds of occupations that are affiliated with charter schools. From there, we gathered official occupation titles from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) related to the professions that ICEF employs.

See Appendix 12 for a list from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of education related occupations in Los Angeles MSA. Some of these positions are related to administration and management. Others are related to maintenance and office keeping. Some of these positions are highly specialized and likely do not exist in many charter schools, like multi-media specialists. Other occupations, like human resources specialists, are likely placed in a district office or corporate location of a Charter School brand.

12.3 Skills Requirement According to Exstrom (2012) of the National Conference of State Legislatures, licensing or certification requirements differ by state laws. While all teachers in traditional public schools in the nation must be certified, the certification requirements for teachers in charter schools depend on the legislature of the state. The map below shows which states of those that have adapted charter school legislation (as of 2012) require their teachers to be licensed by the state or district licensing authority.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

160

Figure 12-12. Map of Charter Teacher Licensing in US

In California, the California Commision on Teacher Credentialing acts as the regulating and oversight board for educators in school districts in the state. According to the CTC, all elementary and middle school teachers must attain a Multiple Subject Teaching Credentials and high school teachers their Single Subject Teaching Credentials before they are allowed to instruct in a classroom. Furthermore, they must demonstrate the basic skill requirements necessary before beginning instruction. Potential teachers demonstrate their proficiency in basic skills by passing one of the following: 1.

2.

3.

4.

California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST) California Subject Plus Writing Skills Test (CSET) California State University Early Assessment Program or Placement Examinations Licensing test from another state (CTC, 2014).

As the CTC requires that all teachers in California are credentialed, this section assumes that charter school educators are not exempt. Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that not all teachers of charter school are as qualified or even credentialed. Further investigation is required to evaluate credentialing of charter school teachers and how, if they do, charter schools get around the CTC regulations.

12.4 Education Levels The California Department of Education each year collects demographic data from employees of public schools.

Using the CDE report from 2011, we calculated education levels for employees with administrative positions, teacher positions, and pupil services positions within LAUSD. While data for Charter Schools in LAUSD exists in this data set, we were unable to extract all charter schools in LAUSD from this file because names of schools were not designated as charter schools or designated under their charter school brand affiliation (like Green Dot, KIPP or ICEF). We were, however, able to extract a sample of Charter Schools. See Appendix 12 for the list of schools used in our Charter Schools analysis.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

161

In our sample of charter school teachers, at least 40 percent of these teachers have a Masters degree or greater.

The remaining teachers appear to have a only a Bachelor’s degree or a Bachelor’s degree with additional certification. Administrators overwhelmingly have Master’s degrees, and roughly 75 percent of administrators have a Master’s degree or higher. Employees who fall in the pupil services category appear to have mostly either Master’s or Bachelor’s degrees.

For LAUSD, it appears that the majority (74 percent) of Administrators have Master’s Degrees, plus extra course work. We also found that over 87 percent of administrators have a Master’s Degree or more. For teachers, 41 percent have Master’s Degrees or more. Over half (59%) of teachers have Bachelor’s Degrees and Bachelor’s Degrees with extra course work. Employees who specialize in pupil services (e.g., counselors, guidance and welfare personnel, librarians, psychologists) appear to have higher education degrees more commonly than teachers, as 66 percent of pupil service employees have a Master’s Degree or more. Only 34 percent of pupil service employees have a Bachelor’s Degree or a Bachelor’s Degree with extra course work.

There does not appear to be a striking difference between LAUSD and charter school employees as far as we can tell. However, many more LAUSD administrators and employees have these “degree plus” education achievement levels. This designation signals that an employee took extra course work beyond the degree. This may be explained by more professional development due to longer tenure.

Figure 12-13. Education Levels of SAMPLE Charter School Employees in LAUSD by Type of Staff Admin Bachelor

Teachers 16

24%

1

1%

38

57%

Masters Plus

6

9%

Masters Plus

Doctorate

5

7%

Special

0

Associate

Pupil Services

Bachelor

371

38%

Bachelor

Bachelorate Plus

149

15%

Bachelorate Plus

Masters

363

37%

Masters

39

4%

Doctorate

8

0%

Special

0

0%

Associate

Other

1

1%

Other

Total

67

Bachelorate Plus Masters

36

43%

0

0%

45

54%

Masters Plus

2

2%

1%

Doctorate

1

1%

1

0%

Special

0

0%

0

0%

Associate

0

0%

43

4%

Other

0

0%

974

84

Source: California Department of Education, File Staff Data. 2014. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/df/filesstaffdemo.asp. Accessed Nov. 9, 2014.

Web

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

162

Figure 12-14. Education Levels of LAUSD School Employees by Type of Staff Admin

Teacher

Bachelor

383

11%

97

3%

Bachelor Plus

230

7%

Associate

2615

74%

198

6%

Masters Plus

Special

1

0%

Doctorate

Associate

1

0%

Special

38

1%

Other

Bachelorate Plus Masters Masters Plus Doctorate

Other

Bachelor

Masters

3525

Pupil Services 3106

10%

Bachelor

118

5%

15892

49%

Bachelor Plus

661

29%

61

0%

Associate

1

0%

2367

7%

Masters

175

8%

10613

33%

1221

53%

305

1%

Doctorate

115

5%

5

0%

Special

0

0%

528

2%

Other

398

17%

Total

2291

32349

Masters Plus

Source: California Department of Education, File Staff Data. 2014. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/df/filesstaffdemo.asp. Accessed Nov. 9, 2014.

Web

We have also included both statewide and national census data on educational attainment. This data was computed for administrative positions, primary school teachers and secondary school teachers. As such, we have a harder time comparing these numbers to LAUSD and charter school data on the subject. However, we can draw some conclusions about teachers in California compared to the nation. On the whole, it appears Californian teachers hold fewer graduate degrees than most teachers in the country. Fifty-six percent of administrators at the national level hold graduate degrees, while only 38 percent of all Californian administrators hold degrees. There is a chance that occupations included in “Education administration” differ at the state and national levels, contributing to this difference. We will explore further. Primary and Secondary teachers in California compared to the state seem comparable, with the exception of teachers who have obtained an associate degree or some college. California appears to employ more teachers with only an associate degree or some college than the rest of the country.

Figure 12-15. National Education Levels by Type of Staff Education Level

Admin

Primary

Secondary

0.70%

0.10%

0.20%

5.20%

0.20%

0.20%

Some college or associate degree

15.20%

5.20%

4.30%

Bachelor's degree

22.40%

47.40%

46.30%

Graduate or professional degree

56.40%

47.10%

49.00%

Not high school graduate High school equivalency)

graduate

(including

Source: US Census American Fact Finder, EEO 8w. Detailed Census Occupation by Educational Attainment (5), Sex, and Race/Ethnicity for Worksite Geography, Total Population Universe: Civilians employed at work 16 years and over EEO Tabulation 2006-2010 (5-year ACS data)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

163

Figure 12-16. Statewide Education Levels by Type of Staff Education Level

Admin

Not high school graduate

Primary

Secondary

7.30%

0.30%

0.30%

5.50%

0.20%

0.00%

Some college or associate degree

16.10%

13.30%

7.90%

Bachelor's degree

32.30%

50.00%

53.10%

Graduate or professional degree

38.70%

36.10%

38.60%

27.00%

29.70%

32.60%

11.70%

6.40%

6.00%

High school equivalency)

graduate

(including

Master's degree Doctoral degree or professional degree

Source: US Census American Fact Finder, EEO 8w. Detailed Census Occupation by Educational Attainment (5), Sex, and Race/Ethnicity for Worksite Geography, Total Population Universe: Civilians employed at work 16 years and over EEO Tabulation 2006-2010 (5-year ACS data)

12.5 Workforce Residence Patterns Using the US Census LEHD data with On the Map, we were able to calculate the origin-destination patterns of LAUSD teachers from home to work. The below map goes where LAUSD workers live. We see a disparate residential pattern, with employees living as far as the Simi valley. Concentrated areas include South Los Angeles and East LA, which is similar to the location patterns of Charter schools across LAUSD. We also see employees of LAUSD living in the northwestern quadrant of the region more than in the southeastern quadrant. Along the Northwestern coast-line, however, we see employees have not concentrated in areas like Malibu or Brentwood.

Our suspicion is that the home prices and rental rates of these areas are well beyond affordability for most teachers and administrators; however, we will have to substantiate those claims with a spatial analysis of average median incomes or home sale values.

Below the spatial analysis map of home locations for all LAUSD employees, we have also included a graphic and table produced by the On the Map application from the US Census that explains how many employees are in this study and how far from work these employees live. The analysis includes almost 15,000 employees, about 45 A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

164

percent of whom live less than 10 minutes from work. This appears to be consistent with commute distance for all of Los Angeles County, the data of which can be found in “Miles Traveled to Work From Home for ALL Los Angeles County” below the LAUSD data.

At the county level, workers in LAUSD appear to concentrate in Mid-City and the central neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Generally however, workers appear to live throughout the county area, with the exception of the Santa Monica mountains. The greatest share of workers appear to live near their location of employment, within 10 miles. Almost all employees live within 50 miles of their site of employment.

Figure 12-17. Density of Home Locations for Primary Jobs in LAUSD in 2011

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

165

Figure 12-19. Primary Jobs for All Workers in 2011 Distance from Work to Home in LAUSD

Distance

Count

Share

Total Primary Jobs

14,997

100

Less than 10 Miles

6,728

44.9

10 to 24 Miles

5,905

39.4

25 to 50 Miles

1,502

10.0

Greater than 50 Miles

862

5.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011)

Figure 12-20. Miles Traveled to Work from Home for All Los Angeles Distance

Count

Share

Total Primary Jobs

3,720,262

100

Less than 10 Miles

1,742,868

46.8

10 to 24 Miles

1,089,731

29.3

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

166

25 to 50 Miles

492,992

13.3

Greater than 50 Miles

394,671

10.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011)

To get a better sense of worker residence patterns on a more local scale, we also used the On The Map Census tool to analyze workforce residence locations at individual schools. The below map shows workforce residence patterns for Animo Locke Ace and Academy and Animo Locke Technology High, which are both Green Dot Charter Schools just west of Inglewood. We also conducted workforce resident pattern analysis for KIPP Los Angeles in Boyle Heights. To do this, we used a built in feature of On The Map that allows users to highlight a specific geographical region. In this case, we drew our region around the building lines of these two schools to only capture workers who work on these sites. The site was smaller than a block and does not contain any other sites of potential formal employment.

For both locations, more than half of employees live within 10 miles from their work location. While this is strikingly higher than LAUSD data and LA County data, we would need to calculate a test for statistical significance in order to prove whether this difference was significant. In general, however, most employees seem to concentrate very close to the school.

Figure 12-21. Density of Home Locations for Animo Locke Academy and Technology High

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

167

Figure 12-22. Miles Traveled to Animo Locke Academy and Technology High for Employees

Distance

Count

Share

Total Primary Jobs

222

100

Less than 10 Miles

127

57.2

10 to 24 Miles

63

28.4

25 to 50 Miles

25

11.3

Greater than 50 Miles

7

3.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

168

Figure 12-23. Location of Homes for KIPP LA Employees by Density

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

169

Figure 12-24. Miles Traveled to Work from Home, KIPP Los Angeles for Employees

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011)

Figure 12-25 Miles Traveled to Work from Home, KIPP Los Angeles for Employees Distance

Count

Share

Total Primary Jobs

39

100

Less than 10 Miles

24

61.5

10 to 24 Miles

12

30.8

25 to 50 Miles

1

2.6

Greater than 50 Miles

2

5.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2011)

12.6 Seniority and tenure of public school teachers

Seniority and Years of Educational Employment of All LAUSD Workers

As Figure 12-26 shows, employment within education of all LAUSD workers--public or private, in or outside the district--are concentrated within roughly three to 30 years. Within this concentration, the majority have been in the sector eight to 20 years. Very few have been in the sector for more than 40 years. It looks like either a large amount of people were hired by LAUSD in 2012, as the one year category shows 2000 employees, or many

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

170

employees quit after the first year, seeing as the number of employees with two to three years drops to nearly 500 people.

The seniority policy in LAUSD--before the Reed v. L.A. Unified court settlement in 2010--was essentially “last hired-first fired”, meaning that in the event of layoffs, teachers with less years of experience were fired first, and not necessarily just on a school-by-school basis but also at the district level. This meant when layoffs happened, less experienced teachers were laid off regardless of what school they worked at--which could lead to as much as 50 percent of teachers at a school being laid off--and senior teachers from other schools were shuffled across district schools (Felch and Song 2011).

The 2010 decision shifted the criteria for laying teachers off from being based exclusively on seniority to performance instead, as measured by standardized tests. According to UTLA representatives, the decision “ ‘eviscerates seniority’ ”, and puts experienced teachers job security at risk (as quoted in Felch and Song 2011).

Figure 12-26. Average Number of years in Public and/or Private Education Employment of LAUSD employees

Source: California Department of Education, File Staff Demographics 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/df/filesstaffdemo.asp

Tenure in LAUSD

The graph below shows that the overwhelming majority of teachers in LAUSD have tenure status. The “Other” category most likely refers to district office staff and school support staff (non-teachers). Tenure simply gives teachers due process in the firing process, not the type of permanent, iron-clad job security afforded tenured university professors. To gain tenure, teachers must go through a complex process of earning preliminary California teaching credentials, at which point they have probationary status. Teachers then have to work for the equivalent of two full years, participate in the professional training program BTGDI in LAUSD (also known as BTSA elsewhere), and be evaluated regularly to gain a Clear Credential. For many beginning teachers, the process is not smooth and quick, taking more than the two years prescribed by state policy makers. Tenure itself is gained “after two years of successful teaching—in other words, two years of at least “satisfactory” ratings on their evaluations” (Koppich and Humphrey 2014). However, this might all change due to the recent Vergara v.

Calfornia Supreme Court Case. If the decision is not struck down upon the multiple appeals it faces, teacher tenure (right to due process) will essentially be gutted statewide, placing educators job security--both in traditional public schools and charters--at the mercy of high-stakes Common Core tests to the exclusion of other skills or job competency.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

171

Figure 12-27. Tenure Status of LAUSD Employees

Source: California Department of Education, File Staff Demographics 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/df/filesstaffdemo.asp

Tenure and Seniority in Charters

As mentioned previously, Green Dot is the only major charter chain that has allowed teachers to unionize. In their contract, “There is no tenure, seniority preference or probationary period for new teachers, and all teachers work under the protection of “just cause discipline and dismissal” (Exstrom 2012). Unlike traditional district schools, charters enter into their own contracts with teachers and teachers often work under year-to-year contracts . While we were unable to locate any information on whether teachers can get tenure in LA charters or build seniority, the fact that Green Dot disallows it in their union contract implies that very few if any charters provide these traditional teacher job security mechanisms. In contrast to the above graph, if data were available for charters specifically, it would most likely indicate low tenure status for teachers.

Several studies done at the national level (summarized in Malloy and Wohlstetter 2003) found that teachers in charters were less likely to hold tenure than teachers in traditional public schools. An NEA study found that 34 percent of charter teachers had tenure status and none had tenure in charters operated by EMOs. Teachers in conversion schools were more likely to have tenure (69 percent) vs. startups (10 percent). Collective bargaining rights also had an effect: teachers covered by district collective bargaining were more likely to have tenure (61 percent) than teachers without it (10 percent). As Malloy and Wohlstetter (2003) write, “some charters choose atwill employment contracts rather than traditional tenure systems or collective bargaining agreements” (225), which may account for the lower rates of tenure status in charters.

12.7 Teacher Turnover

A Recent Study of Teacher Turnover Rates in LAUSD

Charter schools have high attrition rates, “with about a quarter of beginning charter teachers leaving after the first year” (from Smith and Ingersoll 2004 in Newton et al 2011). A recent study by Newton et al. (2011) looked at turnover rates in LAUSD, and more specifically the influence of teacher and school characteristics. It highlights several important findings about charter schools in comparison with traditional district schools.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

172

One, elementary charter teachers had approximately 33 percent higher chance of leaving their school than traditional public school teachers. In secondary schools, the odds were nearly four times those for traditional public school teachers. Two, during a recent six year period, turnover in public schools was only 15 percent, while at charters it was 40 percent. An ICEF spokesperson said that turnover varied from 10 percent up to 50 percent across their schools (Guzman-Lopez, 2011). Three, turnover was higher among white teachers than teachers of color.

Four, young charter school teachers had lower rates of exiting than traditional public school teachers (46 percent less). Newton et al. (2011) suggests this may be explained by the fact that young teachers in small charters may be able to handle the demanding work load because of the lack of family responsibilities.

Newton et al (2011) also found interesting patterns which they displayed in a GIS map (see Appendix 12). They write: (1) Schools with high average annual turnover rates predominantly tended to be small, charter (2) There was only one small public school with high average annual turnover rate; (3) Public regardless of size in terms of numbers of teachers per year, tended to have low to medium annual turn over rates; and (4) There was one large charter school with high average annual rate (31).

schools; schools, average turnover

This confirms the general trend of turnover rates being higher in LAUSD charters vs. traditional public schools.

A Study of Teacher Turnover Rates in Charter Schools in Wisconsin A study done by the Center on Reinventing Public Education (a pro-charter research body), with support from the US Department of Education, looked at turnover rates paired with similar characteristics as the LA study. They too noted large turnover rates--20 to 25 percent of teachers per year (National Charter School Research Project 2010). They note that the charters labor market is less regulated--charters rarely have unions and in some states can hire non-credentialed teachers (this is not the case in California). The research project “tracked the careers of 956 newly hired teachers and 19,695 newly hired traditional public school teachers in Wisconsin” (1998-2006).

Like in LA, teachers in charters were more likely to exit than public school teachers. However, when the researchers controlled for other variables, they found that high turnover rates were “largely a function of the types of teachers those schools hire (young and inexperienced) and the types of students and localities they serve (poor and urban).” They add that, while public school teachers and charters often leave for similar reasons, “a combination of inexperienced teachers and demanding teaching environments”, charter school teachers more likely to respond that they left because of a lack of job security (from SASS-TFS, Schools and Staffing Survey + Teacher Follow up Survey, 2000 cited in National Charter School Research Project 2010).

Other Findings from the Literature A National Conference on State Legislatures report cites less experience for charter teachers as a whole (Exstrom 2012): First 3 years

Less than 10 years

Charters

30%

75%

Public

15%

43%

It lists four factors in high turnover rates in charters: 1) Dissatisfaction with working conditions A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

173

2) “Lack of barriers to teacher dismissal” and school instability; “involuntary attrition significantly higher in charters” 3) Teacher attrition and mobility higher in startup charters than conversions 4) Charters “more vulnerable to leadership changes” Another factor of high turnover may be related to charter teacher recruitment strategies. “Given the rise in charter schools and new schools in the LAUSD, it is possible that teachers (especially younger ones) who enter the LAUSD teaching force through non-conventional routes such as Teach for America exit schools after serving their two-year commitment and therefore lowering the median lifetime of teaching in their first assigned schools.

Involuntary exits (e.g., firing or forced transfers) may be less likely in the LAUSD context given the strong union presence in the district” (Newton 2011, 48).

In all, the trends in high teacher turnover in charters vs. traditional public schools points to the importance of labor unions; by and large, traditional public schools are unionized while charters are not. As one charter educator put it, " “Having no representation, and then on top of it, most charters have these year-to-year contracts where you’re essentially an at-will employee, and for any reason whatsoever they can rescind your contract or they can just not offer you one, and they do not have to offer you a reason” ” (quoted in Guzman-Lopez 2011).

12.8 Levels of Unemployment Unemployment for Charter Schools in LAUSD were difficult to obtain. However, we were able to find unemployment numbers from the US Census EEO reports for education occupations. For comparison, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor Force for the Current Population, in 2014, the national unemployment rate for professional occupations was 2.9 percent. Employment in education appears low at all levels of geography.

California and Los Angeles County appear to mirror one another. Unemployment appears to be higher in Los Angeles County and California than in the rest of the country at first glance, particularly for secondary school teachers. In order to prove definitively, we will need to conduct a test of statistical significance.

Figure 12-28. Unemployment Numbers for Education Occupations Occupation Code

Subject

LA COUNTY

STATE

NATIONAL

Education administrators 0230 (SOC 11-9030)

Employed

97.5%

97.5%

98.0%

Unemployed and worked in the last year

1.8%

1.8%

1.5%

Unemployed and last worked 1 to 5 years ago

0.8%

0.7%

0.5%

Employed

97.6%

97.4%

97.7%

Unemployed and worked in the last year

1.9%

2.0%

1.8%

Unemployed and last worked 1 to 5 years ago

0.5%

0.6%

0.5%

Employed

97.1%

97.1%

98.0%

Unemployed and worked in the last year

2.2%

2.2%

1.4%

Unemployed and last worked 1 to 5 years ago

0.7%

0.7%

0.6%

Elementary and middle school teachers 2310 (SOC 25-2020)

Secondary school teachers 2320 (SOC 25-2030)

Source: Bureau, U. S. Census. “American FactFinder - Results.” EEO 13-Unemployment Status. Detailed Census Occupation by Unemployment Status, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity Universe: Civilian labor force 16 years and over EEO Tabulation 2006-2010 (5-year ACS data)N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

174

12.9 Case‐Study: Inner City Education Foundation This section focuses on characterizing the teaching labor force of the Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF). To accomplish this task, we utilize teacher and staff data provided by the California Department of Education (CDE) for 2011-2012. More specifically, we make use of these CDE reports: 1) # of Staff by Ethnicity and 2) Staff Education Report. We also use administrative information related to salary levels and number of teachers employed that is provided on ICEF’s website via a “School Accountability Report Card” for 2012-2013.

Between 2011-2012, ICEF employed a total of 137 part-time and full-time, or 104 full-time equivalent, teachers (ICEF School Accountability Report Card, 2012-2013). Of these teachers, 74 percent (101 teachers) are female and 26 percent (36 teachers) are male (CDE, 2011-2012). The data on teacher race provided by CDE is an unreliable indicator of teacher race in ICEF public schools because of issues in (or the lack of) reporting.

According to these figures, 37 percent of ICEF’s teaching force is Black, 17 percent is White, 7 percent is Hispanic or Latino, 4 percent is Asian, 1 percent is Filipino, 1 percent consider themselves to be of two or more races, and 33 percent of teachers did not report a race. Thus, while it is clear that some race categories do stand out, notably the high number of Black teachers employed in ICEF public schools, this information does not provide a clear picture of the race of teachers employed by ICEF because of the high number of teachers that did not select a race category.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

175

Figure 12-29. Teacher per pupil ratio for ICEF Public Schools between 2011-12

Source: California Department of Education, 2011-2012

Figure 12-30. Gender of ICEF Public School teachers, 2011-2012

Source: California Department of Education, 2011-2012

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

176

Figure 12-31. Number of teachers employed by race for ICEF Public Schools between 2011-12

Source: California Department of Education, 2011-2012

In terms of educational attainment, a baccalaureate degree is the highest degree earned by 74 percent (91 teachers) of the ICEF teaching force (CED, 2011-2012). The rest of ICEF teaching force (26 teachers in total) accounted for here went on to accomplish a master’s degree after having received their baccalaureate degree (CED, 2011-2012.

Figure 12-32. Educational attainment of ICEF Public School teachers between 2011-2012

Source: California Department of Education, 2011-2012

Similar to LAUSD, ICEF has a pay structure that accounts for teacher experience and skill. Between 2011-2012, teachers employed in ICEF public schools earned an average salary of $51,380 per year, which is much lower than the $66,851 earned by LAUSD teachers overall for the same year. Teachers with little experience (“beginning teachers”) earn a starting base-pay of $39,800 per year, which is about the same base-pay that beginning teachers in LAUSD receive. Mid-range teachers for ICEF public school earn $52,800 per year, which is significantly lower than the $62,307 earned by LAUSD teachers in the same category. Highest teacher salary caps out at $77,000 per year for ICEF public schools, which is about equivalent to the salary cap for LAUSD teachers in the same category ($77,359) (ICEF Public Schools).

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

177

Figure 12-33. Teacher salaries of ICEF v LAUSD CATEGORY

ICEF PUBLIC SCHOOLS

LAUSD AMOUNT

Average Teacher Salary

$51,380

$66,851

Beginning Teacher Salary

$39,800

$39,008

Mid-Range Teacher Salary

$52,800

$62,307

Highest Teacher Salary

$77,000

$77,359

Source: ICEF Public Schools website

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

178

13. Labor/management practices

Labor management has been a point of contention in the charter school debate. Teacher union advocates point to concerns about work environment, high teacher attrition, and lack of protections for teachers as reasons to support the unionization of charter school teachers. Charter advocates claim their greater autonomy allows them to manage their staff more efficiently and avoid the high price tag and bureaucracy associated with teacher unions. This section explores the teacher evaluation procedures being implemented by schools in LAUSD, health and safety requirements for charter schools and pertinent information about teachers unions in Los Angeles.

13.1 Teacher Evaluation How should we identify and classify teachers’ effectiveness? Educators and policymakers have been struggling with this question for decades. Formal teacher evaluations first entered U.S. school districts in the 1960s. By 1969, over 90 percent of school districts had adopted a system of formal evaluation for teachers - usually a written evaluation system. (Kenny & Schmidt 1994) Formal teacher evaluations have largely remained the same since the 1970s, usually involving administrators observing teachers in their classrooms.

The challenge educators face today is how to create a system of evaluation that allows a systematic way of assessing the practice and quality of classroom instruction while recognizing and addressing the challenges in the teaching profession (Weisberg 2009). Recent federal education policy has been aimed at developing better ways to measure teacher effectiveness and growth. One of the criteria for receiving funding from President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTT) initiative was to “Improve Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Based on Performance.”

RTT signified a shift from highly qualified to highly “effective” teachers. This placed an emphasis on a teacher’s effectiveness in improving student achievement. According to the RTTP executive summary, an effective teacher is defined as one whose students achieve high rates of student growth, e.g. one and one-half grade levels in an academic year using a Student Growth measure.

Educator Growth and Development Cycle As a result of California’s RTTP application, LAUSD created The Teacher Effectiveness Task Force (TETF), a multi-stakeholder body, to provide the district with recommendations for improving teacher effectiveness by reviewing current practices and relevant research on employee evaluation, support mechanisms, tenure, compensation and legislation (Meza, 2014). After the TETF presented their final report in 2010, LAUSD adopted a new Multiple Measures Evaluation System named the Educator Growth and Development Cycle. The EGDC encompasses four performance measures aligned with professional development structures (LAUSD, 2014): 1.

2.

3.

4.

Contribution to Student Outcomes Stakeholder Feedback Survey Contributions to School Community Observation of Teacher Practice

The Observation of Teacher Practice measure, referred to as Teacher Growth and Development Cycle (TGDC) was identified by LAUSD as the most important performance measure. TGDC lays out six components for conducting classroom observations and LAUSD requires those who carry out the observations to go through a rigorous training process to prepare for the new Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF). According to LAUSD’s website, the TLF provides a foundation for what the district defines as effective learning practices aligned to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Common Core Standards. LAUSD introduced the A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

179

EGDC to all teachers and school leaders during the 2012-2013 school year in a no-stakes environment (Meza 2014). By the 2013-2014 school year, LAUSD began implementing TGDC as the formal evaluation method for teacher performance.

UTLA has been outspoken in its opposition to the TGDC framework and frustration with LAUSD’s lack of negotiation with the union on the matter, filing a currently active Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) (UTLA 2014). According to a UTLA bulletin (UTLA, 2014): LAUSD continues to ignore research- and community-based teacher support and development approaches, such as mentor teacher programs. These programs work for students. Instead, the District wants to create a four-level final overall rating system of “highly effective,” “effective,” “developing,” and “ineffective, ” replacing the current two-level “meets standard/below standard” ratings. This is part of LAUSD’s effort to institutionalize its punitive approach, and it would set the stage for destructive “merit pay” schemes and other reward systems based on evaluations. LAUSD’s attempts to impose its Teacher Growth and Development Cycle framework without negotiating with UTLA is the subject of an active PERB unfair labor practice complaint by UTLA. Merit Pay Merit pay is another point of contention between teacher unions and educational reformers. The merit pay concept is that teacher compensation should be directly related to performance. The idea is that merit pay provides incentives for performance benchmarks, with competition for bonuses, which will increase the quality of teaching in the workplace. Anti-union advocates argue that without competitive incentives to improve, teachers will continue to fail their students educationally as they have for decades (Wiel, 2009). Merit pay has received more attention recently due to additional federal funds (up to $1 billion) that have been set aside for the Teacher Incentive Fund, a program that awards grants to school districts that devise performance-pay programs (Ravitch, 2013). Merit pay is not currently being implemented in LAUSD, largely in part to teacher union opposition. CFT president Joshua Pechthalt (2007) summarizes UTLA’s opposition to merit pay best: Teacher unions have historically resisted merit pay proposals because they undermine one of the core principles of teaching and learning: collaboration. Whether it is the informal discussion that takes place in the lunchroom or the more formal exchanges based on grade level, department, or small learning communities, these are only successful because as teachers we understand teaching is about working together to help our students, not competition for better pay.

Retired LAUSD teacher Kathryn Stevens put her opposition to merit pay more bluntly in our interview: “I have always said, If my job and my pay was on the line...I would cheat! There is no way around it - you can’t put your livelihood on the line.” Stevens point is well taken and there have been cases of cheating in both Washington DC and Atlanta school districts where performance pay measures were implemented.

Deregulation Keeping teachers unions separate from charter schools is part of the strategy for some charter advocates.

Opponents of teacher unions say they raise the cost of education and hurt the academic achievement of highachieving and low-achieving students. One of the original motivations of charter schools was to enable teachers to play larger roles and lead educational change. That sentiment remains true for charter advocates who believe only entrepreneurial teachers freed from union constraints can accomplish true reform and that charter schools provide that platform for teachers to experiment and innovate in ways that are difficult in regular public schools.

With fewer regulatory controls in place, charter schools can encourage teacher involvement in decision-making on issues such as curriculum development and implementation of instructional strategies. Terry Moe, a professor of political science at Stanford University and longtime advocate of the privatization of education, believes unions get in the way of democratic control and wishes to see schools run by unfettered market forces that will assure A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

180

democracy and translate into higher achievement measured through higher scores on standardized tests (Wiel, 2009).

13.2 Health/Safety Like in many professions, employees in charter schools and their employers must come to some sort of agreement regarding working conditions such as hours worked, benefits and compensation, and degree of autonomy, all of which can impact the satisfaction an employee feels as well as their health and safety. But unlike many professions, including the traditional public school sector, charter school employers have much more discretion in determining working conditions with less oversight. While proponents argue that the autonomy enjoyed by charter school employers allows them to hire and maintain charter school faculty that enjoy a lessstructured, more-autonomous workday. Several studies, for example, find that the higher degree of autonomy a teacher has decreases his or her stress level while increasing the level of job satisfaction and motivation (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005; Wei, Patel, & Young, 2014).

It is important to keep in mind, however, that the workplace regulations that “constrain” charter school employees were created to protect teachers’ health and safety. For example, the latest major contract agreement between LAUSD and UTLA (2011) establishes and clarifies guidelines for public education working conditions. For example, the following table provided in the contract describes (in minutes) the amount of time a teacher is expected to stay on the school’s campus.

The contract also establishes guidelines for public school employees’ salaries. For example, the agreement outlines how teachers’ educational experience should be measured and how this experience should affect their salaries. Furthermore, according to a comparison of traditional public school employees and charter school employees, traditional public schools are far more likely to establish salary schedules than are charter schools (97% of public schools and 62% of charter schools studied reported using salary schedules to determine compensation) (NCES, 2002 found in Malloy and Wohlstetter, 2003). In not basing salaries so closely on a teacher’s educational experience, charter schools often base pay on student performance and other factors, hoping to increase innovation (Exstrom, 2012).

As mentioned before, the only charter schools that are subject to the UTLA-LAUSD contract are affiliated charter schools. Because independent charter schools are mostly exempt from the UTLA-LAUSD contract, it is much more difficult to discern the working standards of charter school employees and many questions remain. Future research of LAUSD should compare important factors of working conditions (benefits and compensation, hours worked, etc.) between traditional public school and charter school employees.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

181

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the division of the United States Department of Labor charged with “assur[ing] safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance” (OSHA, 2015). Information on individual complaints and accidents on worksites can be found on OSHA’s website. By using the public education industry’s NAICS code (611110), we found that in the last five years there have been a total of 23 LAUSD establishments with either a complaint or accident, none of which were charter schools. The lack of OSHA complaints from LAUSD charter schools does not mean that they are necessarily safer. Twenty-three establishments is a very low proportion of LAUSD establishments, so the lack of OSHA complaints/violations might be explained by the relatively few number of LAUSD charter schools compared to traditional public schools in the district. The lack of OSHA complaints from charter school employees might also speak to the degree of comfort or familiarity with OSHA procedures and/or job security.

13.3 Union Information

History Teachers unions pre-date the civil war (NEA 2014). According to Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), small scale union organizing has existed at Charter schools since they began to form in New York and then in Florida. In fact, Al Shanker (former president of the AFT) initially conceived the idea of charter schools as hubs of innovation (Prothero 2014). National campaigns to organize charter schools teachers into unions at charter schools began to grow around 2007 when, according to union organizers, traditional public school teachers began moving to charter schools, the only places hiring at the time (Prothero 2014).

A wave of unions formed around 2009, and for a moment it appeared that this wave would shift the paradigm of unions in charter schools. (Sawchuk 2012) But as teachers unions started negotiating with big name charter schools, the movement became more scrutinized by mainstream media and, as coincidence or consequence, began to level out. (Sawchuk 2012) Indeed, in 2009, there were 604 charter schools with collective bargaining agreements, which was roughly 12 percent of all charter schools in the nation. However, of those 388 were in states that require charter schools to be included in existing agreements about collective bargaining rights in the local district, of which California is not. (Vevea 2011) And by 2012, that percent dropped to 9 percent. (Prothero 2014) There are instances of charter schools de-unionizing; however this alone does not explain the decline.

According to Prothero, scholars from the Center for Education Reform (who published the report on unionized charter schools), the share of unionized charter schools has dropped because the rate of charter schools is increasing faster than the rate of unionization.

At the national level, the political landscape for teachers unions are also changing. Seen as one of the strongest unions in the country, teachers unions spend heavily in election returns. (Layton 2014) In 2014, teachers unions spent over $60 million in campaign contributions and political expenses and still lost many elections. A decade ago, democrats would never dare cross the teacher’s union on issues. This year, however, democrats appear to support the expansion of charter schools, a position seen as clearly anti-union, more readily than they have before. (Layton 2014) This changing political landscape brought us to our final highlight of the national historical context for charter school unionization: whether charter schools are inherently anti-union. Some charter school advocates would argue that teachers in charter schools are committed to charter schools as the hub of educational innovation, and should be free from burdensome bureaucracy in large school districts (Prothero 2014) Union organizers would argue that charter school employees cannot unionize because their employers are hostile to organizing efforts and punish teachers who try. (Prothero 2014) Malin and Kerschner, law professors from Kent College and Claremont College, argue that teacher unions are antithetical to the kind of high-energy, high performance A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

182

environments expected from charter schools. And that instead of unionizing, charter school teachers should focus on other strategies to promote fair labor practices. (2007) Statewide The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) are the two main national teachers unions. The California Teachers Association (CTA) is the state’s NEA affiliate while the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) is AFT’s California affiliate.

The CFT and CTA were not always in the game of organizing teachers in charter schools. "I believe when charter schools first came on the scene, a lot of educators thought [the charter movement] was going to be a fad," says Terri Jackson, CTA board of Directors. (Prothero 2014) Now, CTA has completely changed its strategy. According to Jackson, organizing teachers in charter schools is something the CTA has had to wrestle with internally. (Prothero 2014) From the text on the CTA’s website, it appears the union has reached the conclusion that the union must break into the charter school division of teachers. The website calls out a number of positions related to its charter school campaign:

All charter school employees should be organized to ensure both quality education for students and professional rights for school employees. Teachers in charter schools should hold a Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to those required for other public school teachers…All records maintained by charter schools shall be available to the public in the same manner as those of school districts. All open meetings and public record laws shall apply to charter schools. The granting of charters shall only be through school districts for schools within the boundaries of the school district.

Satellites, branches and auxiliaries of charter schools shall be approved as separate charter schools using and subject to the statewide limit on the number of charter schools.” (California Teachers Association 2014) This year, the California Supreme Court made one of the most historic decisions of teacher union history, Vergara v California, striking down five statutes by which all education provides must abid. (Janofsky 2014): 1. Permanent Employment Statute: required that administrators provide a 16 month evaluation period, after which the administrator may grant or deny permanent employment. The new law suggests that teachers will have a two year evaluation period before they may be fired.

2. Dismissal Statutes: layered into this category were three statutes that defined the process for firing ineffective teachers. Previously, statutes required documentation that proved ineffectiveness over time and a fair trial. The ruling overturned these statutes 3. “Last-In, First-Out” (“LIFO”) Layoff Statute: The “LIFO” law is most commonly associated with teacher tenure. It the face of layoffs, the LIFO required school districts to base layoffs on seniority. This has also been overturned.

This ruling has implications on all teachers unions, whether in charter schools or traditional public schools, as it overturns many tenants of statewide teacher unions. (Janofsky 2014)

UTLA United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) is the teachers union LAUSD contracts with. UTLA is affiliated with both the CFT and CTA. United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) has not always been warm to charter school organizing. In A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

183

2007, however, union leadership began pursuing strategies to organize charter schools. According to A.J. Duffy, then-UTLA President, “We have come to the realization that we need to look at organizing teachers at charter schools...It's not just organizing charter school personnel, which we have an internal committee looking at. It's pushing the reforms that we've been pushing for two years including local control of schools.'' (Boghossian 2007) In 2009, UTLA partnered with Accelerated Schools Los Angeles to create a union contract that, according to Duffy, established that teachers are central to the decisionmaking process and part of the collaborative planning process. (Sawchuk 2009) UTLA advocates for greater oversight of charter schools, like regulating how charter schools replace staff and curriculum. (Watanabe 2014) UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl and his members are also working to slow the approval process of charter schools in favor of the "community schools" model that is more collaborative with teachers to develop education reforms.

When asked about the future of UTLA after the Vergara case (mentioned above), Caputo-Pearl says: I taught in South L.A. for 22 years. The kids I taught, they didn't receive a subpar education because one of their teachers had a right to a hearing. If they received a subpar education, it was because they had enormous class sizes, not enough technology in the classroom, teachers who felt de-professionalized. With Vergara, people who are whistle-blowers and advocates -- they're going to shut up. (Morrison 2014)

Unionization and LAUSD Charter Schools

Charter schools are often not unionized and “teachers do not collectively bargain for their salary and benefits” (Exstrom 2012). The data in this section comes from a spreadsheet shared by the American Federation of Teachers (2014). While 40 charter schools are unionized in LAUSD, 90 charter school sites are. We analyze the data in terms of school sites using the logic that it aids comparisons with traditional district schools. Traditional public schools can be viewed as sites of LAUSD; with this logic, LAUSD and CMOs are the managers of a chain of schools.

At least 66 percent of charter schools in LAUSD are not unionized (see Figure 13-1). We expect charter schools are opening at a faster rate than they are unionizing. In comparison to the traditional public schools in LAUSD, which have a zero percent rate of non-unionization, 66 percent is a large share of non-union charter schools.

Figure 13-1. Non-Union vs. Union Charters in LAUSD

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

184

Pertinent Labor Unions

The Unified Teachers of Los Angeles accounts for the large majority of unionized charter schools in LAUSD. Thirty nine charter schools (43 percent) are UTLA union schools, with another 14 which appear to be UTLA schools, but with an added affiliation to the national unions AFT and NEA, therefore making up 59 percent of union charter schools (see Figure 13-2). This is not surprising, as UTLA has a contract with LAUSD as the union for all district schools, minus charter schools, which are unionized on a case by case basis.

Figure 13-2. Charter School Labor Unions Breakdown (2012)

Source: American Federation of Teachers data on the union status of charter schools (2012)

As Figures 13-2 and 13-3 illustrate, four major unions account for nearly all charter school unionization, although several are unionized via local-specific unions, like the Asociación de Maestros Unidos (AMU) and the Camino Nuevo Teachers Association. AMU represents 16 Green Dot charter schools, an important CMO chain in LA, accounting for 38 percent of unionized chain charter schools. Camino Nuevo schools account for another 12 percent. Ana F. Ponce, the executive director of Camino Nuevo schools, says that unionization has had positive outcomes for the school, "the biggest benefit really has been to have a partner in dealing with some of the staffing issues that come up, and trying to reach some resolution before they become ‘grievable’ issues." (Sawchuk 2009)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

185

Figure 13-3. Unionization, Chain vs Non Chain

Fifty percent of unionized chain schools coming from two CMOs points out that if they were not unionized as a whole, a small proportion of chains would be unionized as compared to non-chains (Figure 13-3 shows unionized chains vs. non-chains being roughly equal). This highlights an effective strategy for unionization: organizing chain CMO labor. Green Dot appears to be the only prominent chain that is unionized and is “one of a few non-district operators in the United States that has allowed teachers to unionize, and is the only one in California to do so” (Exstrom 2012).

AMU was hailed as an innovative charter school union contract that worked with the school’s mission and still protected teachers from unfair labor practices. (Vevea 2011) This model has been used nationally to organize charter school teachers into unions.

Figure 13-4. Major labor unions in LAUSD Union

Year established

Scale

United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) [affiliated with CFT and CTA]

1970

Local

American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

1916

Natl

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

No. charters unionized

About

53

14 via UTLA

“For more than three decades, UTLA's mission has been to improve the quality of L.A. public schools and enhance the professional lives of our members. With more than 31,000 members, UTLA is the second largest teachers union local in the nation and one of the most influential” (UTLA website).

“The American Federation of Teachers, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, was founded in 1916 and today represents 1.6 million members in more than 3,000 local affiliates nationwide. Five divisions within the AFT represent the broad spectrum of the AFT's membership: pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other ●

186

school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state and local government employees; and nurses and other healthcare professionals.

In addition, the AFT represents approximately 80,000 early childhood educators and nearly 250,000 retiree members” (AFT website) National Education Association (NEA)

1857

Natl

21 via two local unions

“The National Education Association (NEA), the nation's largest professional employee organization, is committed to advancing the cause of public education. NEA's 3 million members work at every level of education— from pre-school to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States” (NEA website).

California Teachers Association

1863

State

12 via four local unions

“The preeminent voice for educators in California’s public schools and colleges, CTA is also a powerful and passionate advocate for students and public education.

Our 325,000 members not only make us strong, they make us the state’s largest professional employee organization. And, as the largest affiliate in the 3.2 millionmember National Education Association, our voice is also heard as far away as Washington, DC” (CTA website).

Local

16

“Asociación de Maestros Unidos represents the teachers and counselors of Green Dot Public Schools. We are a union of professionals that believes in education reform that supports, develops, and sustains teachers and counselors because every student deserves to be taught by an effective teacher. We believe our voice as teacher/counselor professionals is integral to making school site and organizational decisions that are good for students and fair for members. We affirm the union's responsibility to collaborate with other stakeholders in public education and to consistently seek higher levels of student achievement. We fight for social justice to realize our ultimate goal that all of our students leave high school college-ready” (AMU website). AMU is a CTA/NEA affiliate.

Asociación de Maestros Unidos (AMU)

Unknown

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

187

Unionization by Charter Type

Of the four types of charter schools, conversion affiliated makes up the majority of unionized schools, followed closely by start-up independent (see Figure 13-4). Conversion independent and start-up affiliated make up a small proportion. This reflects the small number of these types of charter schools in LAUSD (as Figure 13-6 shows).

However, while start-up independents make up the overwhelming majority of LAUSD charter schools, they make up a smaller proportion of unionized charter schools. This most likely corresponds to the fact that CMO chains are more likely to be start-up independents than conversion affiliated. Affiliated schools are managed directly by LAUSD, similar to a traditional public school, and therefore are unionized under the District contract with UTLA. This means that unionization rates in charters are even lower than they first appear, given the fact that the large majority of unionized independent schools come from only two CMOs.

Figure 13-5. Breakdown of Type of Charters

Source: LAUSD charter school directory (2014/15)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

188

Figure 13-6. Unionized Charter by Type

Source: American Federation of Teachers data on the union status of charter schools (2012)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

189

14. Student Outcomes Student outcomes are not exactly in the purview of a sectoral analysis. This report was not intended to insert itself into the student outcomes and education management conversation. However, our research raised questions about how effective charter schools have been, given the fury of investment and attention. Our metric to evaluate effectiveness is student outcomes. We conducted a short literature review about scholarship on student outcomes, and raise deeper questions about the total investment in charter schools, and whether this investment has returned better outcomes for students, “dollar for dollar.”

A bipartisan consensus has arisen about education policy in the United States; public education is broken and needs to be fixed. Educational reformers believe autonomy, choice, and competition in the market can help improve academic achievement for public schools. Federal policies such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are based on the notion that competition is good for public education. Since the turn of the century, charter schools have emerged as a main beneficiary of these policies and experienced exponential growth in Los Angeles, in California, and across the country.

The growth of charter school enrollment may suggest that parents, and elected officials believe charter schools offer superior educational opportunities to traditional public schools but that doesn’t necessarily make it true.

There have been numerous academic reports aimed at assessing charter school performance but it is difficult to find conclusive evidence. When looking at general trends across the nation, however, most studies conclude that charters schools are not performing any better than their traditional school counterparts.

CMOs and charter advocates often tout higher test scores compared to the local traditional school. Independent researchers find that when controlling for student demographics (as traditional public schools tend to serve a higher proportion of high needs students) scores are in fact no better for charters than for traditional public schools. Controlling for student demographics is critical to accurately assessing a school’s performance since factors such as socioeconomic status, English learner status, and percentage of foster youth and students with disabilities are all highly correlated with test scores.

Education researcher Diane Ravitch also believes public schools are performing better than people give them credit. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often referred to as the “nation's report card,” is the one authoritative measure of academic performance over time. Despite claims of stagnation in student achievement, NAEP data has shown significant increases in both reading and mathematics scores for students in traditional public schools since the test was created in 1992. According to Ravitch (2013), “NAEP data show beyond question that test scores in reading and math have improved for almost every group of students over the past two decades: slowly and steadily in the case of reading. Students know more and can do more in these two basic skills subjects now than they could twenty or forty years ago.”

Furthermore, researchers Christopher Lubienski and Sarah Theule Lubienski conclude that public schools outperform charter and private schools overall. According to the Lubienskis’ research, data shows that the more regulated public school sector embraces more innovative and effective professional practices, while independent charter schools often use their greater autonomy to avoid such reforms, leading to curricular stagnation. In other words, traditional public schools’ advantage is that they are aligned with a more professional model of teaching and learning and teachers can focus their efforts on the classroom and not on market-style strategies to attract students.

We analyzed some of the recent studies on academic achievement at charter schools and to explore why charters remain in high demand in the U.S. Interestingly, Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

190

realeased a 2013 report that compared charter school students NAEP test scores to comparable demographic students at traditional public schools and found only slight differences in test scores. Fourth grade students scored marginally higher in reading and slightly worse on mathematics compared to traditional public schools nation wide (CREDO, 2013). Difference in test scores were even less significant in eighth grader. In 2013, CREDO published a separate study focused solely on charters in Los Angeles. The results showed significant improvements in both reading and math for students enrolled in charter schools relative to LAUSD. The 2013 report detailed significant progress in charter school performance compared to an earlier report in 2009 that showed no significant differences in academic performance between traditional public schools and charter schools. Charter continued to grow after the 2009 report, despite no statistical evidence of success compared to traditional public schools. After conducting interviews and research we hypothesize the reasons has more to do with public perception than what is happening in the classroom. Parents, particularly in Los Angeles, are interested in alternatives to the traditional public schools in the district and may think their charter schools can provide a better academic environment for their children, taking into account factors such as class size, student demographics, etc.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

191

15. Conclusion This report provides an investigation into the fastest growing school choice option in the U.S. public education system--charter schools. While we provide a snapshot of the U.S. charter school movement for context, our point of focus is Los Angeles, especially LAUSD, the district with the largest number of students enrolled in charter schools in the nation. Our research shows that charter school expansion is significantly changing the way public education operates on multiple fronts, especially in regards to the funding of public education, student experiences and teacher experiences. Further, evidence points to an increasing privatization of public education as students move from traditional public schools to charter schools that are run by private organizations. This is especially the case in LAUSD, which has a strong network of charter school and education reform advocates, such as foundations, political advocacy groups, and organizations that focus on building the education reform leaders of today and tomorrow.

Charter school expansion has been met with growing concerns over issues of accountability and transparency with charter schools, and charter management organizations in particular, in Los Angeles and across the nation.

A major concern for some is that charter school expansion and education reform efforts are being funded by a few key players whose motives, while sometimes ideological, sometimes altruistic, are also financial. Other concerns include: high teacher turnover in charter schools, low-levels of teaching experience held by charter school teachers, low rates of unionization for charter school teachers, loss of funding for traditional public schools, and laws driven by education reform advocates that emphasize high-stakes testing and charter school expansion. The findings of this report call for a deeper analysis of the charter school industry in Los Angeles, especially a focus on the political economy of the charter school industry.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

192

Glossary of terms Term

Definition

Source

Academic Performance Index (API)

Measures academic performance and growth of public schools in California based on a variety of tests and establishes a statewide ranking of schools according to those scores.

USC Charter School Performance Annual Report 2013

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Index rankings include whether schools met AYP goals in math and English/language arts and the percentage of students rated as proficient or above in these subject areas. Used as a SChool Peformance Measure.

USC Charter School Performance Annual Report 2013

Apportionments

Funds that federal or state governments distribute to local education agencies (LEAs) or other governmental units according to certain formulas.

EdSource

Authorized Charter

An authorized charter is the performance contract for operating a publicly funded charter school under the conditions and provisions approved by the authorizing entity, the County Board. It provides the governing board of the charter school with substantial autonomy over the implementation and operation of the school.

LACOE

Blended Learning

A learning approach that “combines online delivery of educational content with classroom interaction and live instruction to personalize learning for students

ICEF website

California Assembly Bill 913 (2013)

(1) The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that all meetings of a legislative body, as defined, of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend. This bill would expressly state that a charter school is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, unless it is operated by an entity governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, in which case the charter school would be subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. (2) The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection and to make copies available upon request and payment of a fee unless the records are exempt from disclosure. This bill would expressly state that a charter school is subject to the California Public Records Act. (3) Existing law prohibits certain public officials, including, but not limited to, state, county, or district officers or employees, from being financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members, except as provided. This bill would expressly state that a charter school is subject to those provisions.

(4) The Political Reform Act of 1974 requires every state agency and local governmental agency to adopt a conflictof-interest code, formulated at the most decentralized level

California State Legislature

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

193

possible, that requires designated employees of the agency to file statements of economic interest disclosing any investments, business positions, interests in real property, or sources of income that may foreseeably be affected materially by any governmental decision made or participated in by the designated employee by virtue of his or her position. This bill would expressly state that a charter school is subject to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

(5) This bill would state various exceptions and clarifications regarding the applicability of the acts described above in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, including, among others, that an employee of a charter school is not disqualified from serving as a member of the governing body of the charter school because of that employment status, and that a member of the governing body of a charter school is authorized to provide a loan to, or sign a guarantor agreement relative to a line of credit for, the charter school, as specified.

(6) This bill would make these provisions operative on July 1, 2015.

California Assembly Bill 948 (pending)

Legislation to expand the SB 740 facility grant program by lowering the threshold for eligibility. Rather than the current 70% FRL threshold for eligibility, this bill would drop the threshold to 60% as funds allow. (8/19/13). Passed the State Assembly and Senate, awaiting approval by governor.

CA Charter School Association

California Senate Bill 1448 (1992)

The California Legislature enacted the Charter Schools Act of 1992 to authorize the establismnet of charter schools.

Section 47601 of the Education Code states the seven purposes of the Charter Schools act: (1) improving pupil learning, (2) increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as low achieving, (3) encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods, (4) create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the school site, (5) provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types of educational opporunities that are available within the public school system, (6) hold the schools established under this part accountable for meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems, (7) provide vigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools

LAUSD Charter Schools: FAQ

Charter

A legislative contract; A document, issued by a sovereign or state, outlining the conditions under which a corporation, colony, city, or other corporate body is organized, and defining its rights and privileges.

1-NCES; 2Dictionary.com

Charter Management Organization

Nonprofit organizations that manage independent charter schools

LAUSD

Charter Petition

A charter petition is a proposal for the implementation of a charter school. It offers the petitioner’s efforts at providing a reasonably comprehensive description of the essential

LACOE

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

194

components of a charter school as defined by law. The proposal does not provide all of the essential elements of a comprehensive plan to implement a public school, nor does it provide for the manner in which the authorizer shall monitor the school. The minimum components of a charter petition are specified in Education Code (EC) and the California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR).

Charter school

Deregulated, autonomous public schools that receive money from a school district or a state department of education, but are not necessarily held to the standards or mandates of that district or state. ALSO: A public school operated independently under a performance agreement with a school district, a county office of education (COE), or the State Board of Education. Charter schools are funded on a per-pupil basis, freed from most state regulations that apply to school districts and COEs, usually able to hire their own teachers and other staff, and subject to closure if they fail to meet their promises for student outcomes. Charter schools were originally authorized in California in 1992 (Senate Bill 1448). Although their numbers have grown steadily since then, charter schools still constitute a small percentage of all public schools in California and serve an even smaller percentage of the state's students because charter schools tend to be relatively small. ALSO: A public charter school is a publicly funded school that is typically governed by a group or organization under a legislative contract (or charter) with the state or jurisdiction. The charter exempts the school from certain state or local rules and regulations.

In return for flexibility and autonomy, the charter school must meet the accountability standards stated in its charter. A school's charter is reviewed periodically (typically every 3 to 5 years) by the group or jurisdiction that granted it and can be revoked if guidelines on curriculum and management are not followed or if the standards are not met.1 The first law allowing the establishment of charter schools was passed in Minnesota in 1991.2 Charter school legislation had been passed in 42 states and the District of Columbia as of school year 2011–12. Despite legislative approval in Maine and Washington, no charter schools were operational in these states in 2011–12. Charter school legislation has not been passed in the following states: Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia. ALSO: A school providing free public elementary and/or secondary education to eligible students under a specific charter granted by the state legislature or other appropriate authority, and designated by such authority to be a charter school.

1-NCES 2-NCES 3Natl Center for Education Stats, Institute of Education Sciences 4-NCES (Natl Center for Ed Stats)

Charter School Full Service Provider

A nonprofit charter school developer that provides a range of development services including consulting services, project management, real estate acquisition, and financial assistance managing the bulk of the charter school development process from start to finish

Pacific Charter School Development

Choice

A term used to describe the right of parents to be able to choose where to send their children to school. Parents and others who support school choice have created the charter

EdSource

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

195

school, school voucher, and other school reform movements. In accordance with a 1993 state law, California public school districts have created intra- and interdistrict public school choice policies, whereby a student may choose to attend a participating school outside the student's neighborhood if space permits. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), school districts must allow students to transfer out of consistently low-performing or persistently dangerous schools, as defined by the state.

Colocation

Practice of locating charter schools within the same facilities as an active public school.

EdSource

Combined school

A school that encompasses instruction at both the elementary and the secondary levels; includes schools starting with grade 6 or below and ending with grade 9 or above.

NCES

Common Core Standards

Educational standards describe what students should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade. In California, the State Board of Education decides on the standards for all students, from kindergarten through high school.

California Department of Education

Since 2010, a number of states across the nation have adopted the same standards for English and math. These standards are called the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

Corrective action

A plan to improve low-performing schools. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), when a school or school district does not make adequate yearly progress (AYP), the state will place it under a corrective action plan. That plan includes resources to improve teaching, administration, or curriculum. If failure continues, then the state has increased authority to make any necessary additional changes to ensure improvement.

EdSource

Dismissal statutes

Three statutes that defined the process for firing ineffective teachers. Previously, statutes required documentation that proved ineffectiveness over time and a fair trial. The Vergera v California ruling overturned these statutes.

Vergera v California

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

The principal federal law affecting K-12 education. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is the most recent reauthorization of the ESEA. Originally enacted in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty, ESEA was created to support the education of the country's poorest children and that remains its overarching purpose. Congress must reauthorize it every six years. Each reauthorization of ESEA has made some changes, but NCLB was the most dramatic revision of the act since its creation. Its provisions represent a significant change in the federal government's influence in public schools and districts throughout the United States, particularly in terms of assessment and teacher quality.

EdSource

Elementary school

A school classified as elementary by state and local practice and composed of any span of grades not above grade 8.

NCES

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

196

English Learner Reclassification

English Learner Reclassification represents the frequency with which a school transitions students from English Learner (EL) to fluent-English-proficient (FEP). Used as a School Performance Measure.

USC Charter School Performance Annual Report 2013

Exclusive Use

Refers to all rooms not used between the District and charter schools. Exclusive use space is occupied by the same program and not shared.

LAUSD Policy Bulletin 5532, Office of the Superintendent

Facility Use Agreement

Refers to the agreement between the District and the charter school in which both parties agree to the terms of the charter school's use of the District facility.

LAUSD Policy Bulletin 5532, Office of the Superintendent

Free or reduced-price lunch

see National School Lunch Program

NCES

Last in, First-out (LIFO)

The “LIFO” law is most commonly associated with teacher tenure. It the face of layoffs, the LIFO required school districts to base layoffs on seniority. This has also been overturned.

Janofsky, 2014

Local Education Agency (LEA)

A public board of education or other public authority within a state that maintains administrative control of public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a state.

School districts and county offices of education are both LEAs. Sometimes charter schools function as LEAs.

EdSource

Merit pay

Merit pay, also known as pay-for-performance, is defined as a raise in pay based on a set of criteria set by the employer.

This usually involves the employer conducting a review meeting with the employee to discuss the employee's work performance during a certain time period. Merit pay is a matter between an employer and an employee (or the employee's representative).

U.S. Department of Labor

National School Lunch Program

Established by President Truman in 1946, the program is a federally assisted meal program operated in public and private nonprofit schools and residential child care centers.

To be eligible for free lunch, a student must be from a household with an income at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty guideline; to be eligible for reduced-price lunch, a student must be from a household with an income between 130 percent and 185 percent of the federal poverty guideline.

NCES

NCLB Title V

A section of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that promotes informed parental choice and innovative programs by providing grants to support Innovative Programs (Part A) and Public Charter Schools (Part B). It also includes an incentive program to help charter schools meet their facility needs.

EdSource

National Labor Relations Board

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency that protects the rights of private sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions.

NLRB

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

197

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

The 2002 reauthorizaton of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA programs provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools. NCLB's provisions represent a significant change in the federal government's influence in public schools and districts throughout the United States, particularly in terms of assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. It increases the federal focus on the achievement of disadvantaged pupils, including English learners and students who live in poverty, provides funding for "innovative programs" such as charter schools, and supports the right of parents to transfer their children to a different school if their school is lowperforming or unsafe.

EdSource

Parent Trigger Law

A parent trigger is a legal maneuver through which parents can change the administration of a poorly performing public school—most notably, by transforming it into a charter school.

Wikipedia

Performance-based compensation

Compensation is based on how well one performs their work duties

Wikipedia

Permanent Employment Statute

Required that administrators provide a 16 month evaluation period, after which the administrator may grant or deny permanent employment. The new law suggests that teachers will have a two year evaluation period before they may be fired.

Janofsky, 2014

Principal Apportionment

Funding from the State School Fund for school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. The Advance Principal Apportionment is certified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction in July of each school year, followed by the First Principal Apportionment (P1) in February, and the Second Principal Apportionment (P2) in June.

EdSource

Proposition 39 (2000)

Amended Education Code section 47614. Until that time, the District only had a duty under section 47614 to provide charter schools with surplus space (i.e., facilities not currrently being used by the District for instructional or administrative purposes). However, the current law mandates that "public school facilities should be shared failry among all public school pupils, including those in charter schools." The law states that the District shall make available facilities sufficient to accomodate all of an eligible charter school's "in-district students" (i.e. students entitled to attend District schools, except for those eligible to attend District schools solely based on inter-district attendance or parental employment) in conditions "reasonably equivalent" to those in which the students would be accomodated if they were attending other public schools of the District.

LAUSD Policy Bulletin 5532, Office of the Superintendent

Public school or institution

A school or institution controlled and operated by publicly elected or appointed officials and deriving its primary support from public funds.

NCES

Race to the Top

Race to the Top is a $4.35 billion United States Department of Education contest created to spur innovation and reforms in state and local district K-12 education. It is funded by the

Wikipedia

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

198

ED Recovery Act as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and was announced by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on July 24, 2009. States were awarded points for satisfying certain educational policies, such as performance-based standards (often referred to as an Annual professional performance review) for teachers and principals, complying with Common Corestandards, lifting caps on charter schools, turning around the lowest-performing schools, and building data systems.

Secondary school

A school comprising any span of grades beginning with the next grade following an elementary or middle school (usually 7, 8, or 9) and ending with or below grade 12. Both junior high schools and senior high schools are included.

NCES

Shared Use Agreement

Refers to Exhibit A of the Facilities Use Agreement in which the District principal and the charter school principal articulate the portion of shared space the charter will utilize.

This agreement may also identify the specific schedule of shared use and that schedule must be kept locally at the District campus.

LAUSD Policy Bulletin 5532, Office of the Superintendent

Student membership

Student membership is an annual headcount of students enrolled in school on October 1 or the school day closest to that date. The Common Core of Data (CCD) allows a student to be reported for only a single school or agency.

For example, a vocational school (identified as a "shared time" school) may provide classes for

NCES

Unfair labor practices

The term unfair labor practice refers to certain actions taken by employers or unions that violate the National Labor Relations Act(NLRA) and other legislation. Such acts are investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Wikipedia

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

â—?

199

Bibliography About CSFA. CSFA. Retrieved from: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/.

Alliance College-Ready Public Schools. (2014). About Us. Retreived from: http://www.laalliance.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=46278&type=d&pREC_ID=214223 American Educational Research Association. (2014). About AERA. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from: http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/tabid/10062/Default.aspx Answering the Call: The History of NEA, Part 1. NEA. Retrieved from: http://www.nea.org//home/11608.htm.

Associated Press. “California's fourth year of teacher layoffs spurs concern.”Retrieved from: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-05/california-teacher-layoffs/54767514/1 Baker, B.D. & Bathon, J. (2012). Financing Online Education and Virtual Schooling: A Guide for Policymakers and Advocates. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center, 16. Retrieved from: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/financing-online-education Beebe, E. 2013. School Performance Dashboard. USC Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education.

Blume, Howard. “Grant to put 700 teachers in L.A.” Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/31/local/lame-0731-teachers-grant-20130731 Blume, Howard. “Walton foundation gives $8 million to StudentsFirst.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/30/local/la-me-ln-walton-8-million-studentsfirst-20130429 Blume, Howard. 2014. “KIPP Charter School Group Plans Major Expansion in L.A. Area.” Los Angeles Times, Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-kipp-charters-20141025-story.html.

Boghossian, Naush, and Staff Writer. “Union Targets Charter Schools.” Retrieved from: http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20070611/union-targets-charter-schools.

Bulkley, Katrina E., and Priscilla Wohlstetter. Taking Account of Charter Schools: What’s Happened and What’s Next?. Teachers College Press, 2004.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: Elementary and Secondary Schools (61110).” Retrieved October 12, 2013, from http://stats.bls.gov/cew/apps/table_maker/v1/table_maker.htm#type=0&year=2014&qtr=1&own=5&ind=611110&s upp=0&zeros=0 Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. “Unemployment Rate - Professional and Related Occupations.” Labor Force Bureau, U. S. Census. “American FactFinder - Results.” EEO 13-Unemployment Status. Detailed Census Bureau, U.S. Census. American Fact Finder, EEO 8w. Detailed Census Occupation by Educational Attainment (5), Bureau, U.S. Census. OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

200

Calefati, J. (2009). Green Dot: Helping schools make the grade. US News. Retrieved from: http://www.usnews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2009/12/09/green-dot-helping-schools-make-the-grade California Charter School Association. (2010) Fact Sheet: Frequently Asked Questions About Charter Schools.

Retrieved from: http://www.calcharters.org/blog/2010/09/fact-sheet-frequently-asked-questions-about-charterschools.html.

California Charter School Association. (2014). Portrait of the Movement. Retrieved from: http://www.calcharters.org/Portrait-of-the-Movement-2014.pdf California Charter Schools Association. (2014). About CCSA. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from: http://www.calcharters.org/about/ California Charter Schools Association. “Charter School Funding.” Retrieved from: http://www.calcharters.org/2010/05/charter-school-revenue-sources.html California Code of Regulations. 5 CCR § 14010. Standards for School Site Selection.https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/ California counties: State of California Geoportal California Department of Education, File Staff Demographics, 2011, Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/df/filesstaffdemo.asp California Department of Education, Teacher and Staff Data, 2011-2012, Retrieved from:.http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/PaifSearchName.asp?TheYear=201112&cTopic=Paif&cLevel=School&cName=frederick&cCounty=&cTimeFrame=S California Department of Education. (2004). Charter Schools Program: Non-Regulatory Guidance. Title B, Part B. California Department of Education. (2014). Available Funding. Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/af/ California Department of Education, Charter School Trends: Los Angeles County.” Retrieved from: http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?level= 05&reportnumber=16#charterschools California Department of Education. “Charter School Enrollment Trends: LAUSD and Los Angeles County.”

Retrieved October 10, 2014, from: https://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanelPopup.aspx?bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/Dev/PopTren dsDisplay.asp?title=Charter+Schools&charttitle=*&table=tblCharterSchools_pro&selectors=Number+of California Department of Education. “Charter School Trends: State of California.” Retrieved from: http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanelPopup.aspx?bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/Dev/PopTren dsDisplay.asp?title=Charter+Schools&charttitle=*&table=tblCharterSchools_pro&selectors=Number+of+Schools\ Enrollment+in+Charter+Schools&selectorColumns=NumberOfCharters\Enrollment&selectorFormats=0\0&who=St ate+of+California&fyr=2012&YMax=&YMin= California Department of Education. “LAUSD Enrollment Trends: All Schools.” Retrieved from: http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanelPopup.aspx?bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/Dev/PopTren dsDisplay.asp?title=Enrollment&charttitle=*+Enrollment&table=tblEnrollment_pro&selectors=Kindergarten\Grade+ 1\Grade+2\Grade+3\Grade+4\Grade+5\Grade+6\Grade+7\Grade+8\Grade+9\Grade+10\Grade+11\Grade+12\Tot al&selectorColumns=KDGN\GR_1\GR_2\GR_3\GR_4\GR_5\GR_6\GR_7\GR_8\GR_9\GR_10\GR_11\GR_12\EN A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

201

R_TOTAL&selectorFormats=0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0&who=Los+Angeles+Unified+School+District&fyr=2014&S howChange=True&xCode=64733&YMax=&YMin= California Department of Education. County Profile. 2005-2012.Retrieved from: http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?Tab=0 &level=05&reportnumber=16 California Department of Education. LAUSD Profile. 2005-2012. Retrieved from: http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?report Number=16&level=06&fyr=1112&county=19&district=64733 California Department of Education. Statewide Profile. 2005-2012. Retrieved from: http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanelPopup.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/StudentTre ndsNew.asp?reportNumber=128&fyr=2002&level=04&report=charterpublicschools California Department of Education. “Charter Schools LAUSD, 2013-2014.” Retrieved from: http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?tab=0 &level=06&ReportNumber=16&County=19&fyr=1314&District=64733#charterschools California Department of Education. “Local Control Funding Formula.” 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr13ltr0807.asp California Department of Education. Charter Schools FAQ Section 5. Retrieved October 12, 2014, fromhttp://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/re/qandasec5mar0 California Department of Education. Public Schools Database. Retrieved from; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ds/pubschls.asp.

California Education Code. 2013. Article 12. CHAPTER 3. Charter School Operation [47610 - 47615]. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ California School Board Association (CSBA). (2009). Charter Schools: A manual for governance teams. Retrieved from: http://www.csba.org/EducationIssues/EducationIssues/~/media/D3A48BACC09B45C89F35FC33ABC3A86A.ashx California School Board Association. (2009). Charter Schools: A manual for governance teams. Retrieved from: http://www.csba.org/EducationIssues/EducationIssues/~/media/D3A48BACC09B45C89F35FC33ABC3A86A.ashx California Teachers Association. “Charter Schools.” 2014. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.cta.org/Issues-andAction/Education-Reform/Charter-Schools.aspx CCSA. (2014) Funding Equity: Funding Challenges. Retrieved from: http://www.calcharters.org/advocacy/funding/ Center for Research on Education Outcomes. 2014. Charter School Performance in Los Angeles.

Cevallos Jr., P. F. (2009). A case study with Green Dot Public Schools on managing the tension between fidelityand adaptation when scaling-up. [Dissertation]. UCLA Charter School Development Center. (2014). California Charter School Financing in a Nutshell. Retrieved from: http://www.weebly.com/uploads/4/1/6/1/41611/california_charter_school_finance_in_a_nutshell.pdf Charter School Finance Authority. 2014. Retrieved from. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

202

Charter School Tools - Vendor Guide. 2014.Retrieved from: http://www.charterschooltools.org/vendorGuide.cfm.

Charter School. Wikipedia. October 13, 2014. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school.

Charter Schools Act of 1992. 1992. Education Code § 47600-47504.5. Legislative Counsel of California.

Retrieved from: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=47001-48000&file=4760047604.5 Charter Schools USA. (2014). About Charter Schools USA. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://charterschoolsusa.com/about-charter-schools-usa/ City of LA boundaries and Community Plan Areas: City of LA Department of City Planning Cody, Anthony. “Protesters to Gates Foundation: ‘Divest from Corporate Education Reform.’ Education Week, June 26, 2014. Retrieved from: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-indialogue/2014/06/protesters_to_gates_foundation.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-FB Cohn, Gary. “Public Schools, Billionaire Agendas: The Threat of the ‘Parent Revolution’ Campaign.” AlterNet, April 4, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.alternet.org/education/public-schools-billionaire-agendas-threat-parentrevolution-campaign-0 Danielson, Charlotte. Enhancing Student Achievement: A Framework for School Improvement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), 1703 N. Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311 Web site: http://www.ascd.org., 2002. eric.ed.gov. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.

Darrow, R. (2011). Research: Charter Schools in California...a little history. California Dreamin’. Retrieved from: http://robdarrow.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/research-charter-schools-in-california-a-little-history/ Department of Education. (2004). Charter Schools Program: Non-Regulatory Guidance. Title B, Part B. Editorial Projects in Education. (2014). Mission and History. Retrieved October 9th, 2014 from: http://www.edweek.org/info/about/history.html?intc=thed EdSource. (2014). Local Control Funding Formula Guide. Retrieved from: http://edsource.org/publications/localcontrol-funding-formula-guide#.VHyib4ckMkV EdSource. Retrieved from: http://edsource.org/publications/education-glossary#.VDtPbPmwJcQ. Education Policy and Analysis Archives. (2014). Focus and Scope. Retrieved October 9, 2014 fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialPolicies#focusAndScope Government of Alberta. 2011. Action on Research and Innovation. Retrieved from: http://education.alberta.ca/media/6389667/background%20information%20revised%20jan%207%2011.pdf Elementary and Secondary Schools (including Private, State, and Local Government Schools) - May 2013 OES Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_611100.htm#25-0000>.

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey," 1990-91 through 2011-12. (This table was prepared September 2013.)

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

203

Exstrom, Michelle. 2012. “Teaching in Charter Schools.” National Conference on State Legislatures.http://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/teachingincharterschools.pdf Fabricant, Michael, and Michelle Fine. Charter Schools and the Corporate Makeover of Public Education: What’s at Stake?. Teachers College Press, n.d. failure to acknowledge and act of differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/widget.pdf Felch, Jason, and Jason Song. "Judge OKs Settlement That Limits Use of Seniority in L.A. Teacher Layoffs." Los Angeles Times. January 21, 2011. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/21/local/la-me-lausd-aclu20110122.

Fensterwald, John. 2010. “Charter group lays off 1/6th of staff.” Top-Ed. Retrieved from: http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/10/18/la-charter-group-lays-off-sixth-of-staff/ Flores, A.(2014). $13 Million Awarded to California Charter Schools. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-charter-school-millions-20141010-story.html Frankenberg, Erica and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley.“Does Law Influence Charter School Diversity? An Analysis of Federal and State Legislation.” 2011. University of Michigan Law School Michigan Journal of Race & Law. Accessed 11/1/2014. LexisNexis.

Fredriksson, Anders. “On the Consequences of the Marketisation of Public Education in Sweden: For-Profit Charter Schools and the Emergence of the ‘Market-Oriented Teacher.’” European Educational Research Journal 8, no. 2 (January 2009): 299–310.

Gilbertson, Gilbertson. “Charter Schools: Audit Finds Missing, Misused Funds at LA Network.” Southern California Public Radio, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2014/07/21/17031/audit-finds-missingmisused-funds-at-la-charter-ne/ Goldstein, D. (2014). The Tough Lessons of the 1968 Teacher Strikes. The Nation. Retrieved October 12, 2014, from: http://www.thenation.com/article/181757/tough-lessons-1968-teacher-strikes Green Dot Public Schools. (2004). Business Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.calcharters.org/2010/06/x90IqMS/MJty288/sZ6F2JL/zSrU/finance_businessplangreendot.pdf Green Dot Public Schools. (2013). Annual Financial Report. Retrieved from: http://www.greendot.org/page.cfm?p=3678 Green Dot Public Schools. (2014). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from: http://www.greendot.org/page.cfm?p=1751 Guidestar. “Inner City Education Foundation 2012 Tax Form 990.” Retrieved from: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/954/548/2012-954548521-09044d04-9.pdf Guidestar. 2010. “The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation Tax Form 990.” Retrieved from: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2010/954/686/2010-954686318-07addfbc-F.pdf Guidestar. 2011. “The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation Tax Form 990.” Retrieved from: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/954/686/2011-954686318-08bfc7d1-F.pdf

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

204

Guidestar. 2012. “The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation Tax Form 990.” Retrieved from: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/954/686/2012-954686318-09b93f29-F.pdf Guzamn-Lopez, A. 2012. Steve Barr leaves Green Dot board of directors, organization he founded. SCPR. Retrieved from: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2012/11/27/11248/steve-barr-leaves-green-dot-boarddirectors-organi/ Guzman-Lopez, Adolfo. 2011. “Study: Teacher turnover much higher at LA charters than public schools.” 89.3 KPCC. Retrieved from: http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/07/19/27792/new-study-finds-teacher-turnover-muchhigher-chart/ H.R.5662 - 106th Congress (1999-2000): Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. Legislation. Retrieved from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/5662 Herbet, B. (2014). The Plot Against Public Education. Politico Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-plot-against-public-education111630_Page2.html#.VDoNP1YkOlI Hillel, Aron. “Most LAUSD Teach for America (TFA) teachers will end up at charter schools this year.” Retrieved from: http://laschoolreport.com/most-teach-for-america-teachers-will-end-up-at-charters/ Hillel, Aron. “Stuck in the Middle: Steve Zimmer.” Retrieved from: http://laschoolreport.com/stuck-in-the-middle-aconversation-with-steve-zimmer/ History | Magnolia Public Schools. Retrieved from: http://magnoliapublicschools.org/about/history/.

Hoag, Christina. “School Parent Groups Empower Push For Education Reform.” Huffington Post, October 9, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/unions-empower-parents-to_n_1002463.html Hootnick, Alexandra. “Teachers Are Losing Their Jobs, but Teach for America’s Expanding. What’s Wrong With That?.” Retrieved from: http://www.thenation.com/article/179363/teachers-are-losing-their-jobs-teach-americasexpanding-whats-wrong# ICEF Public Schools. “ICEF Elementary School #7.” Retrieved from: http://www.icefps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_29018/File/Rosa/Charter%20Petitions/ICEF%20Inglewood%20E S%20Charter.pdf ICEF Public Schools. 2014. ICEF Model. Retrieved from: http://www.icefpublicschools.org/i_c_e_f_model/ ICEF. “Frederick Douglass Academy Charter Elementary School Accountability Report 2011-2012.” Retrieved from: http://www.icefps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_29018/File/SARC%2012.13/1213SARC%20Frederick%20Dougla ss%20ES.pdf ICEF. “Frederick Douglass Middle School Accountability Report.” Retrieved October 19, 2014 from: http://iceffdams.sharpschool.net/UserFiles/Servers/Server_30085/Image/1213SARC%20Frederick%20Douglass %20MS.pdf ICEF. “ICEF Mission & Model.” Retrieved from: http://www.icefpublicschools.org/

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

205

ICEF. “Lou Dantzler Elementary School Accountability Report.” Retrieved from: http://icefldpes.sharpschool.net/UserFiles/Servers/Server_30496/Image/1213SARC%20Lou%20Dantzler%20ES. pdf ICEF. “Valley Park High School Accountability Report.” Retrieved from: http://icefvpphs.sharpschool.net/UserFiles/Servers/Server_29660/Image/1213SARC%20View%20Park%20HS.pd f ICEF. 2014. “Board of Trustees.” Retrieved from: http://www.icefpublicschools.org/about_us/board_of_trustees ICEF. 2014. “ICEF Mission & Model.” Retrieved from: http://www.icefpublicschools.org/ ICEF. 2014. “Our Supporters.” Retrieved from: http://www.icefpublicschools.org/about_us/our_supporters Inner City Education Foundation, School Accountability Report Card, 2012-2012, Retrieved from: http://iceffdaes.sharpschool.net/UserFiles/Servers/Server_29881/Image/SARC%20Reports/1213SARC%20Frede rick%20Douglass%20ES.pdf Inner City Education Foundation. “Inner CIty Education Foundatioin Blended Learning” Retrieved October 26, 2014 from: http://www.icefpublicschools.org/i_c_e_f_model/blended_learning Institute for Education and Social Policy. 2004. The Finance Gap: Charter Schools and Their Facilities. New York University: Institute for Education and Social Policy, Steinhardt School of Education. Retrieved from: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/001/117/FinanceGap.pdf Janofsky, Michael. “JUST IN: Vergara Ruling Stands, Judge Rules in Final Review.” LA School Report. Retrieved from: http://laschoolreport.com/just-in-vergara-ruling-stands-judge-rules-in-final-review/.

John C. Osborn. 2014. "A Look at Who’s Funding Torlakson and Tuck." EdSource. Retrieved from: http://edsource.org/2014/a-look-at-whos-funding-torlakson-and-tuck/69036.

Kenny, L. W., & Schmidt, A. B. (1994). The decline in the number of school districts in the US: 1950-1980. Public Choice, 79(1-2), 1-18.

Kerry Kretchmar, Beth Sondel & Joseph J. Ferrare. “Mapping the terrain: Teach For America, charter school reform, and corporate sponsorship.” Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02680939.2014.880812#.VGnDV1PF_Eg King, Michelle. 2011. “Policy on Co-Locations for District School Facilities’ Use Pursuant to Education Code Section 47614 (Proposition 39) -- LAUSD Policy Bulletin 5532.”

Office of the Superintendent. Retrieved from: http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/106/POL-BUL%205532%20PROP%2039%20POLICY%20ON%20CO-LOCATIONS.pdf.

KIPP LA 2009 Annual Report. 2009. KIPP LA Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/26-1607268/kipp-la-schools.aspx KIPP LA 2010 Annual Report. 2010. KIPP LA Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/26-1607268/kipp-la-schools.aspx

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

206

KIPP LA 2011 Annual Report. 2011. KIPP LA Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/26-1607268/kipp-la-schools.aspx KIPP LA 2012 Annual Report. 2012. KIPP LA Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/26-1607268/kipp-la-schools.aspx KIPP LA 2013 Annual Report. 2013. KIPP LA Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.kippla.org/annualreport/ KIPP LA website. Retrieved from: http://www.kippla.org/ KIPP. (2014). About Kipp. Retrieved from http://www.kipp.org/about-kipp.

Koppich Associates. (2014). Bumpy Path into a Profession: What California’s Beginning Teachers Experience.

PACE. Retrieved from: http://www.edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/PACE%20Policy%20Brief%2014-2.pdf Koppich, Julia E. and Daniel C. Humphrey. 2014. “Bumpy Path Into a Profession: What California’s Beginning Teachers Experience.” PACE Policy Brief 14-2.Retrieved from: http://www.edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/PACE%20Policy%20Brief%2014-2.pdf LA Times. “Teachers union files lawsuit over charter takeovers.” Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/22/local/la-me-utla22-2009dec22 Landsberg, Mitchell. 2008. “Charter group aims high in South L.A.” Los Angeles Times, Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/01/local/me-charters1 LAUSD Charter Schools Division (2014). Renewal Criteria and Findings. Retrieved from: http://achieve.lausd.net/charter LAUSD Charter Schools: Frequently Asked Questions. (2014). Retrieved from: http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_ORGANIZATIONS/FLDR_INSTRUCTIONAL_SV CS/CHARTER_SCHOOLS_DIVISION/SCHOOL_DIRECTORY/FACT%20SHEET%20CHARTER%20FAQS.PDF LAUSD District News. “Judge Stops the Closure of Magnolia Science Academies 6 and 7,” 2014. http://home.lausd.net/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=389551&id=0.

LAUSD. (2012). Communication Facts. Retrieved from: http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/LAUSDNET/OFFICES/COMMUNICATIONS/COMMUNI CATIONS_FACTS/11-12FINGERTIPFACTSREVISED.PDF LAUSD. (2014). Final Budget. Retrieved from: http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/123/FINAL%20BUDGET%206-1314%20859AM.pdf LAUSD. (2014). General Fund Programs Manual. Retrieved from: http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/domain/342/fiscal/201415%20General%20Fund%20Programs%20Manual%20final%20%203-18-14.pdf LAUSD. (2014). LAUSD Teaching and Learning Framework. Retrieved from: http://www.nctq.org/docs/2014_2015_Framework.pdf LAUSD. “Charter Schools Directory 2014-2015.” Retrieved October 18, 2014 from: http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/1827

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

207

LAUSD. “LAUSD State of the Budget: Understanding the District’s Budget Challenges.” Retrieved October 18, 2014 from: http://www.lausd.net/lausd/offices/Office_of_Communications/SpecialEditionToolkit_Budget_MessagePoints.pdf LAUSD. 2014. Final Budget. Retrieved from: http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/123/FINAL%20BUDGET%206-1314%20859AM.pdf Layton, Lyndsey. “How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution.” The Washington Post, June 7, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-corerevolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html Layton, Lyndsey. “Teachers Unions Spent $60 Million for the Midterms but Still Lost Many Elections.” The Washington Post, November 5, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teachersunions-spent-60-million-for-the-midterms-but-still-lost-many-elections/2014/11/05/b70aa066-6528-11e4-9fdcd43b053ecb4d_story.html.

Los Angeles Area | Magnolia Public Schools. Retrieved from: http://magnoliapublicschools.org/mps-schools/losangeles-area/.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION. 2013. Charter Schools (AR 0420.4(a)) p. 28. Retrieved from: http://www.lacoe.edu/Portals/0/LACOE/CharterSchools/0420%204_AR%20ONLY_APPROVED_09_03_13.pdf.

Los Angeles Unified Local Control and Accountability Plan. 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.icefpublicschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_29018/File/Megan/LCAPs/View%20Park%20ES_LCA P_2014.pdf Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles. “2008-2011 Agreement,” 2013. http://www.utla.net/system/files/Final_2008-2011_contract.pdf.

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2013). Administrative Procedures for Charter School Authorizing. Retrieved from: http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/106/Administrative%20Procedures%20Charter%20Schools-Revised%2009-10-13.pdf Los Angeles Unified School District. (2014). Charter Augmentation Grant Program. Facilities Service Division.

Retrieved from: http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/106/Augmentation%20Grants%20%20Program%20Guidelines%20released%2028%20April%2014.pdf Los Angeles Unified School District. About Charter Schools. Retrieved from: http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/1816 Los Angeles Unified School District. Charter Schools Division / Augmentation Grant. Retrieved from: http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/1838.

Los Angeles Unified School District. Charter Schools Division / School Directories. Retrieved from: . http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/1827.

Los Angeles Unified School District. Charter Schools Division / School Directories. Accessed November 24, 2014. http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/1827.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

208

Low Income Investment Fund. 2007. Charter School Facilities Requirements: A Guide for Developers, Brokers and Landlords. http://www.liifund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Charter-School-Facilities-Requirements-RTC2008.pdf Lubienski, Christopher. “Innovation in Education Markets: Theory and Evidence on the Impact of Competition and Choice in Charter Schools.” American Educational Research Journal 40.2 (2003): 395–443. Web. Lubienski, Christopher. “Marketing Schools: Consumer Goods and Competitive Incentives for Consumer Information.” Education and Urban Society 40.1 (2007): 118–141. Web. MacVean, Mary, and Alexandra Zavis. “Charter Choices: Good Food, Free Food, No Food.” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 2011. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/01/local/la-me-0101-charter-food-20110101.

Malin, Martin H., and Charles Kerchner. Charter Schools and Collective Bargaining: Compatible Marriage or Illegitimate Relationship?. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, September 15, 2007. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1014633.

Malloy, Courtney L. and Priscilla Wohlstetter. 2003. “Working Conditions in Charter Schools: What’s the Appeal for Teachers?” Education and Urban Society, Vol. 35 No. 2. Retrieved from: https://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/focus/charterschools/publications/journals/Working%20Conditions%20in%20Charter%20Schools%20%20What%27s%20the%20Appeal%20fo.pdf McGray, D. (2009). The Instigator. New Yorker. Vol. 85 Issue 13, p66-74. Retrieved from:http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=7d8c745b-24db-461a-bac4d8de9da316f9%40sessionmgr4003&vid=0&hid=4209&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&A N=3905504 Magnolia Public Schools. Retrieved from: http://magnoliapublicschools.org/media/.

Meza, D. R. (2014). Perceived Effects of LAUSD’s New Teacher Growth and Development Cycle on Teacher and Administrator Practice. UCLA [Dissertation].

Molnar, A. (2014). Virtual Schools in the US in 2014. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=ced_fac&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Deducation%2Bpolicy%2Bstudies%2B laboratory%2Barizona%2Bstate%2Bemo%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5%26as_ylo%3D20 13#search=%22education%20policy%20studies%20laboratory%20arizona%20state%20emo%22 Molnar, Alex, Gary Miron, and Jessica Urschel. "Profiles of For-Profit Educational Management Morrison, Patt “Should L.A. Schools Be Run like Businesses? Here’s What New UTLA Chief Alex Caputo-Pearl Says.” Los Angeles Times, September 9, 2014.Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-morrisoncaputo-pearl-20140908-column.html#page=1.

Muller, K. (2014). Study: LA charter schools outperform traditional district schools. 89.3 KPCC. Retrieved October 12, 2014, from: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2014/03/15/16099/study-los-angeles-charter-schoolsoutperform-tradi/ Murray, Bobbi. “Jumbotrons & Thundersticks: Parent Revolution Throws a Convention.” Capital & Main, Retrieved from: http://capitalandmain.com/jumbotrons-and-thundersticks-parent-revolution-throws-a-convention/

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

209

NAPCS Dashboard. "The Public Charter School Dashboard." Retrieved October 12, 2014 from: http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/students/page/overview/district/CA-149/year/2012.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2013). A growing movement: America’s largest charter school communities. Retrieved from: http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2013-Market-ShareReport-Report_20131210T133315.pdf National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2014). About Us. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from: http://www.publiccharters.org/about-us/ National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2014). Measuring up to the model: A ranking of state charter school laws. Retrieved from: http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014.pdf National Center for Charitable Statistics. “Financials: Magnolia Educational and Research Foundation,” 2014.

Retrieved from: http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/954649884/.

National Center for Education Statistics Digest. US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_216.90.asp National Center for Education Statistics. “Charter School Enrollment Trends in U.S.” Retrieved October 11, 2014, from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_216.20.asp National Center for Education Statistics. “Number of Charter Schools in the U.S.” Retrieved October 10, 2014, from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_216.20.asp National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. Schools and Staffing Survey (1999-2002). Washington, DC. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research.

National Charter School Research Project. 2010. “Teacher Attrition in Charter vs. District Schools. Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington, Bothell. Seattle,WA. Retrieved from: http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/brief_ics_Attrition_Aug10_0.pdf National Charter School Resource Center. (2014). Charter Management Organizations. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from: http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/priority-area/charter-management-organizations National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014). Parent Trigger Laws in the States. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/state-parent-trigger-laws.aspx National Education Association. (2014). About Us. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from: http://www.nea.org/home/16332.htm National Education Association. (2014). Charter Schools. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from: http://www.nea.org/home/16332.htm New Markets Tax Credits Eligibility. Buck Financial Advisors LLC: Representative Projects. Retrieved from: http://www.buckfinancial.net/buck_financial_projects.php.

Newton, Xiaoxia A., Rosario Rivero, Bruce Fuller, and Luke Dauter. 2011. Teacher Stability and Turnover in Los Angeles: The Influence of Teacher and School Characteristics. University of California, Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education.http://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/2011_PACE_WP_NEWTON.pdf.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

210

Nicholas, Peter and Jean Merl. 2005 "Riordan to Quit Post in Education." Los Angeles Times. April 28, 2005.

Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/28/local/me-riordan28.

Niesner, Chase. 2014. "LAUSD Reports Increase in Charter School Co-location Approvals." LA School Report.

Accessed October 20, 2014.

Noguera, P. (2014). Why Don't We Have Real Data on Charter Schools? The Nation. Retrieved October 12, 2014, from: http://www.thenation.com/article/181753/why-dont-we-have-real-data-charter-schools Nonprofit Explorer. ProPublica. Retrieved from: http://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/.

Occupation by Unemployment Status, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity Universe: Civilian labor force 16 years and over EEO Tabulation 2006-2010 (5-year ACS data)N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2014. Inspection Data Establishment Search: NAICS Code 611110. Retrieved 11/17/2014 from: https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.html Organizations: 2008-2009. Education and the Public Interest Center." EPIC/EPRU Home. Education and the Public Interest Center. Sept. 2009. 8. Web. 09 Nov. 2009. Retrieved from: http://epicpolicy.org/files/0809%20profiles%20report.pdf Pacific Charter School Development. “Schools/Clients.” Retrieved from: http://pacificcharter.org/what-wedo/schools-clients/#.VHw2xaTF87g Pacific Charter School Development. “Value Proposition.” Retrieved from: http://pacificcharter.org/what-wedo/value-proposition/#.VE3hv5PF9Q8 Parent Revolution Website. “Our Work.” Retrieved from: http://parentrevolution.org/what-we-do/ PCSD. “PCSD Website .” Retrieved October 18, 2014 fromhttp://pacificcharter.org/who-weare/overview/#.VETO3IvF9Q8 Pearson, L. Carolyn, and William Moomaw. “The Relationship between Teacher Autonomy and Stress, Work Satisfaction, Empowerment, and Professionalism.” Educational Research Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2005): 38–54.

Pechthalt, J. (2007). No to merit pay. UTLA. United Teacher Volume XXXVII, Number 3. Retrieved from: http://www.utla.net/node/930 Phi Delta Kappa International. (2014). About. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from: http://pdkintl.org/about/ Press Statement | Magnolia Public Schools. Accessed November 24, 2014. Retrieved from: http://magnoliapublicschools.org/media/press-statement/.

Prothero, Arianna. “Calif. Teachers’ Union Sets Sights on Charters.” Education Week, Bethesda, Md, September 5, 2014, sec. STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS.http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=5D3C-4BH1-JC6PC0JD&csi=270944,270077,11059,8411&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true.

Public Schools Database. - Schools & Districts (CA Dept of Education). Accessed November 02, 2014.Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ds/pubschls.asp.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

211

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY. Reckhow, Sarah, and Jeffrey W. Snyder. “The Expanding Role of Philanthropy in Reckhow, Sarah. 2013. Follow the Money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public School Politics. Oxford University Press.

Reference for Business. (2003) SIC8211 Elementary and Secondary Schools. Encyclopedia of Business, 2nd ed.

Retrieved from: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/industries/Service/Elementary-Secondary-Schools.html.

Report of Audit from LAUSD to Magnolia Science Academy Outlining Fiscal Audit. Scribd. Retrieved from:.https://www.scribd.com/doc/233404441/Report-of-audit-from-LAUSD-to-Magnolia-Science-Academyoutlining-fiscal-audit.

Rich, Motoko. “A Walmart Fortune, Spreading Charter Schools.” The New York Times, April 25, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/us/a-walmart-fortune-spreading-charter-schools.html Robelen, E. (2007). UFT, Green Dot Seek a charter for NY school. Education Week. Retrieved from:http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/07/18/43greendot.h26.html Rojas, Rick. “CALIFORNIA; Walton Foundation gives to area schools; Nearly $12 million was donated to Southern California campuses and groups last year.” Los Angeles Times, June 29, 2011. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/latimes/docview/874003999/1BBE348EB0ED4159PQ/2?accountid=14512 Romo, Vanessa. “Fiscal Mismanagement Cited in Closing 2 Magnolia Charters.” LA School Report, 2014.

Retrieved from: http://laschoolreport.com/just-in-fiscal-mismanagement-cited-lausd-in-closing-2-magnoliacharters/ Romo, Vanessa. “Just In: LAUSD expands probe into Magnolia charter schools.” LA School Report. (2014).

Accessed October 27, 2014. Retrieved from: http://laschoolreport.com/just-in-lausd-expanding-probe-intomagnolia-charter-schools/ Sawchuk, Stephen. “Unions Set Sights on High-Profile Charter-Network Schools.” Education Week, June 10, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/06/10/33unioncharter_ep.h28.html.

Scott, Janelle. “The Politics of Venture Philanthropy in Charter School Policy and Advocacy.” Educational Policy 23, no. 1 (January 1, 2009): 106–36. doi:10.1177/0895904808328531.

Sentinel News Service. 2014. “KIPP Empower Academy Celebrates New Home in South LA.” Sentinel News Service. Retrieved from: http://lasentinel.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13813:kippempower-academy-celebrates-new-home-in-south-la&catid=74&Itemid=164.

Sex, and Race/Ethnicity for Worksite Geography, Total Population Universe: Civilians employed at work 16 years and over EEO Tabulation 2006-2010 (5-year ACS data). Accessed November 9. 2014. Web. Simon, Stephanie. “The New U.S. Visa Rush: Build a Charter School, Get a Green Card.” Reuters, October 12, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-usa-education-charter-visasidUSBRE89B07K20121012.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

212

Singer, Alan. “Why Hedge Funds Love Charter Schools.” Huffington Post, May 20, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/why-hedge-funds-love-char_b_5357486.html Source: ED DATA, Teacher Salaries, 2002-2011. Accessed Nov. 9, 2014. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/fiscal/TeacherSal ary.asp?tab=0&level=06&ReportNumber=4096&County=19&fyr=1112&District=64733#teacherexperience Southern California Public Radio. “Charter schools chief details financial turnaround.” Southern California Public Radio, Retrieved from: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2012/11/27/11247/charter-schools-chain-cut-costsand-reformed-spend/ State of California Employment Development Division. “Employers by Industry: Elementary and Secondary Schools.” Retrieved October 12, 2014, from: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/aspdotnet/databrowsing/empResults.aspx?menuChoice=emp&searchTyp e=Industry&keyword=611110&naicscode4=6111&naicscode6=611110&geogArea=0604000037 Statistics from the Current Population Survey. Accessed November 7, 2014. Web. Strauss, Valerie. “Why Wealthy Foreigners Invest in U.S. Charter Schools.” The Washington Post, February 15, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/15/why-wealthyforeigners-invest-in-u-s-charter-schools/.

Sweetland Edwards, H. (2014). The War on Teacher Tenure. TIME. Retrieved from: https://time.com/3533556/the-war-on-teacher-tenure/?pcd=pw-pas Teach For America. “Summer Training.” Accessed November 17, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.teachforamerica.org/why-teach-for-america/training-and-support/summer-training The Economist. (2009). Do Charter Schools Work? Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com/node/13832483 The Center for Education Reform. (2014). About. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from: https://www.edreform.com/about/ The Center for Education Reform. (2014). Choice and Charter Schools. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from: https://www.edreform.com/issues/choice-charter-schools/ The National Center for Education Research. (2014). About IES: Connecting Research, Policy and Practice.

Retrieved October 9, 2014, from: http://ies.ed.gov/aboutus/ The Public Charter School Dashboard. NAPCS Dashboard. Accessed October 12, 2014.Retrieved from: http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/students/page/overview/district/CA-149/year/2012.

Townsend, L. 2013. ACADEMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE: Snapshot-December 2013. ICEF Public Schools.

U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder. EEO 8w. Detailed Census Occupation by Sex, and Race/Ethnicity for Worksite Geography, Total Population Universe: Civilians employed at work 16 years and over EEO Tabulation 2006-2010 (5-year ACS data). Accessed November 9. 2014. Web. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Public School Facilities More Affordable: State-driven Policy Approaches, Washington, D.C., 2008.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

213

U.S. department of Education, office of Innovation and Improvement, Making Charter Understanding Location Quotient. 2014. Accessed November 1. http://www.economicmodeling.com/2011/10/14/understanding-location-quotient-2/.

United States Census Bureau. “Los Angeles County Business Patterns: Elementary and Secondary Schools.”

Retrieved October 11, 2014, from: http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl United Teachers Los Angeles." Charter Co-location. Accessed October 20, 2014.http://www.utla.net/colocation.

Utah charter schools score low on diversity. The Salt Lake Tribune. (October 4, 2014 Saturday ): 785 words.

UTLA (2014). UTLA News Conference Response to Salary Offer. Retrieved from :http://www.utla.net/salaryoffernewsconference Vevea, Rebecca. “Unions Move In at Chicago Charter Schools, and Resistance Is Swift.” The New York Times, April 7, 2011, sec. U.S. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/us/08cncharter.html.

Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman. 2013. “ICEF Public Schools Audited Financial Statements, 2013.” Accessed November 23, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.icefps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_29018/File/Rosa/ICEF%20FY1213%20Audit%20FS%209.18.13_Board_Approved.pdf View Park Preparatory Accelerated Charter (2014).

Vincent, Roger. 2011. "Agassi to Invest in Charter Schools." Los Angeles Times. June 02, 2011. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/02/business/la-fi-agassi-fund-20110602.

Wallace, Jed. 2014. “When Charter Schools Fail, Close Them.” Los Angeles Times. Accessed November 24. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wallace-charter-schools-20131223-story.html.

Watanabe, Teresa. “Deasy’s Exit Reflects Other School Battles across the U.S.” Los Angeles Times, October 21, 2014.http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-deasy-national-20141021-story.html#page=1.

Wei, Xin, Deepa Patel, and Viki M. Young. 2014. “Opening the ‘black Box’: Organizational Differences between Charter Schools and Traditional Public Schools.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 22, no. 0 (January 18, 2014): 3. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n3.2014.

Weil, D. (2009). Charter School Movement: History, Politics, Policies, Economics and Effectiveness. Amenia; NY. Grey House Publishing.

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The Widget Effect: Our national Wikipedia. “Common Core State Standards Initiative.” Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative Yang. D.(2014). IBISworld Industry Report 61111a: Public Schools in the US. Yemini, Miri, Audrey Addi-Raccah, and Keren Katarivas. “I Have a Dream: School Principals as Entrepreneurs.”

Educational Management Administration & Leadership (2014): n. page. Web.

A SECTORAL ANALYSIS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS

●

214

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR APPENDIX Appendix 3 Charter School Laws Appendix 4 Distributions of enrollment and schools: traditional public and charter schools (1999/2000 ­ 2011/12) Growth of non­charter schools in LAUSD Appendix 5 Colocations in LAUSD for the 2014­15 school year Appendix 7 Related Sectors Related Sectors for Facilities Appendix 8 Data for Location Quotients Appendix 9 KIPP LA Schools Revenue and Finances 2008­2012 KIPP LA Major donors to KIPP LA, 2008 ­ 2014 (“Champion Supporters Hall of Fame”) KIPP LA Major Donors for Fiscal Year 2013 KIPP LA Small Donors for Fiscal Year 2013 KIPP Schools in 2013 KIPP LA Board Membership KIPP LA Trustees KIPP LA Management ICEF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES ICEF REVENUE 2013 Side­by­side comparison of CMO indicators Appendix 12 Bureau of Labor Statistics of education related occupations in Los Angeles MSA Wages of LAUSD Teachers Demographics of LAUSD Teachers Interview Reports Eileen Hatrick Kathryn Stevens

Appendix 3 Charter School Laws

Appendix 4 Distributions of enrollment and schools: traditional public and charter schools (1999/2000 - 2011/12)

Graph built with data from: "National Center for Education Statistics Digest." US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Distributions of enrollment and schools: traditional public and charter schools (1999/2000 - 2011/12) Source: “National Center for Education Statistics Digest.� US Dept of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Growth of non-charter schools in LAUSD

Appendix 5 Colocations in LAUSD for the 2014-15 school year DISTRICT SCHOOL

CHARTER SCHOOL

24TH STREET ELEMENTARY

CROWN PREPARATORY ACADEMY

2ND STREET ELEMENTARY

EXTERA PUBLIC SCHOOL

6TH AVENUE ELEMENTARY

CITY CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ALBION ELEMENTARY

ENDEAVOR COLLEGE PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL

ANIMO CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL #3/#4 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CLAY MS)

ALLIANCE HEALTH SERVICES ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL

ANN ELEMENTARY

ENDEAVOR COLLEGE PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL

AUDUBON MIDDLE SCHOOL

CRENSHAW ARTS/TECH CHARTER HS

BARACK OBAMA GLOBAL PREP ACADEMY

RISE KOHYANG MIDDLE SCHOOL

BELMONT SENIOR HIGH

ALLIANCE COLLEGE READY HIGH SCHOOL #16

BELMONT SENIOR HIGH

CAMINO NUEVO CHARTER ACADEMY #2

BELVEDERE MIDDLE SCHOOL

KIPP SOL ACADEMY

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SENIOR HIGH

LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

BERENDO MIDDLE SCHOOL

MONSENOR OSCAR ROMERO CHARTER

BIRMINGHAM SENIOR HIGH (FORMER)

HIGHTECH LA

BREED ELEMENTARY

EXTERA PUBLIC SCHOOL

BUDLONG ELEMENTARY

LOU DANTZLER PREPARATORY CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

CARTHAY CENTER ELEMENTARY

NEW LOS ANGELES CHARTER SCHOOL

CARVER MIDDLE SCHOOL

FREDERICK DOUGLASS ACADEMY MIDDLE SCHOOL

CHATSWORTH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

CHAMPS CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL OF THE ARTS, MULTIMEDIA, AND

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS MIDDLE SCHOOL

INGENIUM CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS MIDDLE SCHOOL

INGENIUM CHARTER SCHOOL

COWAN ELEMENTARY

ANIMO WESTSIDE CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL

CRENSHAW BUSINESS ENTREPRENUERSHIP & TECH MAGNET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CRENSHAW HS)

ICEF VISTA BUSINESS & FINANCE ACADEMY

CRENSHAW BUSINESS ENTREPRENUERSHIP & TECH

ICEF VISTA MIDDLE CHARTER ACADEMY

MAGNET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CRENSHAW HS) CRENSHAW BUSINESS ENTREPRENUERSHIP & TECH MAGNET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CRENSHAW HS)

VIEW PARK PREPARATORY ACCELERATED CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL

CRENSHAW BUSINESS ENTREPRENUERSHIP & TECH MAGNET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CRENSHAW HS)

WESTCHESTER SECONDARY CHARTER SCHOOL

CURTISS MIDDLE SCHOOL

MAGNOLIA SCIENCE ACADEMY 3

DENA ELEMENTARY

ENDEAVOR COLLEGE PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL

DORSEY SENIOR HIGH

MAGNOLIA SCIENCE ACADEMY 5

DREW MIDDLE SCHOOL

KIPP PHILOSOPHERS ACADEMY

EDWARD R ROYBAL LEARNING CENTER

CITY CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL

ERWIN ELEMENTARY

ARARAT CHARTER SCHOOL

FISHBURN ELEMENTARY

CLEMENTE CHARTER SCHOOL

FLORENCE GRIFFITH JOYNER ELEMENTARY

ASPIRE ANTONIO MARIA LUGO

FOSHAY LEARNING CENTER

GLOBAL EDUCATION ACADEMY

GARDENA SENIOR HIGH

NEW MILLENNIUM SECONDARY SCHOOL

GRANT ELEMENTARY

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD CHARTER SCHOOLS 2

HAMASAKI ELEMENTARY

KIPP ILLUMINAR ACADEMY

HELEN BERNSTEIN SENIOR HIGH

APEX ACADEMY

HILLCREST ELEMENTARY

GOETHE INTERNATIONAL CHARTER SCHOOL

HUNTINGTON PARK SENIOR HIGH

PREPA TEC, LOS ANGELES

JAMES MONROE SENIOR HIGH

VALLEY CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL

JOHN ADAMS MIDDLE SCHOOL

EQUITAS ACADEMY #2

KINDERGARTEN LEARNING ACADEMY

ARARAT CHARTER SCHOOL

KING ELEMENTARY

NEW HEIGHTS CHARTER SCHOOL

LE CONTE MIDDLE SCHOOL

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD CHARTER SCHOOL

LORENA ELEMENTARY

EXTERA PUBLIC SCHOOL #2

LOS ANGELES SENIOR HIGH

MATH AND SCIENCE COLLEGE PREPARATORY

LOS FELIZ ELEMENTARY

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD CHARTER SCHOOLS 2

LUTHER BURBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL

CELERITY TROIKA CHARTER SCHOOL

MANHATTAN PLACE ELEMENTARY

APPLE ACADEMY CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MANN MIDDLE SCHOOL

MAGNOLIA SCIENCE ACADEMY-6

MANUAL ARTS SENIOR HIGH

ACADEMY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

MERVYN M DYMALLY SENIOR HIGH

FREDERICK DOUGLASS ACADEMY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

MERVYN M DYMALLY SENIOR HIGH

WATTS LEARNING CENTER CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL

MILES ELEMENTARY

ACADEMIA MODERNA

MULHOLLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL

MAGNOLIA SCIENCE ACADEMY

NORMANDIE ELEMENTARY

FREDERICK DOUGLASS ACADEMY CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

NORTHRIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL

MAGNOLIA SCIENCE ACADEMY

NORWOOD ELEMENTARY

GLOBAL EDUCATION ACADEMY 2

OLIVE VISTA MIDDLE SCHOOL

PUC TRIUMPH CHARTER ACADEMY

ORVILLE WRIGHT ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MAGNET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS WRIGHT MS)

WISH CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PACOIMA MIDDLE SCHOOL

VALOR ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL

PANORAMA SENIOR HIGH

VALOR ACADEMY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

PANORAMA SENIOR HIGH

VALOR ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL

RAYMOND ELEMENTARY

TEACH ACADEMY MS

RESEDA SENIOR HIGH

MAGNOLIA SCIENCE ACADEMY

ROBERT FULTON COLLEGE PREPARATORY SCHOOL

LASHON ACADEMY

ROY ROMER MIDDLE SCHOOL

CELERITY PALMATI CHARTER SCHOOL

SAN FERNANDO SENIOR HIGH

PUC LAKEVIEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

SANTEE EDUCATION COMPLEX

LOS ANGELES BIG PICTURE HIGH SCHOOL

SATURN ELEMENTARY

NEW LOS ANGELES CHARTER SCHOOL

SELMA ELEMENTARY

LARCHMONT CHARTER SCHOOL

SHENANDOAH ELEMENTARY

GOETHE INTERNATIONAL CHARTER SCHOOL

SOUTH GATE SENIOR HIGH

PATHWAYS COMMUNITY SCHOOL

STONER ELEMENTARY

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD CHARTER SCHOOLS 3

SUN VALLEY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY MAGNET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUN VALLEY MS)

CELERITY CARDINAL CHARTER SCHOOL

SUN VALLEY SENIOR HIGH

PUC TRIUMPH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

SYLMAR SENIOR HIGH

DISCOVERY CHARTER PREPARATORY SCHOOL #2

THOMAS JEFFERSON SENIOR HIGH

STUDENT EMPOWERMENT ACADEMY

VIRGIL MIDDLE SCHOOL

CAMINO NUEVO CHARTER ACADEMY #2

VIRGINIA ELEMENTARY

CITY CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

WASHINGTON IRVING MS MATH MUSIC ENGINEERING MAGNET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IRVING MS)

CELERITY OCTAVIA CHARTER SCHOOL

WASHINGTON PREPARATORY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL WEBSTER MIDDLE SCHOOL

TEACH ACADEMY OF TECHNOLOGIES HS

WESTCHESTER ENRICHED SCIENCES MAGNETSHEALTH/SPORTS MEDICINE MAGNET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS WESTCHESTER HS)

OCEAN CHARTER SCHOOL

WESTERN ELEMENTARY

GARR ACADEMY OF MATHEMATICS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL STUDIES

WILLIAM H TAFT CHARTER HIGH (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TAFT HS)

IVY ACADEMIA CHARTER SCHOOL

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON MIDDLE SCHOOL

ANIMO JACKIE ROBINSON CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

Source: http://laschoolreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Preliminary-Proposals-2014-15-Final-2.pdf

Firm

Location

Specializations

Organizations description of themselves

URL

4th Sector Solutions provide start-up back office, training and consulting services to charter schools. Its specializes in financial management and reporting, school operations, human resources management, and start-up management. Its leaders each have over 12 years of charter school industry experience in 14 states. Recent assignments include:

http://www.4thsectorsolutions.com

Crossdisciplinary (one stop shops) 4th Sector Solutions

Baton Rouge, LA Training and human resources consulting, school startup, back office services, fundraising, Board development and training, Web development and hosting

Successful start-up and back office support for the two new STEM charter high schools.

SY10-11 financial planning and budgeting support for a charter school that was going through a leadership transition.

Advise on negotiation of management agreement between a charter school board and a CMO. Development of a performance management system for a ten year old charter school network.

On-going operations and financial management and reporting support for a five school turnaround charter network.

On-going financial management and reporting for a high-performing charter management organization.

Application and start-up support for a new U.S. office of an overseas nonprofit education organization.

CEO search for a charter management organization.

4th Sector Solutions is the sponsor of Charter School Tools.

EdTec Inc.

Emeryville, CA

Consultants, back office services, development, financial accounting software, fundraising, grantwriting (over 250 clients nationwide)

Founded in 2001, EdTec is a social venture with a mission and singular focus to drive quality in the charter movement by:

http://www.edtec.com

Delivering the highest value charter school support services and expertise Bringing economies of scale to developers, independent charter schools and multi-site charter school organizations EdTec was founded on the realization that, like any small business, charter schools need capable, experienced staff with specialized operational skills in a multitude of areas but cannot afford to bring that staff on board.

By providing the benefits of scale, EdTec's service offering allows charter schools to focus more of their limited resources on classroom instruction and improving student achievement.

Unparalleled Reputation and Service Offering Throughout California, EdTec is the most highly-regarded back-office and professional consulting services provider for charter schools.

EdTec's comprehensive services offering spans the entire charter school lifecycle—from charter petition development support, school launch and operations, to board governance, strategic planning, student / school performance, and charter renewal.

The overall EdTec service delivery is proactive, forward-looking and brings our deep charter operations expertise to bear on behalf of our school partners.

EdTec follows a philosophy of continuous improvement. We determine client requirements, expectations and preferences by working closely with our school partners throughout the year and by conducting an in-depth Customer Satisfaction Survey process that occurs annually.

EdTec Presence

ExED

National provider that has delivered services to more than 200 developers and charter schools supporting over 40,000 students across 50 districts in over 30 counties and six states.

EdTec is a partner, sponsor, and services provider to statewide charter school support associations in multiple states.

Re-elected member to the California Charter Schools Association Member Council, a body that helps set policy for the charter school movement in California.

Los Angeles, CA Back office services, ExED works with established community-based organizations and proven http://www.exed.net startup, facilities educators to help create and support high achieving charter schools. Our location expertise ranges from finding the best school facilities possible and helping get the school up on its feet to providing technical, human resources and accounting assistance to charter schools already in existence.

Financial Management (Auditors, Consultants, Financial Accounting Software, Financial Advisors, Fundraising consultants, Grants, Insurance/Risk Management, Lenders/Facility Finance, Online Paymen Beltz, Kes, Darling and Associates

Farmington, MN

Consultants

BKDA is the nations largest CPA firm providing financial management and business management services solely to charter schools. Over the past decade BKDA has consistently provided their clients with the highest level of expertise and client service available. Our constant growth has allowed us to attract great talent allowing us to become a CPA firm built for charter schools by charter schools. Our services include:

http://www.bkda.org

Charter School Management Corporation

Temecula, CA

Grant Strategies, Nationwide

Guardian Tax Solutions

Calabasas, CA

Renaissance School Services

Nationwide

MiChoice Technology Solutions

Houston, TX

Consultants

CSMC offers charter schools comprehensive back office services, including http://www.csmci.com bookkeeping, HR, payroll, state and local reporting, and operational services. We handle all of the ‘numbers’ so you can focus on educating your kids. Beginning with the planning stages of developing a charter to the operating plan of an established school, CSMC can offer you the service, expertise, and efficiency needed for any stage of developing and running a successful school. Given that cash flow is tight, CSMC will work with you to establish a flexible payment schedule that recognizes our state's revenue deferrals.

Why recreate the wheel by doing your charter school business functions in house? Working with the experts at CSMC frees you to focus on your school’s educational program. In Human Resources we monitor payroll services, administer employee benefits, and manage STRS and PERS. Our Business Services include building and site negotiation, planning, and financing; we provide attendance reporting assistance, CALPADS assistance, and Powerschool implementation and support. CSMC assists in establishing legal entity and bylaws for your Charter organization, conducts ongoing monthly operational plan reviews and overlooks your safety and disaster plan. Allies are essential in meeting the challenges of charter school operations—make CSMC your business partner.

Consulting, grantwrit Grant Strategies, LLC offers a wide range of services to charter schools nationwide from charter petition writing/editing to grant/contract proposal writing, as well as marketing services. As a trusted consultant, it provides value as a one-stop shop for charter schools with discounts for multiple services. Government grants and private sector grants such as the Walton Family Foundation charter school grants are popular services. Grant Strategies also writes strategic fundraising plans with work plans encompassing three years to support the ongoing financial viability of charter schools. Please contact Grant Strategies today for a free initial consultation to discuss your charter school's funding needs and we will offer a proposal for services for your consideration.

Tax consulting Guardian Tax Resolution is led by a team of attorneys and tax professionals with extensive experience and expertise in resolving every possible tax problem and tax controversy. Whether your tax burden is $25,000.00 or $100 Million, personal or business, payroll or state, Guardian Tax Resolution has the knowledge, experience and ability to resolve your problem in a quick, professional and efficient manner. Guardian Tax Resolution offers the platinum standard in tax relief services for clients in all 50 states.

Consulting, Renaissance School Services is a leading service provider in school management, turnaround, charter school operations, and research. With a leadership research team that has spent more than a dozen years working in whole charter school management, school turnaround, and more recent engagements in research, RSS is among the most experienced school operating and improvement teams in the country, which has led some of the nation’s leading education reform funders and researchers to ask us to work with them on commissioned research projects. RSS works directly with charter school boards, district administrations, and state policy makers to help produce outstanding schools.

Software MiChoice develops meal accountability and time clock software solutions for Charter,K-12 schools and after school programs.

http://www.grantstrategies.com

http://www.guardiantaxresolutions.com

http://www.rsservices.org

http://www.michoicetechnology.com/

Alliant Insurance Services

Alpharetta, Georgia

Bartlett Insurance San Diego, CA Services

CharterSafe Insurance Program

Aliso Viejo, CA

Digital schools

Nationwide

Insurance/risk management, property and liability insurance Insurance/risk management

Designed in conjunction with school officials and school insurance http://www.alliantinsurance.com professionals, STARS offers a comprehensive package to cover the unique exposures of a Charter School. With the growth in the Charter School segment STARS responded to the unique features of each school with program flexibility, knowing that no two schools are alike.

We at Bartlett Insurance Services provide California Charter Schools with http://www.bartlettinsuranceservices.com the best benefit choices, outstanding service and HR support to make administration simple and easy.

With each new group enrolled with B.I.S. we include a Student Reward Program designed for your specific charter school offered exclusively by Bartlett Insurance Services.

Insurance/risk By participating in CharterSafe, you can have the peace of mind to know management you have the right insurance coverage and the help to keep your school safe and prevent accidents and losses. Money that you save on insurance and on losses can be put to much better use-whether it is filling that very needed new teacher position, buying computers, going on that field trip, or paying for staff development.

Back office software Digital Schools is the leading provider of integrated human resources, financial and payroll software for the k-12 sector. Our products integrate data, provide accountability and facilitate informed decisions and cost savings.

http://www.chartersafe.com

http://digital-schools.com

The Benefits of Digital Schools' Products Built with and for school district professionals Provides unparalleled visibility and accountability Functions in real time, enabling timely and accurate decision-making Requires electronic authorization prior to any budget-impacting activity Provides proven return on investment advantages Utilizes a technology platform that adapts and grows with our clients, avoiding costly changes down the road Academics + Blended Learning Assessment & Testing, AV Materials & Equipment / Interactive Whiteboards, College Counseling, Consultants, Curriculum & Instruction Materials, Educational Software, Home Sch Bridges Educational Services

Yuba City, CA

Math Solutions

Sausalito, CA

The Critical Thinking Co.

Seaside, CA

AverMedia Technologies

Milpitas, CA

Assessment and Testing, Special education services, Teacher Recruiting

We work with homeschool families looking to compliment their current curriculum, students who are struggling, behind and frustrated in public or private school, and students who are simply bored with textbook learning and need to be challenged in an exciting and engaging way. Bridges will help your child: Assessment and Founded in 1984 by Marilyn Burns, a leader in teacher advocacy and one of Testing today's preeminent math educators, Math Solutions is dedicated to improving students learning of mathematics by providing the highest quality professional development services, products, and resources.

Assessment and For more than 50 years, our award-winning products have helped students Testing, Educational of all abilities achieve better grades and higher test scores with highly software effective lessons that sharpen the mind as they teach standards-based reading, writing, mathematics, science, and history. Our products are fun, easy to use, and guaranteed to produce better grades and higher test scores.

Digital products -

http://www.thebridgesdifference.com

http://www.mathsolutions.com

http://www.criticalthinking.com

http://www.avermedia-usa.com

Charter School Fine Arts Consulting Services

Clarkston, MI

Engaged Minds

Boston, MA

A+ TutorSoft, Inc. Greenwood, IN

ABCmouse.com Glendale, CA (Age of Learning, Inc. Common Sense Media

San Francisco, CA

CTB/McGraw HIll Monterey, CA

Developmental Studies Center

Oakland, CA

Education2020

Nationwide

Evan-Moor Corporation

Monterey, CA

Consulting

Charter School Fine Arts Consulting Services provides charter schools with a variety of opportunities to enhance their arts education program. Our extensive charter school arts experience will assist you with your arts and/or arts integration program in curriculum planning, implementation, and evaluation. We also develop partnerships between your academy and community organizations that provide your students with local and statewide performance and advancement opportunities. One of our statewide activities, the Michigan Charter School Fine Arts Camp (the largest summer activity of its kind in the nation), celebrated a 10 year anniversary this past summer 2009.

IT consultants We are a Boston-based group of consultants and technology executives http://www.engagedmindsinc.com focused on education, and in particular on helping K-12 districts and higher education institutions improve their student retention and graduation rates.

We have many years of experience working in education and we understand the IT infrastructure as well as the organizational and cultural dynamics on campus. We are experts and thought leaders in the area of student retention. Our unique approach combines advice on tactical aspects of retention and drop-out prevention programs with a rigorous focus on process. Most importantly, we provide an infrastructure that turns your student data into targeted retention interventions with reliable and predicable outcomes. The financial impact of our work is immediate and far outweighs the cost of our services.

Curriculum and Our online Multi-Sensory Interactive MATH Curriculum is the only http://www.aplustutorsoft.com instruction materials, supplement you will need to improve your students’ MATH grades and educational SAVE hundreds of hours of teachers' time. software, Online lesson plans Curriculum and ABCmouse.com is an extremely effective personalized learning tool for http://www.ABCmouse.com instruction materials, children ages 2-6 (soon to be ages 2-8). Subjects covered include Reading, Online lesson plans, Math, Beginning Science, Social Studies, Art and Music.

Online curriculum/courses Curriculum and Common Sense Media offers a free digital citizenship and online safety http://www.commonsense.org/educators instruction materials classroom curriculum for middle school students, as well as a full complement of parent engagement resources to address these issues with your whole community.

Curriculum and CTB/McGraw-Hill delivers high quality assessment solutions that adhere to http://www.ctb.com instruction materials professional standards. We are committed to continously improving our products and services, developing our people, and satisfying our customers.

Curriculum and Since 1980, we have created research-proven programs and provided http://www.devstu.org instruction materials professional development services to help schools and after-school programs become caring, inclusive communities and stimulating, supportive places in which to learn. Our programs build students’ academic skills while simultaneously facilitating their social, emotional, and ethical development.

Helping all students become good learners and good people—that is our mission.

Curriculum and Education2020 helps school districts provide core and elective instruction in http://www.e2020inc.com instruction materials a virtual school setting for students in grades 6-12. Our courseware is aligned to state and national standards and has helped students recover and accrue credits for graduation and prepare for state, end-of-course, and key standardized tests since 1998.

Curriculum and Since 1979, Evan-Moor Educational Publishers has provided teachers and http://www.evan-moor.com instruction materials, educators with practical, creative, and engaging PreK-6+ educational educational software materials to support and enrich the curriculum.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Boston, MA

K-5 Kaplan

Lewisville, NC

Lockett Learning Systems

Laguna Niguel

Pearson

Nationwide

Curriculum and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt is an educational content provider with over 170 instruction materials years of research based instructional materials--ranging from print and digital content to learning managment and assessment platforms, as well as professional development and custom publishing options. We are your complete education solution for the 21st century and beyond.

Curriculum and As the elementary education division of Kaplan Early Learning Company, Kinstruction materials 5 Kaplan is proud to be a part of the company's 40+ year commitment to improving the learning and development outcomes of children. You can count on us to continue this tradition by offering standards-based learning tools that will help you provide engaging instructional opportunities for the diverse learning needs of students in today's K-5 classrooms.

Curriculum and SCORE is effective in improving the academic performance of high-risk instruction materials youth. SCORE specializes in empowering staff to motivate students, teach them powerful study skills, and help them manage their traumatic life events. SCORE's study skills curriculum is powerful; SCORE's staff development is interactive and designed around principles to effectively change the culture of a school. SCORE provides curricular materials and technical assistance to ensure a successful implementation. SCORE's success is validated by the United States Department of Education.

Curriculum and Pearson is the world’s leading education company, providing educational instruction materials, materials, technologies, assessments and related services to teachers, educational software students and professionals. We are also the global leader in clinical assessment, providing a wide range of assessments for personality, behavior, ability, achievement, speech and language, and career interests.

http://www.hmhco.com/about-us.html

http://www.k5kaplan.com

http://www.score-ed.com

http://www.pearsonassessments.com

We publish research-based curriculum in print, digital, or blended options under a range of respected imprints including Scott Foresman, Prentice Hall, Addison-Wesley, Allyn and Bacon, Benjamin Cummings and Longman.

We are also a leading provider of electronic learning programs and of test development, processing and scoring services to educational institutions, corporations and professional bodies around the world.

School Improvement Services

Solana Beach, CA

Pearson's other primary business include The Financial Times Group and the Penguin Group.

Online lesson plans, School Improvement Services has developed a program, focusing on how http://20daymath.weebly.com Principal recruiting to change a good school to a great one in a year’s time. Our talents lie in linking theory to practice. Our review of school research and student test scores indicates there are two main focus areas that affect instructional delivery. Our services are designed to provide you and your teaching staff the necessary tools in improving instruction and meeting the curricular needs of your students. Our methodology and strategies are all based on research.

Board Development and Training Board Development and Training, Legal Services and Consulting National Charter Schools Institute

Michigan

Board development The National Charter Schools Institute’s mission is to transform public and training education and power performance, productivity and accountability breakthroughs that help people win for kids. Our team is made up of passionate professionals who are committed to excellence and known for their integrity. We envision a day when all students will have access to a diverse marketplace of exceptional schools where they can learn, grow and prepare for success in college, work and life.

Human Resources 403(b) Plan Providers, Consultants, Employee Benefits & Human Resources, Executive Recruiting, Principal Recruiting, Teacher Recruiting CharterBenefits.c Nationwide om (Regional Employee Benefits Council)

403(b) plan provider, consulting, Employee benefits and human resources Human Resources operations, admin and teacher recruitment, Employee benefits, Executive recruiting, Principal recruiting, Teacher Recruiting Employee benefits and human resources

Redwood Circle Consulting

Oakland, CA

501(c) Agencies Trust

Cupertino, CA

MDG Benefit Solutions

Nationwide

Employee benefits and human resources

CharterSchoolJob Nationwide s.com

Teacher recruiting

Teachers on Reserve

Teacher recruiting

Glendale, CA

CharterBenefits.com a division of Regional Employee Benefits Council was http://www.charterbenefits.com founded in 1998. We have been serving Charter Schools and Non Profit Organizations since then. Whether you are a school or a small business, our team of skilled Insurance Professionals can help you with all of your insurance needs.

Redwood Circle is an expert in the area of talent management and human http://www.redwoodcircle.org capital operations for schools and education organizations. Our practice features: executive search; teacher and principal recruitment outreach, selection process design and implementation; strategic planning and guidance around HR/staffing issues; nuts and bolts HR operations support.

501(c) Agencies Trust is a national organization that helps nonprofits leave the state unemployment tax system and become reimbursing employers. As the first organization to recognize this opportunity, we set the standard for unemployment savings and service.

MDG Benefit Solutions works with over 25 charter schools of all sizes to help them manage and maximize their employee benefit programs. Since 1973 our firm has worked with non profit organizations to design, implement, and administer health and retirement programs. We have offices in New York City.

CharterSchoolJobs.com is a service of K12connect, Inc. Since 2004, we have helped hundreds of charter schools and charter management organizations across the country recruit and hire the best candidates out there. We were the first and are the largest privately-owned staff recruitment service on the web serving the charter school industry. Our track record with many of the most academically successful charter schools is a testament to the quality of our candidates and customer service. Public charter schools are changing the world in profound ways for children who otherwise would be stuck in failing traditional public schools. We are honored that so many high-performing charter schools have entrusted their precious recruitment resources with us and we will continue to work tirelessly to find great candidates and build on that trust.

Since 1987, Teachers on Reserve (TOR) has been a trusted substitute placement service serving California's Private, Independent and Charter Schools. We provide teachers for schools in the San Francisco Bay Area, Greater Sacramento, Greater Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego.

http://www.501ctrust.org

http://www.mdgassoc.com

http://www.charterschooljobs.com

http://www.teachersonreserve.com

Operations Building Maintenance & Grounds Equipment, Business Services, Facilities Maintenance, Foodservice Providers, School Management Software, School Security & Student Safety, Four Star Cleaning and Restoration The DECO Corporation

Fremont, CA

Building Maintenance and repair West Covina, CA Building Maintenance and repair, Grounds Equipment

Four Star has the unique capabilities of handling 24x7 emergencies for water damage, fire and smoke, trauma, flood, mold remediation, asbestos abatement, reconstruction and repair and carpet and upholstery cleaning.

DECO provides a One-Stop-Shop soluction dedicated to Charter Schools.

We offer, janitorial services, supplies, floor care, presure washing, landscaping, plumbing and electrical.

http://www.fourstarclean.com http://www.thedecocorporation.com

School Year Data Mountain View, CA

Business services

School Nutrition Plus

Foodservice Providers

Sherman Oaks, CA

School Year Data helps you manage your student data and meet State http://www.schoolyeardata.com Reporting requirements. We specialize in PowerSchool, CALPADS, and other State mandated reporting. We'll help you establish the best practices and keep your student data system well tuned.

School Nutrition Plus provides food service consulting to charter schools. http://www.schoolnutritionplus.com This includes assistance with all facets of the National School Lunch Program. We offer many nutrition programs including "Fresh Picket" where we combine farm-to-cafeteria, garden-to-cafeteria, and scratch cooking principles in your food program. Our registered dietitians and chefs are here to serve all of your school food needs.

Purchasing Apparel, School and Band Uniforms, Musical Instruments; Athletic Equipment & Services; Office Supplies & Equipment Leasing; Playgrounds; Room Dividers; School Furniture; Sc Academy Attire School Uniforms

Bountiful, UT

Skillastics

Corona, CA

3 Oaks Resource Pinecrest, CA Group International

Sunset Survival and First Aid

Huntington Beach, CA

Best Edu Source San Jose, CA

CK-12 Foundation Palo Alto, CA

School uniforms for We cater to charter schools requiring uniforms. We have or can order any charters merchandise needed for the school's dress code. We carry, Classroom, Universal, Becky Thatcher, A plus, French Toast and others which are the jumpers, pants, polos, shirts, skirts, skorts, ties, hair accessories, sweaters logos, socks, etc. both new and used inventory. We can come to your school and do a school uniform sale during parent teacher conferences, orientations or during any school function you prefer.

Athletic equipment A new twist on conventional circuit training, Skillastics is fun, uniquely and services designed technique of play that allows 1 to 100 children of varying ages and fitness levels the ability to have a positive and successful experience being physically active. Over 13,000 quality programs have adopted Skillastics, and are raving about how it provides effective stadards-based educational principals all in the atmosphere of fun!

General materials, 3 Oaks Resource Group International acts as your out-sourced purchasing athletic equipment, department to coordinate and manage orders from the start, through project Office supplies and completion, and beyond. We leverage our national and international equipment leasing, purchasing power, ensuring the best pricing. You will have a single point of Playgrounds, Room contact, supported by the entire 3 Oaks Resource team. Our main objective dividers, School is to build a strong, unique, and long-term relationship with you, helping Supplies, Science make your vision a reality. We focus on saving you in-house personnel Labs and materials costs and time, so you can focus on your business.

Survival and First Sunset Survival & First Aid also supplies school health offices & Aid supplies classrooms with instant cold packs, privacy shelters, & individual student earthquake/emergency preparedness kits. In addition to our public sector customers, we are also happy to work with private businesses & individual households. Large quantity discounts available. We have experience working with schools on a purchase-order basis.

School supplies Best Edu Source has a great selection of workbooks and educational material including Singapore Math, The Critical Thinking Co., Spectrum and Test Preparation material for K to 12. We do accept purchase orders from schools via mail or fax.

School supplies Flexbooks are textbooks delivered in a web-based collaborative model where content can be filtered by individual requirements and available on demand in online and print formats. The modular content can be customized by subject, language and level of difficulty, empowering teachers and students to create and use educational content that is highquality and engaging.

http://www.skillastics.com

http://www.3oaksgroup.com

http://www.SunsetSurvival.com

http://www.BestEduSource.com

http://www.ck12.org

Discount School Supply (Excelligence Learning Corp.)

Monterey, CA

School supplies

Teacher Created Westminster,CA Resources

School supplies, Teaching aids

Zula USA, LLC

Science labs and materials

Burbank, CA

Finding quality products for your Charter School is easy with Discount http://www.discountschoolsupply.com School Supply. We know you're working hard to provide your students a superior education and we're here to help you stock your classroom with the items you need—all at the lowest prices, guaranteed. Choose from a huge selection of quality Arts & Crafts materials, Active Play items, Teacher's Resources, plus items for Math, Science, Language and more!

For over 30 years, Teacher Created Resources has published quality http://www.teachercreated.com resource books at the early childhood, elementary, and middle school levels. Our books cover all aspects of the curriculum--language arts, social studies, math, science, technology, and the arts. In addition, we help teachers and parents create stimulating learning environments by producing colorful bulletin boards, stickers, awards, notepads, postcards, name tags, and incentive charts.

Integrated science curriculum & professional development. http://www.zula.com

Technology Communications Equipment & Services; Computers & Electronic Equipment; E-Rate Consultants; Learning Management Systems; Online Curriculum / Courses; Teacher Training; SBR Technology Orange, CA

CharterEd. Technology

Nationwide

EduTone Corp.

Alameda, CA

E-Rate Advantage

Nationwide

Innovative School Fair Oaks, CA Solutions, Inc.

Communications equipment and services, Learning management systems, Web development and hosting Computers and electronic equiipment, Teacher training, Web development and hosting Computers and electronic equiipment

E-Rate consultant

Learning management systems

SBR is a computer / network technology consulting firm with emphasis on technology management, network engineering, technical support, and software solutions provider. Our client base includes, healthcare, financial services, legal, non-profit, and educational organizations.

http://www.sbrtek.com

We provide cost effective technology solutions and support for both school http://www.charteredtech.com administration and academic use. Additionally, we provide technology curriculum development assistance specializing in core subject integration.

Count on us to keep costs down and productivity up.

EduTone is a next-generation turnkey services automation “ecosystem” that http://www.edutone.com delivers software as a service. Uniquely designed with, and for, K-20 educational organizations, EduTone was built to save budget dollars, free up valuable instructional time, and relieve technical and administrative challenges, EduTone breaks down the barriers to online services management and delivery and automates countless tasks for educational leaders, IT directors, teachers, and learners. Now, EduTone's ET Persona tablet, the only school-centric handheld device on the market, delivers the EduTone single sign-on platform with resource provisioning capabilities and a suite of FREE and also "for-fee" educational resources and puts 21st Century learning directly into the hands of each student and teacher in the U.S. and throughout the world.

E-Rate Advantage LLC was founded on the premise that all schools should http://www.erateadvantage.com have an equal opportunity to secure the E-Rate funds to which they are entitled. We recognize schools have varying degrees of success with the program. Some succeed and get approved, some have filed and been denied, some simply become frustrated with the process and others have become hopelessly lost in the maze of PIA reviews, Selective Reviews, Program Compliance Reviews and Audits.

Satisfying strict accountability guidelines can be challenging for any school, http://www.innovativeschoolsolutions.com especially charter schools and districts. OASIS is a powerful web-based student information system designed with this in mind. As an application service provider, ISS takes care of the details...we host and support OASIS for you.

Istation

Nationwide

Learning management systems, Online curriculum/courses, Virtual charter school priovider

BrainX

Camarillo, CA

Online curriculum/courses

ABCmouse.com

Glendale, CA

Virtual charter school provider

Istation is a leading provider of web-based reading interventions and onhttp://www.istation.com demand, formative assessments designed for pre-K – 10. Using comprehensive reporting and data-informed, differentiated instruction, istation can quickly and accurately group students with similar skills, recommend teacher-directed lessons, and provide district and school administrators with decision support data in less than 20 minutes for an entire class!

The BrainX CAHSEE system uses accelerated learning to take each http://www.brainx.com student down the fastest path to mastery. Students take the online Pre Assessment to identify knowledge gaps. Next, the BrainX system builds a course plan based on pre-assessment performance. At this point students can navigate through the approved coursework until they have mastered it.

ABCmouse.com Early Learning Academy provides a full online Preschool - http://www.ABCmouse.com Kindergarten Curriculum that supports Common Core standards. Subjects include Reading, Math, Beginning Science, Social Studies, Art and Music.

It’s a very safe, secure website for children, with over 500 lessons & more than 3,500 engaging learning activities. Includes over 350 books plus thousands of games, puzzles, songs, art activities, printables and more.

School and home versions are available.

Firm

Location

Key points

Pleasanton, CA

"The Charter School Landlord", according to their website. Ultimate goal is "Charter School Owned Real Estate".

Provide charter support services in all important categories.

Organizations description of themselves

URL

Multidisciplinary Acre Education

HighMark School Midvale, UT Development

"ACRE Education, is an investment firm that specializes in real http://www.acrecorporation.com/ estate development with Charter Schools. We utilize a unique investment model centered on finding, acquiring and building facilities for a Charter Schools that fits them for the immediate future (2-3 yrs.) and developing and implementing a facilities growth plan that matches your enrollment plan which will ultimately see the school to full stabilized enrollment. We have abundant experience in the Acquisition, Development, Debt Placement and Private Equity investment into Real Estate projects. ACRE has developed a debt and equity platform specifically designed for Charter Schools. Our impact investors and debt partners understand Charter Schools and have a depth of knowledge regarding the operation, its funding and the keys to success in both an educational and financial aspect.

Charter Schools such as Gilroy Prep are too often prematurely forced to enter into long-term debt obligations manifested in a bond offering. While the bond markets can, in some cases, provide an efficient debt solution, the inflexibility and underwriting limitations often limit a school’s ability to meet their maximum enrollment potential. Using its Impact Investment Partners, that is, investors who invest in a socially responsible way, ACRE is able to create an efficient project for their Charter School partners with the ultimate goal of school stabilization and Charter School Owned Real Estate. We want our partner institutions to focus on what they do best, educating children their way! We want to provide you the most cost efficient way to build first class infrastructure and facilities to do that. Something you and your student families will be proud of."

No projects in LA, but HighMark School Development has assisted new and existing http://www.highmarkschools.com/ looks like an important schools secure optimal facilities. Our company has financed and player specialized in designed over $120MM of Charter School Facilities in 5 states charters. and is expanding.Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, HighMark School Development has assisted both new and existing charter schools with their facility needs since 2006. The company is surrounded by key partners that ensure their clients expectations are exceeded. Bouma Construction, the largest design-build contractor of Charter Schools nationally, and Entertainment Properties Trust have aligned objectives with HighMark to ensure the companies are positioned for growth across the U.S. In addition to providing the financing for a facility, HighMark also supports Charter Schools in achieving their goals as a trusted partner.

InSite Charter School Services

Los Angeles, CA

ModSpace (Fontana)

Fontana, CA

Architects

One stop shop for charter school development, located in the City of LA.

InSite Charter School Services is a charter-focused real estate http://www.insitecss.com brokerage firm with offices in Los Angeles & San Diego, providing real estate services to new and existing charter schools throughout the West Coast. InSite Charter School Services mission is to help charter schools find the best site for their needs. We also offer related services such as asset sales, assistance in financing, entitlement approvals and construction management. We work only with charter schools and property owners, meaning that all of our attention and expertise is brought to bear on your needs. InSite CSS is the only real estate brokerage firm in Southern California dedicated to providing real estate services to charter schools. No matter your need, whether it is site location, financing, construction or other related services, we are the charter school broker that is a onestop-shop for all of your charter school development needs.

Temporary site location – Permanent site location – New construction & development services – Initial site and floor plan design studies – Lease negotiations – Local and state government approvals/entitlement – Construction costs analysis – Initial site study and location analysis for submittal to a school board – Assistance with facility financing – Landlord representation, lease negotiations and entitlement services.

Focus on modular ModSpace offers a comprehensive list of temporary and http://www.modspace.com construction. Has 80 permanent products and services, from modular classrooms, brances across US and mobile office trailers and storage, to permanent modular Canada schools. Innovative products, backed by unmatched quality and service, empower ModSpace customers by accelerating the construction process and increasing profitability. Add valuable project management services, and state-of-the-art specialized building solutions and you have a true full-service business partner.

Architecture for Education, Inc.

Pasadena, CA

DES Architects + Redwood, CA Engineers

Financial Advisors

Firm that only designs educational facilities.

"Architecture for Education Incorporated, (A4E) practices the http://www.architecture4e.com foundational principles of Vision, Creativity, Integrity, and Service. Our stated purpose is to improve education through the design of innovative learning environments. A4E was established by Gaylaird Christopher, a nationally-recognized architect with over 30 years of experience in educational facility design. He led the educational design efforts for Wolff, Lang, Christopher Architects (WLC), and was the national leader of the Education Division for the renowned architectural firm of Perkins & Will. In forming A4E, Mr. Christopher assembled a team of dedicated, talented individuals who share a similar focus for designing exceptional educational environments. Our team of designers and technical leaders is committed to creating innovative buildings of the highest quality, in a timely and cost-effective manner. Education is our business – our only business. As a studio-sized firm, we employ talented educational architects who are dedicated to exceptional client service with every project. Our high-quality design work mirrors the level of personal commitment we bring to your project. Large firms will often focus on large projects. At A4E, our work ethic demands that we provide the same detailed attention to each project, regardless of its size. Our focus is always on education: we aim to make a lasting contribution to learning, communicating education's foundational importance through excellent design.

For over 36 years, DES Architects + Engineers, Inc. has created http://des-ae.com/ working, learning, and healing environments for people. As a full-service design firm headquartered in Redwood City, California, DES provides creative and sustainable solutions that serve the needs of clients in education, municipalities, life sciences, technology, healthcare, and the development community. In-house professional services include architecture, interior design, civil and structural engineering, landscape architecture, and visual communications. The company's staff values collaboration to achieve design excellence, applying creativity to each client's unique vision.

Buck Financial Advisors LLC

Englewood, CO

Specilalizes in charter school financing; has several LA and CA projects, including Green Dot and KIPP

Public Economics, Inc (Dwight Berg)

Orange, CA

Dwight Berg a consultant specialized in charter school facilities finance procurement.

General Contractors/ Construction Managers Randy Huttenberger + Associates

Trabuco Canyon, CA

Buck Financial adds value by ensuring the financing meets your http://www.buckfinancial.net/buck_financial_project needs to flexibly operate in a changing marketplace. Often, the s.php terms of a financing can impose unnecessary and inflexible terms which impact your ability to run your program. This is because many firms have only one financing source. Others simply act as putting borrowers in contact with one-source firms, but playing no valuable role in the transaction (though their fee would indicate otherwise). Buck Financial is different in that we have experience with, and access to, multiple financing options and we take a meaningful role in your transaction to ensure your needs are met. Buck Financial is also different in that the bulk of our compensation is due only upon completion of a successful financing. We avoid the type of compensation structure which has no relationship between performance and reward. Finally, Buck Financial is different in that we have built a team of successful industry experts which can assist you no matter which type of financing is appropriate for your school. Charter schools choose Buck Financial Advisors because: 1) we offer a wide range of financial services; 2) we are not "married" to any single financing source and bring integrity to your financing selection process; 3) you will work directly with John and benefit from his experience, and 4) you want a financing which meets your needs and is delivered on time - our compensation is received only when we perform for your school.

Specialized charter school financing programs, maximizing tax http://www.pub-econ.com/ credit subsidies to reduce payment burden on the School.

Randy Huttenberger & Associates specializes in Facilities http://www.wix.com/randyhuttenberger/rh3 Planning and Construction Management for K-12 schools throughout California. Planning, funding, and constructing facilities projects are a challenge for many schools. My combination of technical knowledge, leadership, teamwork, and project management can help you to ensure that your projects are completed on-time and within budget. Professional services provided include: Program Management Construction Management Project Management Interim Management Facilities Assessment Facilities Planning or related services

Lenders/Facility Finance

Building Hope

Washington, DC

Charter School Property Solutions

Nationwide

Consults across US

Building Hope supports high-quality public charter schools in http://www.buildinghope.org Washington, DC; Florida and other U.S. cities and states by providing technical assistance, consulting and project management related to capital projects. Through our financing (loans and guarantees), business services and incubator facilities, we also support the expansion of academically successful schools with the capacity to grow their enrollments.

CSPS only develops charter school properties across America. http://www.csps.us.com We understand the unique operational issues which charter schools face. By combining our understanding of your charter school’s financial and operating structure with a solid understanding of real estate development we will deliver a campus facility that is tailor-made for you.

We Successfully Navigate the Challenges In Any Real Estate Project—So You Won't Have To. Let CSPS bring your charter school’s dream campus to life, so you can focus on your core mission—educating students. Let CSPS do what we do best— deliver a custom facility that fits your needs!

Mass Equity, Inc

Beverly Hills, CA

PFIC

Los Angeles,CA

Modular Classrooms + Buildings Mobile Modular

Nationwide

Project Managers

CSPS has a track record of delivering successful real estate projects to charter schools. Our help allows your school leaders to stay focused on meeting students’ needs. CSPS' solution facilitates a simple, timely, cost effective plan ensuring a charter school’s success!

Mass Equity is a privately held full-service real estate http://www.massequity.com/index.html development company specializing in K-12 charter school facilities. Beyond project feasibility and site design and construction, Mass Equity also provides funding enhancement services as well as purchase and furnishing options to ensure maximized benefits for its clients.

PFIC specializes in the development, renovation and financing http://www.tamkin.com of charter school facilities. PFIC‘s comprehensive program includes site location, entitlements, design, construction and 100% financing for the total project cost. To date, PFIC has completed over 200 public and private projects nationwide.

For over 30 years, Mobile Modular Management Corporation http://www.mobilemodularrents.com/ has been renting and selling portable classrooms, modular buildings and more recently, portable storage containers.

Through an intense focus on Availability, Response and Execution A.R.E., Mobile Modular aspires to provide every customer with an unparalleled experience each and every time.

Mobile Modular currently serves Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington D.C.

Sares Regis

San Mateo, CA

Real Estate Brokers Education Facility Denver, CO Solutions

Colliers International -Educational Services Group

MH Realty Associates, Inc.

Los Angeles, CA

Nationwide

Sares Regis brings the unique perspective of being an owner, developer, investor, and property manager to each project.

These comprehensive real estate services allow us to operate under several business structures including fee development, build to suit development with various ownership structures, joint venture land deals, and more. Throughout our history we have created strong relationships with the financial and brokerage communities, local governments, architects, engineers, and contractors. In the context of a project, these relationships become assets to our investors and clients.

Broker and project management firm for charters

Have specialized charter schools division.

http://www.srgnc.com

From consulting, to property acquisition, to transaction http://www.efsk12.com structure, EFS has assisted over twenty charter schools totaling thirty transactions in the industry. Our services will assist you with every aspect of opening or relocating your charter school.

We partner with you to provide full service facility resources so your administrators can focus on the most valuable assets of your school – the students, the staff, and the success of your curriculum.

Colliers Education Services Group offers an integrated service http://www.colliers.com platform that provides customized and seamless solutions for all of your education real estate needs. With 20 Colliers professionals located throughout the US, we offer services in strategic planning and portfolio alignment, location analysis and site selection, transactions and advisory, building operations, asset management and energy conservation, research and benchmarking analysis, capital markets financing, development and project management and lease portfolio administration.

Matthew Massman spearheads a specialized niche within Colliers Education Services Group focused on Charter Schools.

Leveraging his experience in the sale and leasing of commercial properties throughout California and his in-depth knowledge and understanding of Charter School operations, he is able to locate and secure optimal locations at optimal prices for Charter Schools operators.

MH Realty has negotiated over 30 leases throughout the United States from Alaska to Florida. We represent charter schools in the search and negotiation of their initial facilities and assistant in creating larger facilities when successful charters need to expand.

Appendix 8 Data for Location Quotients

Appendix 9 KIPP LA Schools Revenue 2008-2012

KIPP LA 2012-13 Finances

Source: KIPP LA Schools 2013 annual report

KIPP LA 2011-12 Finances

Source: KIPP LA Schools 2012 annual report

KIPP LA 2010-11 Finances

Source: KIPP LA Schools 2011 annual report

KIPP LA 2009-10 Finances

Source: KIPP LA Schools 2010 annual report

Source: KIPP LA Schools 2009 annual report

KIPP LA 2008-09 Finances

Source: KIPP LA Schools 2009 annual report

KIPP LA Per Pupil Funding by Comparison

Source: KIPP LA Schools 2011 annual report

Source: KIPP LA Schools 2010 annual report

Source: KIPP LA Schools 2009 annual report

KIPP LA Major donors to KIPP LA, 2008 - 2014 (“Champion Supporters Hall of Fame�)

Donator

Type

Notes

$20,000,000 or more Martha & Bruce Karsh

Individuals Attorneys and investors; founders of the Karsh Foundation, which donates heavily to education. Martha sits on the Boards of KIPP Foundation and KIPP LA.

$15,000,000 or more The Eli & Edythe Broad Family Foundation Foundation

$5,000,000 or more Charter School Growth Fund

$1,000,000 or more Otis Booth Foundation CEDAR Foundation Nancy & Howard Marks The Walton Foundation

Family Family Foundation

Jean & Lew Wolff

Major funder of the charter school movement in California, based in LA. Also runs the Broad Superintendent Academy, where former Superindendent John Deasy trained.

$500,000 or more Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Moira & Rajath Shourie

$250,000 or more The Ahmanson Foundation Anonymous Bloomfield Foundation

Family

Leslie & Steve Carlson Joseph Foundation

Drown

ExED The Foundation

Goldhirsh

W.M. Keck Foundation The KIPP Foundation RGK Foundation Weingart Foundation

$100,000 or more Marcia Aaron Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP Annenberg Foundation Kristen Bendele

&

John W. Foundation

Loren Carson

Canyon Partners | Beth & Josh Friedman Michael & Susan Dell Foundation The Eisner Foundation

The Mayer & Morris Kaplan Family Foundation McCammack Foundation

Family

The Morgridge Family Foundation The Ralph M. Parsons Foundation Quest Foundation Julie Kaufer & Frank Reddick The Arthur Rock & Toni Rembe Elementary School Growth Fund Source: KIPP LA website; Type and Notes taken from general internet searches

KIPP LA Major Donors for Fiscal Year 2013 Donator

Type

$1,000,000 OR MORE The Eli & Foundation

Edythe

Broad

Martha & Bruce Karsh Jean & Lew Wolff $100,000 OR MORE Annenberg Foundation Bloomfield Family Foundation Leslie & Steve Carlson CEDAR Foundation Doris & Donald Fisher Fund Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Nancy & Howard Marks The Arthur Rock & Toni Rembe Elementary School Growth Fund Walton Family Foundation

$50,000 OR MORE Canyon Partners | Beth & Josh Friedman

Notes

The John W. Carson Foundation Joseph Drown Foundation ExED Lynn & Craig Jacobson The KIPP Foundation Betsy McLaughlin Pipkin Charitable Foundation Quest Foundation

$25,000 OR MORE Marcia Aaron Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP CityBridge Foundation Katherine Bradley

|

Cassandra & Brad Grey HBO | Michael Lombardo McCammack Family Foundation Eileen & Robert O'Leary The Riordan Foundation Moira & Rajath Shourie Tacori Snyder Family Foundation Wells Fargo Foundation In Honor of Martha & Bruce Karsh | Wendy & Jay Wintrob

$10,000 OR MORE 1011 Foundation | Bobby Kotick Anonymous Andern Educational Research In Honor of Bruce, Martha, and Katie Karsh | Debbie & Mark Attanasio Kristen & Loren Bendele Jacob Bryant

In Honor of Martha Karsh | Diann Kim & John Frank Good Universe | Joe Drake & Nathan Kahane William Trust

R.

Kenan

Charitable

Sarajane & Zac Guevara Elisabeth Shue Guggenheim

&

Davis

Lisa & George Hess In Honor of Eli Broad | Jean & Stephen Kaplan Kayne Foundation | Suzanne & Ric Kayne Latham & Watkins LLP In Honor of Martha Karsh | Susan & Scott Lord Mr. & Mrs. William S. Louchheim Julie & Ken Moelis Nancy & Bruce Newberg Julie Kaufer & Frank Reddick Soros Fund Foundation

Charitable

Stone Family Foundation | Cindy & Sheldon Stone Jeff Strnad Vistamar School | Alicia Mi単ana & Robert Lovelace Lawrence Witzer Source: KIPP LA website; Type and Notes taken from general internet searches

KIPP LA Small Donors for Fiscal Year 2013 $5,000 OR MORE Atlanthub LP

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. In Memory of Dr. Donald Lubin | Nancy & Louchheim | Doris Fisher Howard Marks

Ambassador Frank & Kathy Baxter

In Memory of Dr. Donald Lubin | Frankie & Barry Sholem Diann Kim & John Frank

Ann B. and Thomas L. Friedman In Honor of Martha Karsh | Marc Silicon Valley Community Foundation Family Foundation Gamsin and Susan Brauneiss Bank of America

Nancy & Jonathan Glaser

Cynthia & John H. Smet

Carl E. Wynn Foundation

The Kenneth T. & Eileen L. Norris Robin A. Ferracone & Stewart R. Smith

Foundation In Honor of Martha & Bruce Karsh | Joan Velazquez & Joel Kozberg Susie & Peter Comisar

K. Robert "Bobby" Turner

$1,000 OR MORE Adam & Jessica Goodman

Frank Reddick & Julie Kaufer

Matthew Louchheim

Alan & Kym Chartash

George Hornig

Mia & Mark Silverman

Alex Rubalcava

Greenberg Traurig LLP

Mindy Weiss

Allen & Deborah Grubman

Hillary & Russell Fogarty

Mr. & Mrs. Philip Clapp

Ambassador & Frank E. Baxter

In honor of Frank Reddick | Marca Mr. & Mrs. Richard Hofmann Kaufer

and Paul & Melinda Pressler

Jacob and Ruth Bloom

Mr. & Mrs. William S. Louchheim

Andrew and Bonnie Grey

James & Linda Lippman

Mr. and Mrs. Sam Fischer

Andrew Kin

Jan Nash

Nate Walton

Ares Capital Corporation

Jeffrey and Gayle Rosenthal

O'Melveny and Myers

Arnold & Sherri Nelson

Joel Kozberg & Joan Velasquez

Ray Franco

Barry & Frankie Sholem

Jon Liebman

Rebecca Wolf-DiBiase

Brian Grazer

Jonathan & Sheryl Layne

Renaissance Charitable Foundation, Inc.

Bruce & Lisa Wasson

Jonathan and Nancy Glaser

Richard Lovett

Bruce B. Bozzi

Kevin Huvane

Ronald Meyer & Kelly Chapman Meyer

Christine Cronin and Mark Hurst

Larry David

Saks Fifth Avenue

Christopher Albrecht

Loren Bendele

Thomas & Tara Wuchenich

Daniel Michaels

Lynne Grant

Thomas Safran

Daniel Sterling

Marc Evans & Kirsten Albrecht

Tom & Kathy Freston

Edward Woods

Marcus and Mimi Everard

Tom and Mary Jo Mathis

Fake Empire Productions

Mark Ridley-Thomas

Tom Ford & Richard Buckley

FENDI NA INC.

Martin Short

$500 OR MORE Alexa Faigen

James M. Filar, Jr.

Michael and Julie Wright

Asplundh Foundataion

Jason Ghassemi

Mr. and Mrs. Darell L. Krasnoff

Bill Rothbard

Jim Blechman

Northrop Grumman Contributions Prog

Bob & Linda Gersh

Joe Cilic

Reggie Gilyard

Chi Kim

Jonathan Donfeld

Sarina Simon

Chris & Dawn Fleischner

Josh Greenstein

Sherry Lansing

Damon Dash

Kecia Boulware

Sierra/Affinity

David Lauck

Kirk & Pam Jensen

Stacey & Will Staples

Eileen Foliente

Lee Hutter

Susan Brauneiss

Karen Eshoo and James Hughes

Loretta Mockler

Tim & Wendy Van Patten

Eve and Bill Gerber

Lynn Booth

Toni Howard and David Yarnell

Corporate

Gary and Katherine Hoffman

Tycho Services, Inc.

UP TO $499 1BuckStrong

Rochelle Goodman

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Louchheim | Sherri & Arnold Nelson

Jennifer Acree

Clayton Green

Sabina Netto

Andrea Akens

Judith Green

Susan & Arthur Nissman

Dominique Akens

Barbara & Richard Green

Laura Oates

Georgina Alaniz

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Louchheim | Arthur Greenberg Louchheim | Jane Oristano

Kathleen & Kenneth Allen

Kim Hamer

Cara Onofre

Barbara & Stephen Allen

Joan & Charles Harker

Anthony Oronoz

In Memory of Dr. Donald Lubin | Beth Kathleen Hartry Jacobsen & Alicia Alonso

Anita Ortiz

Kate Anderson

Jennie Herriot-Hatfield & Chris Florence & Joseph H. Parent Hatfield

Anonymous (6)

Arianna Haut

Alaina Pariano

In Honor of Mary Alice Haney & Tom In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Stanley Penner Davidov | Anonymous (2) Louchheim | Myrna & Uri Herscher Eyvett Arias

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Victoria Person Louchheim | Patricia Rosenburg & Bernarnd Heuman

Gregory Armbrister

Kristy Hirata

Matthew Peskay

Vicenta Arrizon

Roberta Holland

Kirsten Peterson

Katrina Ashley

David Holmquist

Elizabeth Petrey Askew

Cortney Baird

Alan Howie

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Louchheim | Nancy & Edward Phillips

BDI Events | Melanie Marconi

Sarah Hughes

Ethan Pines

Rebecca Bendel

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William Platinum Auto Collision | Suiping Yeung S. Louchheim | Janet & Stanley Imerman

Yasmin Best

La Sandra Jackson

Dr. Barbara Polland

Suzanne & Frank Binswanger

Jamie Simons & John Jay

In Memory of Dr. Donald Lubin | Dr. Barbara Polland

Blackwell Blackwell

Construction

|

Gary Marcus Jonsson

Margo Quiriconi

Elise Blinder

Lisa Jorgensen

Justin Radell

Aviva Bobb

Katherine & Britt Joyce

Nicole Reeder

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Ashley Rehkemper Louchheim | Muriel Bodek Louchheim | Christine Karger BookEnds

Suzi Karnatz

Erin Rehkemper

James Booth

In Honor of Martha & Bruce Karsh | Tito Rivas Daniel Kattan

In Honor of Martha & Bruce Karsh | Kauffman Foundation Irene & Yoni Boujo

In Honor of Jason Roche & MKS Gear | Phyllis, John, & Jason Roche

Lisa & David Boyle

The Keiter Family Foundation | Gema Rodriguez Connie & Bud Keiter

Debbie Breckenridge

Janet Jordan & Elizabeth Kenney

D'Anza Smith-Rodriguez Rodriguez

LaShawn Brinson

Maggie Dahn

Jon Roepke

Brokers World Hastings

Wide

|

Michael John Kim

&

Oscar

In Memory of Dr. Donald Lubin | Judy & Kenny Rosenthal

Durrell Brown

Stephanie & Josh Kinoshita

In Memory of Dr. Donald Lubin | Sally & Richard Rosenthal

Evan Brown

Sallie Zemlin-Kisor & Robert Kisor

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Louchheim | Dr. & Mrs. Paul Rudnick

Brenda Smoot & Patricia Brown

Carlos Lanuza

Lynn Russell

Kimberly Buresh

Law Offices of Alexandra Leichter | Tina Sachs Alexandra Leichter

Jory Burton

Charlene Le

Liz Salem

Eric Calaman

Karen Lee

Anna Salinas

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Anne Marie Leos-Gomez Louchheim | Judith Carroll

Adelita & Donovan Sanchez

Miguel Castaneda

Morton & Myriame Leviloff

Claudia Sandoval

Ledis Castillo

Jennifer & Douglas Levitt

Kyle Salyer

Jamie Chan

Erika Lieser

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Louchheim | Judith & Carl Schlosberg

In Honor of Sharon Deprano | John In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Esther Schoenfeld Chan Louchheim | Barbara Linhart Carrie Chassin

Stephanie Liu

In Honor of LA KIPPsters | Steven Schulman

Kathryn Chib

Wei Liu

Megan Scott-Kakures

Debra Choi

Amy Llamas

Nathan Selikson

Mary Cilic

Adriana Lopez

Ashwin Shah

In Honor of Mary Alice Haney & Tom In Honor of Donal Simon, Corinne In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Davidov | Mr. & Mrs. Matt Cobb Krisel, Judy Simon, Claire Louchheim | Shirely Baskin Foundation | Hammerman | Mr. & Mrs. William Shirley Familian S. Louchheim Jessica Cohn

Cristina Lowry

Rachael Shrout

Kate Collins

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Terri & Michael Smooke Louchheim | Gloria Lushing

In Honor of Dr. Donald Lubin | Scott Susan & Ron Maehl Compton

Ann Sorgen

Cassie Cope

Mariella Maga単a

Philip Spalding

Ann Marie Coppen

David L. Magdol

Paul Sprague

In Memory of Hamada Zakim | Dawn Denise Maggio

Michele Stanghetti

Coraci Jonathan Dambek

Rex Malott

Stacey & Will Staples

Kim Dammann

Riley Manke

Cindy Stokes

Julie Davidson

ProAmerĂ­ca Manzano

Medalla Dimapindan

Margaret Maraschino

Maria Sturges

Jelena Dobic

Bridget C. Martens

Bonnie Sun

Sylvia Dunbar

Brian Martucci

Mckenzie Taylor

Sylvia & Daniel Dworsky

Elizabeth & Brian McCabe

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Louchheim | Ruthie & Harold Tivol

Khalilah El-Amin

Laquala McKinley

Julie To

Yasser El-Gamal

James McKone

View Point School | Chad Tew

Fake Empire Productions

Jose Medina

Jeanette Vazquez

Alexa Faigen

Gladys Mendez

Tiffany Vergara

Bank

|

Roberto Marjorie & Mark Steinberg

In Honor of Stacey Staples | Debra & Huey B. Merchant Michael Faigen

Brent Ward Vihlene

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Jerome Meyer Louchheim | Linda "Rusty" Feldman

Elaine Vukadinovich

Grace & Glenn Files

Naomi Meyer

Jeff Wachtel

Dawn & Chris Fleischner

Lee & Steve Miller

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Louchheim | Faega & M. Wallace, MD

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Barbara Montini-Scollon Louchheim | Cornelia Frame

Erin Walsh

Justin Fromm

Shani Moore Weatherby

Claudine Watt

Johana Galvan

Dawn Mora

Gary Weinhouse

Joe Garcia

Curtis Moss III

Greg Weinstein

Micah Gauntner

Alejandra Murillo

Jason Williams

In Honor of Mr. & Mrs. William S. Joyce Nakashima Louchheim | Gloria & Wililam Gilbert

David Woodard

Greg Goldstein

Karen Nakashima

YPO - WPO

Brenda Gomez

Jan Nash

Chelsea Zegarski

Source: KIPP LA website

KIPP Schools in 2013 SCHOOL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CDS CODE

TYPE COAGRE NEW CHARTER GRADES GRADES SITE CITY LOCATIO EMENT IN TYPE OFFERE SERVED ADDRESS N TYPE 2014 D -15 1964733012851 MS New Start-Up 5-8 5-8 5156 Los KIPP Independent Whittier Angeles Academy of 2 Blvd.

Innovation 1964733010144 MS Start-Up 5-8 6-8 7019 S. Van Los KIPP Independent Ness Ave. Angeles Academy of 4 Opportunity 1964733010144 MS Start-Up 5 8466 Los KIPP Independent Figueroa St. Angeles Academy of 4 Opportunity (2nd Site) 1964733012170 ES Start-Up K-4 2-3 6410 Rita Huntington KIPP 7 Independent Ave. Park Comienza Community 1964733012170 ES Start-Up K-1 6348 Seville Huntington KIPP 7 Independent Ave. Park Comienza Community (2nd Site) 1964733012169 ES Start-Up K-4 K-4 8466 S. Los KIPP 9 Independent Figueroa St. Angeles Empower Academy Start-Up K-4 K-1 4865 E. First Los KIPP Iluminar 1964733012767 ES Hamasaki Prop.

0 EL 39-AA Independent St. Angeles Academy KIPP Iluminar 1964733012767 ES 0 Academy (2nd Site) 1964733010086 MS KIPP LA College Prep. 7

Start-Up Independent

K-1

207 S. Los Decotah St. Angeles

Start-Up 5-8 Independent

5-8

1964733012560 MS 9

Start-Up 5-8 Independent

5-8

2810 Los Whittier Angeles Blvd.

8300 S. Los Central Ave. Angeles

1964733011790 ES 3

Start-Up K-4 Independent

K

KIPP Scholar 1964733012562 MS 5 Academy

Start-Up 5-8 Independent

5-6

KIPP Philosophers Academy KIPP Raices Academy

668 S. Los Atlantic Angeles Blvd.

1729 W. Los Martin Angeles Luther King Jr. Blvd.

4126 Los Arlington Angeles Ave. 4545 Dozier Los Ave. Angeles 312 N. Los Record Ave. Angeles

ZIP ADMINISTRATOR OPEN COD DATE E 90022Alice Lai, School 8/12/ Leader 2014 90047Tanya 7/1/ Piyaratanaphipat, 2003 School Leader 90003Tanya Piyaratanaphipat, School Leader 90255Shirley Appleman, 9/7/ Principal 2010 90255Shirley Appleman, Principal

90003Neela Parasnis, School Leader

8/18/ 2010

90022Mara Bond, Founding School Leader 90034Mara Bond, Founding School Leader 90023Carlos Lanuza, School Leader

8/12/ 2013

90001Heidi Kunkel, Principal

9/4/ 2012

9/2/ 2003

90022Chelsea Zegarski, 8/11/ Principal 2008 90062Tiffany Moore, 9/4/ Founding School 2012 Leader

Start-Up 7 90008Tiffany Moore, KIPP Scholar 1964733012562 MS 5 Independent Founding School Academy Leader (2nd Site) 1964733012564 MS Belvedere Prop. 39 Start-Up 5-8 5-8 90022Rachelle Minix, 9/3/ 10 KIPP Sol 1 MS Independent Principal 2013 Academy 1964733012564 MS Start-Up 90063Rachelle Minix, KIPP Sol 1 Independent Principal Academy (2nd Site) 1964733012946 ES New Start-Up K-4 K-4 5101 S. Los 90062Erendira Flores, 8/11/ 11 KIPP Vida Independent Western Angeles Principal 2014 Preparatory 0 Ave. Academy Source: Los Angeles Unified School District, Charter Schools Division, School Directories + Public Schools Database, California Department of Education.

KIPP LA Board Membership Board member

Institutional affiliation

Bio

Loren Bendele, Chair

CEO, Savings.com

Loren Bendele joined Savings.com in January 2007 as the company’s CEO. Previously, he ran Teleflora’s Partner Marketing business and served as a strategy/management consultant at the Boston Consulting Group. He has also served as an independent consultant focusing on strategy, business development, fundraising, product management, and M&A for companies ranging in size from emerging ventures to established companies. He started his career at Dow Chemical, initially serving as a chemical engineer in Dow’s Strategic Services group.

Mr. Bendele graduated with honors in chemical engineering from The University of Texas A&M.

Joe Cilic, Secretary

Vice President, Sotheby’s International Realty

Joe Cilic currently serves as a Vice President and Branch Manager for the Beverly Hills office of Sotheby's International Realty, a prominent residential real estate company. Mr. Cilic’s duties include recruiting, hiring, budgeting, training, and supervising nearly 100 agents and employees. Prior to joining Sotheby’s, Mr. Cilic worked as an attorney with the law firm of Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, LLP. During his legal career, he specialized in business litigation, real estate disputes, and employment law. Active in the community, Mr. Cilic currently serves as Financial Secretary for the Slovenian Benevolent Society, is on the Board of Directors for the Mount Olympus Property Owner’s Association, and is a member of the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce and Board of Realtors. Mr. Cilic holds a Juris Doctorate from UCLA School of Law and did his undergraduate work at St. Edward’s University, in Austin, Texas, where he served as Student Body President and graduated summa cum laude.

Marcia Aaron

Executive Director, KIPP LA Schools

Prior to being named Executive Director of KIPP LA, Marcia Aaron was the founding Board Chair of KIPP LA and the Board Chair of KIPP Academy of Opportunity in LA. Previously, she worked as a Senior Analyst at Pacific Growth Equities, and as a Managing Director at Deutsche Bank and Montgomery Securities. She is currently a member of the University of Oregon College of Education Advancement Council. She also serves as the Charter Management Organizational representative on the California Charter Schools Association Member Council. Ms. Aaron is a Pahara-Aspen Institute Fellow. She previously served as a member of the University of Oregon Alumni Center Campaign Committee and on the board of All Stars Helping Kids’ as well as a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon Foundation and the University of Oregon Journalism Advancement Council. She was named the University of Oregon’s Outstanding Young Alumni in 2003. Ms. Aaron holds a BA in Journalism from the University of Oregon.

Randy Bishop

CEO, Verengo Solar

Randy Bishop has been the CEO of Verengo Solar since 2008.

Previously, he worked at Intuit, where he grew the Basic Payroll business by nearly 30% annually while improving margins for several years. At Intuit, he also headed Project Management from Quicken.com and QuickenLoans. Additionally, he was a principal at BearTree Partners and Remy Investors, VP and General Manager at SMC, and has served on the boards of several public companies and non-profits. He is a member of the Los Angeles chapter of the

Young Presidents Organization. Mr. Bishop received his M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, where he was a Baker Scholar, and his undergraduate degree from Stanford University. In 2008, Mr. Bishop - along with partner Ken Button - created Verengo Solar and rapidly seized a leadership position in California ís market for residential solar installations. With the skills, foresight, and know-how to capitalize on the growth trends in solar, he catapulted a faltering home-improvement company into a market leader for California residential PV installations.

Marc Castellani

Executive Director, JP Morgan Private Bank

Marc Castellani is an Executive Director in the Los Angeles office of J.P. Morgan's Private Bank. Originally from Western New York, Mr. Castellani worked in New York City for a number of years as a senior banker in the Mergers and Acquisitions departments of J.P. Morgan and Banc of America Securities. Relocating to Los Angeles in 2009, he joined U.S. Trust as a Senior Vice President before returning to J.P. Morgan in 2012. In addition to his work with KIPP LA, Mr. Castellani is a member of the Rotary Club of Manhattan Beach, as well as a volunteer and parishioner at American Martyrs Church in Manhattan Beach. Mr. Castellani earned his undergraduate degree at Cornell University and his graduate degree in finance at the University of Rochester.

Zac Guevara

Retired; Executive Vice President, Capital International Research, Inc.

Zac Guevara is a Chartered Financial Analyst who retired in 2009 after serving as an investment analyst, research director, board member, and executive vice president with Capital International Research, Inc. He joined Capital in 1992 as a participant in “The Associates Program” after graduating from Harvard University with an AB in government.

As an investment analyst, his research coverage included the transportation, newspaper, Internet media, education, home building, and defense industries. Guevara also currently serves on the boards of I Have a Dream Foundation - Los Angeles, Self Help Graphics & Art, the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the California Endowment, and Communities in Schools of Los Angeles.

A resident of San Marino, Guevara currently focuses his attention on working with non-profit organizations, personal investing, and traveling.

Jane Harris

Retired; Principal, Compton Unified School District

Jane Harris is a retired elementary school principal. During her years as principal, she was also an adjunct faculty member in the School of Education at California State University, Dominguez Hills. Prior to serving for 12 years as a principal in the Compton Unified School District, she was a Region A Instructional Adviser for the Los Angeles Unified School District. She has 18 years teaching experience at Taper Avenue Elementary School , a California Distinguished School in the LAUSD. Jane was the faculty chairperson the year Taper Avenue made history by being selected as the first Nationally Distinguished School in LAUSD. When Jane retired as a principal from CUSD in 2005, she discovered that her desire to teach and make a difference in the lives of students in urban schools was still very much alive.

During retirement she continued to teach Classroom Management at CSUDH, led workshops for assistant principals and coached new and experienced principals serving in underperforming Compton Unified schools. She worked for six years as a University Supervisor for beginning teachers at Loyola Marymount University. In 2009, Jane started coaching school leaders for KIPP LA Schools. She coached 10 KIPP school leaders and led training for the special education staff. Jane has served on the board of the South Bay Literacy Council, a non-profit organization dedicated to teaching adults how to read and write. Jane currently serves as a tutor for the South Bay Literacy Council.

E.J. Kavounas

Managing

E.J. Kavounas is a Managing Director in the Investment Banking

Director, Credit Suisse

division of Credit Suisse and has 15 years of experience in finance.

He has global responsibility for Private Placements across multiple industries including Real Estate, Clean Technology, and Media.

He joined Credit Suisse First Boston in 2004 from Houlihan, Lokey, Howard and Zukin where he was an Associate in Corporate Finance. Prior to that position, he worked as a Strategy Consultant in the Information, Communication and Entertainment Practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers and at the Walt Disney Company in Real Estate Finance. Mr. Kavounas received his M.B.A. from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a B.A. from Middlebury College where he graduated cum laude. After college, Mr. Kavounas spent a year as a volunteer teacher in Thailand with WorldTeach.

Gregory McGinity

Senior Managing Director, The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation

Gregory McGinity is the Senior Managing Director of The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, a national philanthropy that seeks to ensure that every student in an urban public school has the opportunity to succeed. Mr. McGinity leads the foundation’s investments in education policy, advocacy and research aimed at removing policy impediments that hinder student achievement. Mr. McGinity has extensive experience in education policy at the federal, state and local levels. In 2005, on leave from the foundation, Mr. McGinity served as chief of staff to the California Secretary of Education Richard Riordan. Prior to joining The Broad Foundation, Mr. McGinity was the Senior Education Policy Consultant to the California State Board of Education, served as Legislative Director for then-U.S. Representative Lindsey Graham and as a Legislative Assistant to U. S. Senator Thad Cochran. Mr. McGinity also served in the Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs at the U.S. Department of Education. Mr. McGinity was a senior fellow at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Allen Narcisse

Chief Operating Officer/CoFounder, Ebyline

Allen Narcisse Allen co-founded Ebyline in 2009 and currently serves as Chief Operating Officer. Previously, Allen was Vice President of Strategic Planning and Business Development at Paramount Pictures.

He also worked in a variety of management roles at the Los Angeles Times ranging from leading online initiatives to leading operations at Hoy, the Times’ Spanish language newspaper. Allen earned a BBA with Distinction from the University of Michigan and an MBA from the Harvard Business School. A long-time resident of Los Angeles, Allen has been actively involved in community-based volunteering, including coaching 7 to 12 year-olds at Ladera Heights Little League.

Frank Reddick

Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP

Frank Reddick is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and has more than 25 years of experience in mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and public company representations. Mr. Reddick is a Practice Manager of the firm’s corporate practice and serves on its Policy and Planning Committee and Management Committee. He is principally engaged in the practice of corporate and securities law, with a concentration on corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and other strategic alliances. He advises clients in a wide range of industries, including the media, entertainment, and gaming industries. Mr. Reddick received his BA with high honors and great distinction from California State University at San Jose in 1977 and his JD in 1980 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, where he was a member of Order of the Coif. He is a member of the California Bar.

Jeremy Rogers

Co-Founder and Principal, Montana Avenue Capital, LLC

Jeremy Rogers is founder and managing partner of Montana Avenue Capital Partners, LCC, a real estate investment, management and development company based in Santa Monica. Previously, he was co-head of Rockwood Capital’s Los Angeles office, overseeing new debt and equity investments. Prior to Rockwood, Mr. Rogers

managed acquisitions and structured financing of land development and homebuilding projects at Hearthstone, Inc. He began his real estate career at Credit Suisse after graduating with his MBA from Duke University. Born and raised in Ontario, Canada, Mr. Rogers graduated from Queen’s University with a Bachelor of Arts, Honours.

Moira Shourie

Former Board Member, Marquez Charter School

Moira Shourie developed an interest in education causes while experiencing the ups and downs of public school with her elementary school aged children. Moira recently joined the board of Zocalo, the public square, and she just concluded an elected stint on the governing board of Marquez Charter Elementary in Pacific Palisades, where she is currently is co-chair of fundraising. Prior to this, Moira was Director of International Programming at MTV Networks International where she was part of the group that launched MTV and VH1 channels in India, Japan, Canada, South Africa and Russia focusing on content and programming strategy. Moira is an enthusiastic choral singer and has performed with the choirs of St. Patrick's Cathedral, NY, and Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, LA. She is an avid golfer and will only divulge her handicap under duress.

Debra Somberg

Managing Partner, The Alster Group, LLC

Debra Somberg has spent her 25+ year career investing, advising and developing high growth consumer-oriented businesses.

Currently, she is the Managing Partner of The Alster Group LLC, a strategic and operational partner to companies in the consumer, financial and healthcare fields. She is also a member of the Board of Directors of BECU, the fourth largest financial cooperative in the country with $13 billion of assets, where she sits on the Finance and Risk Management and Compensation Committees. Previously, Debra co-managed Maveron LLC, a venture capital firm with $500+ million under management, for nearly a decade. She began her career at Goldman, Sachs and McKinsey & Co and has served as a Senior Managing Director at Montgomery Securities and a Founding Partner at Thomas Weisel Partners. Debra has a MBA from Harvard Business School and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Stanford University. She is an active member of the Young Presidents Organization’s Northwest Chapter, Social Venture Partners, and is a former trustee of ACT Theater.

Source: KIPP LA website

KIPP LA Trustees Member

Institutional affiliation

Bio

Martha Karsh, Chair

Attorney; CoFounder, Clark & Karsh

Martha L. Karsh, an attorney, has practiced law, formed an architecture/design/development firm and done extensive non-profit work. In 1998, Ms. Karsh founded the Karsh Family Foundation with Bruce Karsh, President of Oaktree Capital Management and her spouse of 32 years, focusing primarily on supporting education. To date, the Karshes and their Foundation have made gifts and pledges of over $150 million, supporting scholarship and education at all levels.

Their largest gifts have been for financial aid at Duke, Penn, Brown and Virginia Law School, as well as for KIPP and Teach for America.

Currently, Ms. Karsh serves on the Boards of the KIPP Foundation, the University of Virginia Law School Foundation, Common Sense Media and the Los Angeles Parks Foundation; she also chairs the Advisory

Board of KIPP LA. Ms. Karsh graduated from Virginia Law School (J.D. 1981) and the University of Virginia (B.A. 1978), and has three children – Katie, an Education Associate with Common Sense Media; Jeffrey, an Analyst with Canyon Capital Realty Advisors; and Michael, a junior at Brown University.

Marcus Allen

NFL Hall-of-Famer

Marcus Allen, a University of Southern California standout and Heisman Trophy winner, was the tenth player selected in the 1982 National Football League Draft, playing 16 seasons with the Los Angeles Raiders and Kansas City Chiefs. Considered one of the game’s best goal line and short-yardage runners, Mr. Allen began his pro career as the NFL Rookie of the Year and ended as the game’s all-time rushing touchdown leader. During his 11 seasons with the Raiders, he was named to the Pro Bowl six times, and earned Superbowl XVIII MVP honors when the Raiders defeated the Washington Redskins 38-9. In 1995, Mr. Allen made NFL history when he became the first player in league history to rush for over 10,000 yards and catch passes for 5,000 more. He was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 2000 and the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2003. A dedicated supporter of disadvantaged children, Mr. Allen has worked with All Stars Helping Kids to raise nearly $500,000 over the last three years in support of educational programs in Los Angeles.

Erika Glazer

Activist Philanthropist

Erika Glazer is a passionate activist philanthropst. Ms. Glazer has served on numerous boards of directors including the Israel Museum, United Jewish Federation, several private schools in the Los Angeles area, and the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces. Her experiences living and traveling throughout Peru, Latin America, Western Europe, Africa, and Asia have provided her with a special appreciation for her life and a dedication to help others less fortunate. Among the many projects to which Ms. Glazer has dedicated herself are helping build several low-income homeless shelters throughout Los Angeles, establishing college scholarships to enable disadvantaged students in Los Angeles to attend California State University Los Angeles, underwriting capital projects, and funding scholarships for former Israeli combat soldiers who otherwise would be unable to attend college.

Cassandra H. Grey

Brand Consultant and Entrepreneur

Cassandra H. Grey is the founder and creative director of the Los Angeles-based boutique-creative agency, StudioCHG, which specializes in developing non-traditional marketing and advertising strategies for fashion and beauty brands. Ms. Grey and her husband, Mr. Brad Grey, CEO of Paramount Pictures, are passionate supporters of KIPP and have visited numerous schools within KIPP’s Los Angeles network. They are fervently dedicated to increasing awareness for the program within their own community and beyond.

Lynn Jacobson

Former Chair of the Board, Brentwood School

Richard Lovett

President, Creative Artists Agency

Richard Lovett is President of Creative Artists Agency (CAA), an entertainment and sports agency based in Los Angeles. His clients are among the world’s most successful actors, directors, and producers.

Since his appointment to President in 1995, Mr. Lovett has directed the company’s growth throughout the entertainment, sports, and corporate sectors. In 1996, Mr. Lovett and his partners created the CAA Foundation. The Foundation harnesses the power and reach of the entertainment industry to create positive social change through forging strategic partnerships, encouraging volunteerism, granting financial contributions, stimulating public awareness, and providing

in-kind donations. Mr. Lovett has received numerous awards for his activism and serves on several national boards focusing on education and the arts. Among his honors, Mr. Lovett has received the Shoah Foundation’s Ambassador for Humanity Award from Steven Spielberg.

A Milwaukee, Wisconsin native, Mr. Lovett attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he majored in English. Named “the most powerful agent in Hollywood” by the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lovett has been called one of the most influential people in entertainment by media outlets such as Vanity Fair and Entertainment Weekly.

Nancy Marks

Portrait Artist and Author

Don McCammack

Retired; Former President, Avis Rent a Car

Don McCammack, now retired, was President of Avis Rent a Car in Southern California from 1983 to 1997. He began his career at Arthur Young and Company, then joined Avis in Southern California, serving as its Controller and Vice President of Finance before being promoted to President. Mr. McCammack is a longtime KIPP LA volunteer and supporter: he runs the Career Guest Speaker Program at KIPP Academy of Opportunity. In addition to his work with KIPP LA, he currently is a Friend of St. Raphael Elementary School. In the past, he served as a Board member of the Pacific Outward Bound School and as Chairman of the St. Michael’s Elementary School Development Council. A longtime Los Angeles resident, Mr. McCammack received his undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California.

Palmer Murray

President and CoManaging Partner, Lourd Capital Management

Palmer Murray is an Executive Director of Morgan Stanley's Private Wealth Management Division in Los Angeles. A native of Houston, Texas, Mr. Murray attended the Hotchkiss School in Lakeville, Connecticut and graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a degree in Economics. Previously, Mr. Murray worked for Vice President George H. W. Bush in Washington, D.C. and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Relocating to Los Angeles in 1990, Mr. Murray earned his M.B.A. from the University of Southern California. He then joined Trust Company of the West in the Private Client Services Division where he remained for five years as a Senior Vice President before joining Morgan Stanley. He currently serves on the Board of Trustees at Marlborough School and is Vice President and Treasurer of the Otis Booth Foundation.

Judge William A. Norris

Senior Counsel, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP

Judge William A. Norris is a senior counsel at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. He served as a business litigator for 25 years and a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for 17 years.

During his career on the bench, Judge Norris wrote landmark opinions in many areas, including securities, tax, class action litigation, election law, and the First Amendment. Judge Norris is the founding president of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. His career highlights also include serving as president of the Los Angeles Police Commission on appointment by Mayor Tom Bradley, and as a member of the California State Board of Education and the Board of Trustees of California State University on appointment by Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown. In 2002 he was inducted as a fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. Judge Norris received his B.A. from Princeton University and his J.D. from Stanford Law School, where he was a member of Order of the Coif and executive editor of the Stanford Law Review. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

Chet Pipkin

Chairman of the Board, Belkin International, Inc.

Blair H. Taylor

Chief Community Officer, Starbucks Coffee Company

Blair Hamilton Taylor is Chief Community Officer for Starbucks Coffee Company. Previously, Mr. Taylor was the President and CEO of the Los Angeles Urban League, a position he held from 2005-12.

The League is an affiliate of one of the nation's leading civil rights organizations with offices in more than 100 cities. With a staff of over 300 and a budget in excess of $25 million, the 88-year-old Los Angeles Urban League is one of America's largest civil rights entities. Mr. Taylor is a visionary leader, community servant and coalition builder with nearly twenty five years of public and private sector business experience. A Los Angeles resident for more than two decades, Mr. Taylor was born in New York as the third of five children. He learned the value of higher education at a young age. His father earned his bachelor's degree from Yale University and his law degree from NYU; his mother earned her bachelor's degree cum laude from Smith College and her masters from Yale University. These were significant achievements for African Americans of their era. More importantly, both parents were tireless community servants and instilled in their five sons a passion for advancing causes of the less fortunate. Prior to joining the LA Urban League, Mr. Taylor served as Executive Vice President of College Summit, a national college access initiative with a track record of nearly doubling the college enrollment rates of low income students.

During his tenure, College Summit achieved the fastest growth in the organization's history, quadrupling its student outreach to more than 6,000 students in 2005.

Source: KIPP LA website

KIPP LA Management Manager

Bio

Marcia Aaron, Executive Director

Prior to being named Executive Director of KIPP LA, Marcia Aaron was the founding Board Chair of KIPP LA and the Board Chair of KAO. Previously, she worked as a Senior Analyst at Pacific Growth Equities, and as a Managing Director at Deutsche Bank and Montgomery Securities. She is currently a member of the University of Oregon College of Education Advancement Council. She also serves as the Charter Management Organizational representative on the California Charter Schools Association Member Council. Ms. Aaron is a Pahara-Aspen Institute Fellow. She previously served as a member of the University of Oregon Alumni Center Campaign Committee and on the board of All Stars Helping Kids’ as well as a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon Foundation and the University of Oregon Journalism Advancement Council. She was named the University of Oregon’s Outstanding Young Alumni in 2003. Ms. Aaron holds a BA in Journalism from the University of Oregon.

Kim Dammann, Director of Special Education

Kim Dammann currently serves as Director of Special Education for KIPP LA Schools. Prior to joining KIPP, Kim was a Resource Specialist Program Coordinator for Total Education Solutions where she managed the special education compliance and services for over 30 charter schools in the Los Angeles region. Kim also provided supervision, training and mentoring for a team of over 26 Resource Specialists. Prior to Total Education Solutions, Kim spent 10 years as a special education teacher with Five Acres, a residential treatment facility for abused and neglected children in the foster care system. With Five Acres, Kim taught kindergarten, second, sixth, seventh and eighth grades. Her last six years were spent in the role of Lead Teacher for the Junior High School Program. Kim graduated from California State University Northridge with a BA in Sociology and has both her Level II Education Specialist and Professional Clear Multiple Subjects credentials.

Jelena Dobic, Chief of Advancement

Jelena Dobic joined the KIPP LA team from The Broad Center, where she served as Operations Manager for two years. Prior to her tenure at Broad, Jelena worked as Program Manager and Grants Specialist at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center where

she was largely responsible for managing the grants administration process for the 5-year competing renewal Cancer Center Support Grant yielding $35MM. Jelena first joined KIPP LA as Corporate & Foundation Relations Manager and was responsible for stewarding the grantsmaking process as well as managing external relationships with prospective and renewing foundations and corporations. Today, Jelena serves as Chief of Advancement and oversees the management of all fundraising, marketing, and public relations in an effort to build a base of support that will enable KIPP LA to achieve its financial and programmatic goals.

Sarah Hughes, Chief of Staff

Sarah Hughes joined the KIPP LA team in January 2013 as Chief of Staff. Prior to joining KIPP LA, Sarah was Vice President of Program Management at Yahoo! where she spent ten years focused on Yahoo’s search advertising business. Most recently, Sarah led the transition of the search advertising technology from Yahoo to Microsoft for each of Yahoo’s 55 international markets. Prior to Yahoo, Sarah served as Chief of Staff for the Chief Operating Officer at Overture Services, the pioneer in pay-for-performance search.

During her tenure, the company tripled in size, tripled its revenues to just over $1 billion, and ultimately was acquired by Yahoo in 2003. Previously, Sarah worked as a consultant at PricewaterhouseCoopers. She also has a background in college admissions and worked as Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Admissions at Colgate University. She serves on the governance committee of her daughter’s public elementary school in Santa Monica. Sarah earned her Bachelor’s degree from Wesleyan University and her MBA from Yale School of Management.

Angella Martinez, Chief Academic Officer

Angella Martinez is the Chief Academic Officer for KIPP LA Schools. Prior to joining the School Support Center, Angella served as the Principal at KIPP Los Angeles College Preparatory School in Boyle Heights. In her first year as Principal, the school increased 101 Academic Performance Index points, making it the seventh highest performing middle school in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Prior to becoming principal and upon completing her undergraduate studies at UCLA, Angella joined Teach for America corps where she taught at Ralph J. Bunche Elementary for six years. While teaching, she helped the school become the first California Distinguished School in the Compton Unified School District.

To broaden her impact in transforming public education, Angella left the classroom to work for the KIPP Foundation as the Recruitment Manager where she sought new KIPP school leader candidates for the highly competitive Fisher and Miles Family Fellowships. While recruiting, Angella found her passion in educational leadership and became a KIPP school leader successor in 2008.

Matthew Peskay, Chief of Innovation & Technology

Matthew Peskay is a nationally-renowned leader in the fields of instructional and operational technology in education. Matthew holds a Master’s degree in Philosophy and Education from Columbia University Teachers College and has over 15 years of experience in multiple technology and education roles in both the private and not-for-profit sectors. Matthew is focused on innovations in teaching and learning through the considered implementation of technology to deliver a rich, personalized learning experience for all students, and reduce the administrative burdens on teachers to allow them more time to form deeper, meaningful connections with their students.

Alma Cibrian Reza, Chief of Real Estate

Alma Cibrian Reza comes to KIPP LA from Pacific Charter School Development (PCSD), where she served as a Project Manager. Responsibilities included overseeing the development of KIPP LA Prep's current facility in Boyle Heights, a $3.2 million conversion of a tortilla chip factory into a school. Prior to her tenure at PCSD, Alma was a Research Director at Bentley Forbes and a Commercial Real Estate Appraiser and Consultant at Norris Realty Advisors. Alma holds a Bachelor’s in Economics from UC Berkeley and a Master's in Real Estate Development from the University of Southern California, where she was inducted into the Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society.

Kyle Salyer, Chief of Finance & Operations

Kyle Salyer currently serves as Director of Finance with KIPP LA Schools and is a member of the 2013 Broad Residency cohort. Prior to joining KIPP LA, Kyle was Executive Vice President with MicroCredit Enterprises (MCE), a social venture that leverages private guarantees to provide debt financing to microfinance institutions worldwide. Kyle played an instrumental role in helping to launch and lead the development of MCE’s loan portfolio with microfinance institutions. Kyle has also served as Investment Manager with First Light

Ventures, where he managed their initial seed-stage investments in India and the US, as well as the creation of Village Capital. Kyle gained his initial experience in the microfinance sector when he worked as Regional Manager with AMEXTRA in Mexico, developing and managing the Chiapas branch of their microfinance initiative. Kyle also currently serves as a pro bono Board Member and Treasurer with Lifewater International and Jacaranda Health. Kyle holds a MBA from the University of California, Davis and a BA from UCLA in International Economics and International Development Studies.

Belen Sanchez, Director of KIPP Through College

Prior to joining KIPP LA, Belen Sanchez spent seven years at the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF). She began as the Alumni Relations Officer and progressed to serve as Director of Scholar & Alumni Attainment. In her time at HSF, Belen designed, planned and implemented four new initiatives, which doubled the number of programs HSF offered. These initiatives included first-year transition program, community college initiative, student leadership conference and online mentor program. Belen earned her bachelor’s degree from UCSD and Masters of Education from USC. Her career has been focused on student access and support, specifically for students from communities traditionally served by KIPP schools.

Nicole Scott, Chief of Employee Solutions & Legal Affairs

Nicole Scott currently serves as Chief of Employee Solutions & Legal Affairs at KIPP LA Schools. Nicole joined the KIPP LA team in the fall of 2011 as the Director of Human Capital.

Prior to joining KIPP, Nicole was General Counsel and SVP of Talent and Development with the Inner City Education Foundation. Additionally, she developed the human resources department and lead the hiring of over 500 employees for the organization within 5 years.

Before embarking upon a career in education reform, Nicole practiced law at the Cochran Firm with the late, Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. Her areas of practice ranged from employment, civil rights, entertainment, education and juvenile law. She also taught at the high school level in Oakland Unified School district while attending law school.

Source: KIPP LA website

ICEF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

Source: ICEF Financial Audit Conducted by Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman LLP, 2013

ICEF REVENUE 2013

Source: ICEF Financial Audit Conducted by Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman LLP, 2013

Side-by-side comparison of CMO indicators KIPP LA

Green Dot

ICEF

Magnolia

2012-13 total revenue

$27,720,591

$103,330,417

$45,766,980

$24,631,389

2012-13 expenditures

$26,695,351

$104,382,423

$34,788,895

$25,702,559

2012-13 balance of finances

$1,025,240

-$1,052,006

$10,978,085

-$1,071,170

Number of schools

11

21

14

11

Subsidiary of KIPP Foundation

Inner City Education Foundation

Magnolia Educational and Research Foundation

Assets/liabilities situation

Positive

Positive

Positive

Stability

Stable

Stable

Own vs. lease vs. colocate sites Mixed

Mixed

Ownership

Union status Not unionized

Unionized -Asociacion de Maestros Unidos

Not unionized

Not unionized

APPENDIX 12 Bureau of Labor Statistics of education related occupations in Los Angeles MSA Occupation Title

Total Employment

Jobs per 1,000

Education, Training, and Library Occupations

305,420

56.275

Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education

16,540

3.048

Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special Education

5,210

0.960

Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education

41,950

7.730

Middle School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education

14,460

2.664

Career/Technical Education Teachers, Middle School

**

**

Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education

30,530

5.625

Career/Technical Education Teachers, Secondary School

1,260

0.233

Special Education Teachers, Preschool

**

**

Special Education Teachers, Kindergarten and Elementary School

3,870

0.712

Special Education Teachers, Middle School

1,740

0.320

Special Education Teachers, Secondary School

4,330

0.798

Special Education Teachers, All Other

**

**

Adult Basic and Secondary Education and Literacy Teachers and Instructors

4,430

0.817

Self-Enrichment Education Teachers

6,730

1.239

Substitute Teachers

25,700

4.736

Teachers and Instructors, All Other, Except Substitute Teachers

15,130

2.787

Librarians

3,100

0.572

Library Technicians

2,740

0.504

Audio-Visual and Multimedia Collections Specialists

410

0.076

Instructional Coordinators

5,900

1.088

Teacher Assistants

46,130

8.500

Education, Training, and Library Workers, All Other

13,770

2.537

Human Resources Managers

5,230

0.963

Training and Development Managers

1,000

0.184

Education Administrators, Preschool and Childcare Center/Program

2,360

0.435

Education Administrators, Elementary and Secondary School

6,530

1.203

Education Administrators, Postsecondary

4,600

0.848

Education Administrators, All Other

1,500

0.276

Human Resources Specialists

18,160

3.346

Labor Relations Specialists

3,340

0.615

Fundraisers

1,830

0.337

Educational, Guidance, School, and Vocational Counselors

11,530

2.124

Child, Family, and School Social Workers

12,620

2.325

Security Guards

60,630

11.171

Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria

8,960

1.652

Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

80,180

14.773

Bill and Account Collectors

19,410

3.577

Billing and Posting Clerks

23,690

4.365

Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks

66,550

12.261

Office Clerks, General

126,980

23.397

Charter Schools Used in Sample of Employees in LAUSD Charter Schools Charter Organization

School Name

Green Dot

Alain Leroy Locke 3 College Preparatory Academy

Alliance

Alliance Christine O'Donovan Middle Academy

Alliance

Alliance Cindy and Bill Simon Technology Academy High

Alliance

Alliance College-Ready Academy High No. 16

Alliance

Alliance College-Ready Academy High No. 5

Alliance

Alliance College-Ready Academy High No. 7

Alliance

Alliance College-Ready Middle Academy No. 4

Alliance

Alliance College-Ready Middle Academy No. 5

Alliance

Alliance College-Ready Middle Academy No. 7

Alliance

Alliance Dr. Olga Mohan High

Alliance

Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High

Alliance

Alliance Gertz-Ressler High

Alliance

Alliance Health Services Academy High

Alliance

Alliance Huntington Park College-Ready Academy High

Alliance

Alliance Jack H. Skirball Middle

Alliance

Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High

Alliance

Alliance Marc & Eva Stern Math and Science

Alliance

Alliance Media Arts and Entertainment Design High

Alliance

Alliance Richard Merkin Middle

Alliance

Alliance Tennenbaum Family Technology High

Alliance

Alliance William and Carol Ouchi Academy High

Green Dot

Animo Charter Middle No. 3

Green Dot

Animo Charter Middle No. 4

Green Dot

Animo College Preparatory Academy

Green Dot

Animo Jackie Robinson High

Green Dot

Animo Jefferson Charter Middle

Green Dot

Animo Locke 1 College Preparatory Academy

Green Dot

Animo Locke II College Preparatory Academy

Green Dot

Animo Locke Technology High

Green Dot

Animo Oscar De La Hoya Charter High

Green Dot

Animo Pat Brown

Green Dot

Animo Ralph Bunche High

Green Dot

Animo South Los Angeles Charter

Green Dot

Animo Venice Charter High

Green Dot

Animo Watts College Preparatory Academy

Green Dot

Animo Westside Charter Middle

KIPP

KIPP Academy of Opportunity

KIPP

KIPP Empower Academy

KIPP

KIPP Los Angeles College Preparatory

KIPP

KIPP Raices Academy

TABLE 1. Wages

SOC: Education, Training, and Library Occupations All Teachers (Preschool, Primary, Secondary, and Special Education)

Employment NATL CA 5,516,430 895,070

Employment per 1,000 jobs Location quotient Median hourly wage Mean hourly wage Annual mean wage NATL CA LA MSA NATL CA LA MSA NATL CA LA MSA NATL CA LA MSA NATL CA LA MSA 0.67 60.83 58.40 0.96 0.92 $ 22.18 $ 25.06 $ 26.36 $ 23.28 $ 27.32 $ 27.98 $ 48,420.00 $ 56,830.00 $ 58,190.00 .

0.44

.

Teachers (Non-Special Education + Career/Technical Education) Preschool Teachers 71,820 48,540 12,120 Kindergarten Teachers 149,570 20,130 3,700

0.01 0.02

3.30 1.37

1,333,720

134,440

32,620

0.16

617,280

47,380

11,010

935,930

85,910

24,450

587,240 946,670

82,270 136,180

467,160 18,140

Elementary School Teachers Middle School Teachers Secondary School Teachers Substitute Teachers Teacher Assistants Other Special Education Teachers Middle School Career/Technical Education Teachers Secondary School Career/Technical Education Teachers Librarians Library Technicians

3,676,810

LA MSA 232,130

.

.

.

.

.

.

3.05 0.93

. .

1.24 1.15

9.14

8.21

.

0.07

3.22

2.77

0.11

5.84

6.15

18,080 33,060

0.07 0.11

5.59 9.26

41,140

7,884

0.06

-8

-8

0.00

83,190

2,930

990

0.01

54,310 18,290

9,210 9,940

2,530 1,940

0.01 0.00

$ (4.00)

$ (4.00)

.

1.15 $ 20.12 $ 15.08 $ 14.44 $ 21.52 $ 16.46 $ 16.52 $ 44,760.00 0.78 $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ 53,800.00

$ 34,240.00 $ 63,940.00

$ 34,360.00 $ 66,170.00

0.90

0.81 $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ 56,360.00

$ 69,320.00

$ 72,360.00

.

0.69

0.59 $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ 56,660.00

$ 67,390.00

$ 67,270.00

.

0.82

0.86 $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ 58,320.00

$ 69,260.00

$ 69,270.00

4.55 8.32

. .

1.18 1.03

0.96 $ 12.53 $ 18.15 $ 21.88 $ 14.23 $ 19.16 $ 22.60 $ 29,600.00 0.93 $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ 25,860.00

$ 39,850.00 $ 29,820.00

$ 47,010.00 $ 29,410.00

2.80

-14.01

.

$ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ 58,400.00

$ 64,462.64

$ 67,031.39

-8.00

-8.00

.

-8.00

-8.00 $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ 56,850.00

$ 69,430.00

$ 57,390.00

0.20

0.25

.

0.31

0.39 $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ (4.00) $ 57,280.00

$ 71,770.00

$ 79,510.00

0.63 0.68

0.64 0.49

. .

0.61 0.93

0.62 $ 27.63 0.67 $ 13.78

$ 69,610.00 $ 41,840.00

$ 71,630.00 $ 41,390.00

.

$ 33.60 $ 19.66

$ 34.30 $ 20.02

$ 28.63 $ 14.61

$ 33.47 $ 20.12

.

$ 56,860.00

.

.

.

$ 34.44 $ 19.90

$ 59,560.00 $ 30,390.00

TABLE 2. Demographics for all LA county teachers

Hispanic or Latino Total, race and All other White alone ethnicity Hispanic or Hispanic or Latino

Latino

Not Hispanic or Latino, two or more races

Not Hispanic or Latino, one race White alone

Black or African American alone

American Indian and Alaska Native alone

Asian alone

Native Hawaiian White and White and and Other Pacific Black AIAN Islander alone

White and Asian

Black and AIAN

Balance of not Hispanic or Latino

Preschool and kindergarten teachers 2300 (SOC 25‐2010) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

13,885 100.00%

3,045 21.90%

435 3.10%

80 0.60%

13,450 96.90%

2,965 21.40%

2,960 4,565 21.30% 32.90% 35 0.30%

1,490 10.70%

25 1,540 0.20% 11.10%

0 0.00%

35 0.30%

70 0.50%

115 0.80%

0 0.00%

35 0.30%

0 0.00%

10 0.10%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

260 1.90%

45 0.30%

2,925 4,305 21.10% 31.00%

1,445 10.40%

25 1,530 0.20% 11.00%

0 0.00%

35 0.30%

70 0.50%

115 0.80%

0 0.00%

35 0.30%

Elementary and middle school teachers 2310 (SOC 25‐2020) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

84,960 100.00%

12,145 14.30%

10,490 44,785 12.30% 52.70%

6,950 8.20%

200 8,625 0.20% 10.20%

75 0.10%

280 0.30%

180 0.20%

530 0.60%

160 0.20%

540 0.60%

22,115 26.00%

3,355 3.90%

2,535 12,270 3.00% 14.40%

1,735 2.00%

55 0.10%

1,665 2.00%

25 0.00%

40 0.00%

50 0.10%

115 0.10%

75 0.10%

195 0.20%

62,845 74.00%

8,790 10.30%

7,950 32,515 9.40% 38.30%

5,215 6.10%

145 0.20%

6,955 8.20%

50 0.10%

240 0.30%

130 0.20%

415 0.50%

85 0.10%

345 0.40%

Secondary school teachers 2320 (SOC 25‐2030) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

20,335 100.00%

2,450 12.00%

2,835 10,625 13.90% 52.20%

1,945 9.60%

100 0.50%

1,950 9.60%

75 0.40%

65 0.30%

30 0.10%

125 0.60%

55 0.30%

80 0.40%

9,570 47.10%

1,100 5.40%

1,530 5,020 7.50% 24.70%

830 4.10%

0 0.00%

885 4.40%

75 0.40%

50 0.20%

0 0.00%

45 0.20%

4 0.00%

25 0.10%

10,765 52.90%

1,350 6.60%

1,300 5,605 6.40% 27.60%

1,120 5.50%

100 0.50%

1,065 5.20%

0 0.00%

15 0.10%

30 0.10%

80 0.40%

50 0.20%

55 0.30%

940 2,630 15.70% 43.80%

705 11.80%

45 0.80%

405 6.80%

95 1.60%

0 0.00%

10 0.20%

65 1.10%

0 0.00%

80 1.30%

550 9.20%

110 1.80%

25 0.40%

20 0.30%

45 0.80%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

630 2,080 10.50% 34.70%

595 9.90%

20 0.30%

390 6.50%

50 0.80%

0 0.00%

10 0.20%

65 1.10%

0 0.00%

80 1.30%

Special education teachers 2330 (SOC 25‐2050) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

6,000 100.00%

1,025 17.10%

1,215 20.30%

165 2.80%

4,785 79.80%

860 14.30%

310 5.20%

Other teachers and instructors 2340 (SOC 25‐3000) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

27,840 100.00%

3,700 13.30%

3,245 13,220 11.70% 47.50%

2,445 8.80%

65 4,500 0.20% 16.20%

35 0.10%

65 0.20%

100 0.40%

250 0.90%

0 0.00%

220 0.80%

11,385 40.90%

1,705 6.10%

1,255 5,370 4.50% 19.30%

815 2.90%

10 0.00%

1,865 6.70%

4 0.00%

0 0.00%

25 0.10%

200 0.70%

0 0.00%

125 0.40%

16,455 59.10%

1,995 7.20%

1,985 7,845 7.10% 28.20%

1,630 5.90%

55 0.20%

2,635 9.50%

30 0.10%

65 0.20%

70 0.30%

50 0.20%

0 0.00%

90 0.30%

3,865 100.00%

285 7.40%

210 2,340 5.40% 60.50%

220 5.70%

0 615 0.00% 15.90%

0 0.00%

20 0.50%

25 0.60%

80 2.10%

25 0.60%

45 1.20%

865 22.40%

35 0.90%

50 535 1.30% 13.80%

25 0.60%

0 0.00%

110 2.80%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

80 2.10%

25 0.60%

0 0.00%

3,000 77.60%

250 6.50%

160 1,805 4.10% 46.70%

190 4.90%

0 505 0.00% 13.10%

0 0.00%

20 0.50%

25 0.60%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

45 1.20%

156,885 48,585 111,300

10,505 6,690 16,210

10,190 33,380 5,875 25,810 14,950 54,155

6,805 3,755 10,195

205 149 130

185 110 375

235 100 335

635 440 725

80 104 135

460 390 650

Librarians 2430 (SOC 25‐4021) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

TOTALS Total, both sexes Male Female

235 90 345

9,010 5,060 13,080

TABLE 3. Demographics for LA County teachers, non-citizens

Total, race and ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino White alone Hispanic or Latino

Not Hispanic or Latino, one race

All other Hispanic or Latino

American Black or Indian and African Alaska Native American alone alone

White alone

Not Hispanic or Latino, two or more races

Asian alone

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone

White and Black

White and AIAN

Balance of not Hispanic Black and AIAN or Latino

White and Asian

Preschool and kindergarten teachers 2300 (SOC 25‐2010) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

1,630 100.00%

415 25.50%

510 31.30%

285 17.50%

115 7.10%

0 0.00%

305 18.70%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

30 1.80%

0 0.00%

25 1.50%

10 0.60%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1,600 98.20%

415 25.50%

490 30.10%

275 16.90%

115 7.10%

0 0.00%

305 18.70%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

15 0.40%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

Elementary and middle school teachers 2310 (SOC 25‐2020) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

3,360 100.00%

505 15.00%

880 26.20%

725 21.60%

135 4.00%

0 0.00%

1,090 32.40%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

720 21.40%

115 3.40%

235 7.00%

170 5.10%

10 0.30%

0 0.00%

170 5.10%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

15 0.40%

0N 0.00% N

2,640 78.60%

390 11.60%

645 19.20%

550 16.40%

125 3.70%

0 0.00%

920 27.40%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

10 0.30%

Secondary school teachers 2320 (SOC 25‐2030) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

1,200 100.00%

265 22.10%

290 24.20%

270 22.50%

60 5.00%

0 0.00%

310 25.80%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

635 52.90%

145 12.10%

215 17.90%

105 8.80%

60 5.00%

0 0.00%

110 9.20%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

560 46.70%

120 10.00%

75 6.30%

165 13.80%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

205 17.10%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

Special education teachers 2330 (SOC 25‐2050) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

390 100.00%

110 28.20%

100 25.60%

75 19.20%

10 2.60%

0 0.00%

90 23.10%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

140 35.90%

20 5.10%

70 17.90%

25 6.40%

10 2.60%

0 0.00%

10 2.60%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

250 64.10%

90 23.10%

30 7.70%

50 12.80%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

80 20.50%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

15 0.50%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

Other teachers and instructors 2340 (SOC 25‐3000) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

3,090 100.00%

585 18.90%

650 21.00%

650 21.00%

35 1.10%

30 1.00%

1,085 35.10%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1,450 46.90%

420 13.60%

295 9.50%

245 7.90%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

455 14.70%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

15 0.50%

0N 0.00% N

1,640 53.10%

165 5.30%

355 11.50%

405 13.10%

35 1.10%

30 1.00%

630 20.40%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

220 100.00%

25 11.40%

25 11.40%

50 22.70%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

110 50.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

50 22.70%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

25 11.40%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

25 11.40%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

170 77.30%

25 11.40%

25 11.40%

25 11.40%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

85 38.60%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

80 100.00%

25 31.30%

15 18.80%

15 18.80%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

25 31.30%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

30 37.50%

15 18.80%

0 0.00%

15 18.80%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

50

10

15

0

0

0

25

0

0N

0

0N

35 1.10%

Librarians 2430 (SOC 25‐4021) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

0 0.00%

10 4.50%

Library technicians 2440 (SOC 25‐4031) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

Percent

62.50%

12.50%

18.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

31.30%

0.00%

0.00% N

0.00%

0.00% N

3,100 100.00%

875 28.20%

1,060 34.20%

420 13.50%

140 4.50%

0 0.00%

570 18.40%

15 0.50%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

685 22.10%

235 7.60%

160 5.20%

65 2.10%

45 1.50%

0 0.00%

180 5.80%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

2,415 77.90%

640 20.60%

900 29.00%

355 11.50%

100 3.20%

0 0.00%

390 12.60%

15 0.50%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

Teacher assistants 2540 (SOC 25‐9041) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

0 0.00%

15 0.50%

Other education, training, and library workers 2550 (SOC 25‐90XX) Total, both sexes Number Percent Male Number Percent Female Number Percent

210 100.00%

15 7.10%

30 14.30%

75 35.70%

30 14.30%

0 0.00%

60 28.60%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

130 61.90%

0 0.00%

30 14.30%

60 28.60%

30 14.30%

0 0.00%

10 4.80%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

80 38.10%

15 7.10%

0 0.00%

10 4.80%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

50 23.80%

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

0 0.00%

0N 0.00% N

13,280 9,405 3,870

1,870 950

2,535 1,030

1,835 720

375 155

30 0

2,690 960

15 0

0 0.00%

TOTALS Total, both sexes Female Male

0 0

0 0

0 30

0 0

0 0

Interview Reports Eileen Hatrick Type of Interview: LAUSD teacher and administrator Complete Address: 5466 Dahlia Dr., Los Angeles, CA. Interviewee (­s) and Title (­s) (Positions): Eileen Hatrick, now retired, was a principal at a number of LAUSD elementary schools, including Dahlia Heights, for many years. She was both an administrator and teacher in Los Angeles.

Interviewers: Mark Friedlander

Write­up by: Mark Friedlander

Form of contact (in person or by phone): In person Date & Time of contact: Friday, Oct. 24, 2014 @ 2pm

Duration: 1 hour

Location of the interview: Interviewee’s home Include description of the site: I sat down with Eileen Hatrick for an informal conversation about her background in public education and thoughts and opinions on charter school reform in Los Angeles. Mrs. Hatrick is a family friend who I have known for most of my life. I met her on Friday, October 23, 2014 at her home in Northeast Los Angeles (Eagle Rock).

REPORT OF THE INTERVIEW: Eileen spent most of her professional career in public education. She taught at a private school her first three years before moving to a public school, where she taught for 15 years. She then became a science and math advisor in Los Angeles before becoming an assistant principal for 6 years. Eileen spent the next 16 years as a principal for two different public schools in LA. The first 13 years she served as principal of Dhalia Heights, a local elementary school in the Eagle Rock neighborhood before becoming a principal in Glassell Park for 3 more years before retiring. Both of Eileen’s children attended local public and magnet schools in the district, so she also represents the parental perspective.

Eileen detailed her positive initial reaction to charter schools. Eileen appreciated the notion of bringing innovation and creation to the classroom to lead change throughout public education. Eileen is now a staunch critic of charter reform after experiencing and witnessing charters compete and sometimes deplete resources from local public schools.

The lack of accountability in charter schools was a major point of concern for Eileen. As a former administrator, Eileen is not comfortable with the fact that principals and board members for charter schools don’t need experience as a teacher or credentialing.

Eileen explained charters as more of a status symbol than an academic institution. According to Eileen, most parents want to send their kids to charters because charters are perceived as better or exclusive. In fact, most parents don’t know what is different about charters than traditional public schools but end up running to charters for “safety and status” reasons, not what because what is happening in the classroom.

Eileen has also researched and studied charters in her retirement. She is a member of an organization called TEACH. TEACH is a group of teachers and parents, headed by former assembly member Jackie Goldberg. TEACH is focused on bring exposure to what is happening in public education in Los Angeles.

Eileen talked about the poaching of students and colocation of facilities that occurs when charters open near traditional public schools. Eileen doesn’t feel like the schools compete in a healthy manner but it instead leads to a “toxic environment.” Eileen doesn’t see any exchange of ideas and support happening but rather a hostile competition for resources.

Eileen also expressed budgetary concerns about charters because charters don’t have to pay for maintenance while co­locating with a public schools. The lack of public scrutiny for expenses and budget also concerns Eileen as a parent and taxpayer. Eileen also feels that charters can exasperate socio­economic and ethnic divides in the city.

Eileen is concerned with the fact that Charters don’t have to adhere to all the Educational Code standards the rest of the public schools in the district must comply with. Health and safety standards (Field Code), free and reduced lunch programs, and special education needs are not always mandated for charters.

Finally, Eileen discussed the role of teachers in charter schools. In her experience, union backing helped with teacher job security and gave teachers the opportunity to invest in a school and a curriculum in ways non­unionized teachers cannot. Eileen did admit that a 2­year teacher tenure system was flawed and needed to be reworked but also felt that the overwhelming majority of teachers in LAUSD were quality teachers who did a good job.

Our talk ended with Eileen recommending a few people to interview and offering to mention our project to interested parties at the next TEACH meeting on Monday.

Kathryn Stevens Type of Interview: LAUSD and independent charter teacher Complete Address: 1332 Barry Ave., Los Angeles, CA. Interviewee (-s) and Title (-s) (Positions): Kathryn Stevens, now retired, was a National Board Certified teacher in LAUSD for many years before becoming a math and science teacher at Success Academy, an independent charter in South LA. Mrs. Stevens left Success academy because of poor management from the administration and returned to LAUSD to finish her teaching career.

Interviewers: Mark Friedlander Write-up by: Mark Friedlander Form of contact (in person or by phone): Phone Date & Time of contact: Sunday, Nov. 16, 2014 @ 8:30pm

Duration: 45 mins

Include description of the site: I talked with Kathyrn Stevens over the phone about her experience as a teacher in Los Angeles in both the traditional public school and charter school setting. Mrs. Stevens is a family friend.

REPORT OF THE INTERVIEW: Mrs. Stevens began her career in teaching as a substitute teacher after the birth of her second child.

She began teaching full-time as an elementary teacher for the second grade in Compton, CA. She was later hired as a teacher in LAUSD at Elizabeth Learning Center, a school that was growing to become K-12 in a low-income immigrant community. Mrs. Stevens partnered with another teacher to teach math and science to sixth graders.

After gaining National Board Certification for early adolescence science she was interviewed for a position at the Accelerated School, a charter in South LA. She was drawn to the holistic approach of the school, which offered classes ranging from yoga to film and supported project-based learning. She was offered a position at the charter believing the school could fulfill her quest to find a school that meets the needs of its students. She had to apply for a 5-year leave from LAUSD to work at the charter, maintaining her work benefits but giving up her union contract. Instead, teachers at the Accelerated School were given year-to-year contracts at the administration's discretion. Despite her hesitation to forfeit a union contract, Mrs. Stevens accepted the offer because she felt the school provided a work environment that enabled teachers to “make things happen.”

The Accelerated School served almost 100% black and latino students but the students came from mixed socio-economic backgrounds - a notable difference from the neighboring traditional public schools that served mostly lower income students. Mrs. Stevens began working long days but didn’t mind the hours because she felt like she was implementing a curriculum that she believed in. She observed a noticeable increase in parent involvement at the Accelerated School compared to her previous LAUSD school. The charter encouraged parent involvement, even requiring families to dedicate a certain number of volunteer hours to the school.

According to Stevens, long work days were a part of the culture at the charter school. About a third of the staff were experienced teachers while the the rest were inexperienced teachers or new hires.

Mrs. Stevens was happy at the school for the most part before her relationship with the administration began to deteriorate. Stevens witnessed quality teachers being let go without explanation or good reason. Stevens believes administration were releasing the quality teachers to be replaced by new teachers as cost saving measures. According to Stevens the charter school’s administrators lacked human relations experienced and didn’t know how to manage their workforce.

Stevens voluntarily left with four other teachers after the administration began to critique the teachers after they began meeting with parent groups.

Stevens returned to LAUSD to finish her career. She said she saw enormous potential in charter schools from her time at the Accelerated School. She witnessed incredible growth and exemplary test scores from students at the school but the potential was negated by the lack of experience of the administration, lack of teacher protections, and the schools continuous pursuit of additional funding.

Stevens believes the high turnover rates seen at charter schools were a result of the business management approach of the administration, demanding time expectations and arbitrary and subjective teacher evaluations. Stevens also witnessed a self-selection of students at the charter where special needs and immigrant students were discouraged from applying or asked to leave the school. Stevens also observed very little collaboration and exchange of information between the charter school and the other public schools.

Stevens is concerned by the racial and socio-economic segregation that takes place in traditional public schools in Los Angeles. Stevens felt the mix of students at the charter schools was incredible beneficial to the learning environment. Stevens admitted the current state of public education in Los Angeles needs improvement but doesn’t believe charter schools represent the solution.

It was interesting to hear a first hand experience of mismanagement at charter schools from a teacher who worked in the environment and witnessed some of the issues (e.g. high turnover, long hours, student poaching) at charter schools we have learned about over the course of the quarter.