replication and expansion readiness gina schlieman, manager, schools of choice office colorado...
TRANSCRIPT
Replication and Expansion ReadinessGina Schlieman, Manager, Schools of Choice Office
Colorado Department of [email protected]
303.866.6790
Dustin R. Sparks, Esq. Law Office of Dustin R. Sparks, LLC
[email protected] 303.727.0240
John Etzell, Head of SchoolColorado Early Colleges Douglas County
Definitions of Charter Replication
and Charter Expansion
Replication: Starting a new school, usually under a new charter and school code, that is a copy of an existing school run by the same organization or a related organization.
Expansion: Growing your school in grades or size with matriculation from one campus to another. Typically under one charter &/or one administration.
Why Replicate or Expand?
• Help more students with your successful model• More high-quality school places for more kids• Potential long-run cost savings through scaling-up• More grant sources available for schools with
proven track records
Difficulties with growing:
• Less focus on existing school and students• Proven leadership taken out of existing school or
time split• Problems with new school could hurt existing
school: financial, reputation, etc.
Overview: Colorado Charter Schools Program Grant
Sub-grants are given to schools that meet eligibility requirements and meet a minimum standard of quality-based criteria
Grants range from $196,500-215,000 per yearStart-up: Year 1Implementation: Years 2 & 3
Years 2 & 3 of funding are contingent upon a Renewal Proposal and good standing in meeting program requirements
Overview: CCSP Eligibility
Eligibility: “New Charter School” (RFP pp.7-8)
• Eligible the year before or year of the school’s opening• Charter Application submitted before CCSP Application
submission• Separate staff• Different administrator• Separate facility• Separate business operations• Separate lottery
Overview: CCSP Eligibility
Eligibility: “One-Time, Significant Expansion”(RFP p.9)
• Can apply the year before or year of the implementation of the expansion
• Increase in student count by more than 50% or by at least 2 grade levels over course of the grant
• No grant funds can be used to benefit previous students/grade levels
• Demonstrate a “Performance” rating on the 3-year School Performance Framework (SPF)
• No separate lottery needed. Students can matriculate automatically from lower grades
• Must have been in good standing and completed all the requirements of any previous CCSP grant
Other Funding Sources for Replication and Expansion
• Charter School Growth Fund (only funds for replications of successful models)
• Walton Family Foundation (we believe they are currently funneling their contributions through the Charter School Growth Fund)
• The Daniel’s Fund• Larger/multiple replication projects have also
pursued funding through the following:o Bill & Melinda Gateso Gates Family Foundationo Piton Foundationo Other larger, national foundations
Replication vs. Expansion Replication: • Schools may need to be under different
authorizers • May require multiple boards depending on the
authorizer• Will require separate school code, separate
accounts, and separate audit• Grant funding is available to help fund replication
Expansion:• Schools are typically all under the same
authorizer• Typically no issues using one board• May not require a separate school code,
accounts, or audit (if under one charter) - Note: DPS always does separate contracts
• Grant funding is available
Governance Structures
One entity expanding under its current charter:Pros:
• Efficiencies• More ability to use unrestricted reserves to
fund expansion• Structure and liability clear• Less paperwork
Cons:• Limited to one authorizer• Limits on grant funding• Success and failures are inextricably linked
Governance Structures Continued
One entity holding multiple charters:Pros:
• One board/ fewer meetings• Other efficiencies• Possibility to use unrestricted reserves to fund
replicationCons:• Authorizers are not currently required under the
law to allow for multiple schools/charters under one governing board, particularly if schools are not all under same authorizer. HB 15-1184 Charter School Network Bill could change how this works.
• Financial problems and reputation of one school can impact the others
• Confusion of structure and legal liability issues• Potentially more conflicts between needs of
schools
Governance Structures Continued
Multiple entities holding multiple charters:Pros:
• Failures and liabilities are more isolated• Can operate under many authorizers • Clarity in legal structure and liability issuesCons:• Centralized control challenges• Multiple boards• More paperwork• Need for an operating entity (CMO, EMO, or
Collaborative)• Clarity issues with operational structure
Pros and Cons of Starting a Management Organization
Pros:• Once fees are earned by a management entity they
can be used to start new schools• Helps isolate debts and liabilities • More ability to sell services to unrelated schools• Clearer structure and liability• More ability to work under multiple authorizers
(Charter Networks could change this)• Possibility of getting out of PERA – for employees of
the management organization.• Possibility of not being restricted by TABOR
Cons:• Less control over each charter (possibly limited to
contract)• May not be protected by governmental immunity• More paperwork (duplicate reporting might come up)• More boards and meetings
CMO/EMO (Non-Charter Holding Entity)
Non-profit or for-profit private entities that contract for services to charter schools.Pros:
• Not restricted by TABOR• Not subject to Sunshine laws (in some
instances)• Sometimes allowed out of PERA participation • Few limits on use of money after earned• Isolated risks
Cons:• No protection through TABOR• Not protected by governmental immunity• Possibly not eligible for PERA and other
authorizer benefits• Relationship with charter holding entity is purely
contractual
Charter School CollaborativesMultiple charter schools collectively form a centralized service providing organization.
Government entities for purposes of Colorado law.
Pros: • Benefits from TABOR• Benefits from governmental immunity• Ability to move money between schools after earned• Isolated liabilities• Possibility to have some control over multiple charter
holding entities• Does not require authorizer approval
Cons:• Restricted by TABOR• Restrictions on use of property• Could be charged fees by CDE for oversight in future• Subject to Sunshine laws• No ability to opt out of PERA• Duplicate reporting requirements
Overview: CCSP EligibilityEligibility: Education Service Providers (RFP pp.9-10)
• CMO vs. EMO vs. Collaborative vs. Charter Network
• Must demonstrate a Colorado-nonprofit governing board holds charter
• Demonstration of “fair & reasonable fees” for services provided.
• Charter-holding board must have direct administration and/or direct supervision of CCSP grant (not management or collaborative staff)
• Contracts between schools and ESPs are subject to review as part of eligibility (Appendix J)
• Signed charter contract for full build-out valid through the entire 3-year grant period.
Advice from the Field
Make sure you plan for:• What scales and what doesn't?• Who will be assigned to what?• What gets done onsite vs. central
office?• Building needs
Things to avoid:• Waiting to hire staff
Leadership Staffing
• Where is your leadership team coming from?
• Is there adequate on-boarding time?• How is the main school cultivating
and developing leaders for expansion?
Building Planning
• When is the remodel/ construction starting?
• Who is in charge of construction oversight?• Head of School or property manager
• Permits?• Have an alternate school schedule
ready to go, delays are inevitable
Questions?
Gina Schlieman, Manager, Schools of Choice Office Colorado Department of Education
[email protected] 303.866.6790
Dustin R. Sparks, Esq. Law Office of Dustin R. Sparks, LLC
[email protected] 303.727.0240
John Etzell, Head of SchoolColorado Early Colleges Douglas County