Search

The current debate about charter schools' effects on school district finances hinges on enrollment loss. Critics claim that the surge in charter enrollment in California since 2000 has driven enrollment loss statewide--cutting districts' income more than their costs, especially in cities where many students attend charter schools. State officials are under pressure to cap the growth of charter schools as a way of stabilizing district enrollments, and thus finances. This brief examines state and district data on district and charter school enrollment trends over the past 10 years. We pay particular attention to Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego, where claims of harm done by charter enrollment growth have been made most often. The brief makes three points: (1) Surges and declines in K-12 enrollment have long been a fact of life in California districts. Statewide numbers of school-age children are currently falling and will continue to do so; (2) The growth of charter schools cannot account for all of the enrollment loss experienced by urban school districts; and (3) Charter school enrollment is not currently a major factor in continued district enrollment decline. [To view "Do Charter Schools Cause Fiscal Distress in School Districts?" see ED595169 and "Do the Costs of California Charter Schools Outweigh the Benefits?" see ED595193.]

Much attention has been focused on the costs charter school enrollment imposes on school districts. Getting an honest answer to this question is important for school districts so that they may adjust their expenditures appropriately. However, as Ladd and Singleton, the authors of a North Carolina study attempting to quantify those costs point out, a broader analysis of the societal benefits and costs associated with charter school policy also is needed to help policymakers assess the value of the policy and whether it should be continued or adjusted. This brief offers a discussion of the types of benefit and cost issues that should be considered and points to evidence to inform those considerations. First we consider potential benefits, then costs, and finally how we might compare the two. It is not meant to be a definitive analysis, but rather a way to bring nuanced discussion and debate to politically laden issues. We argue that, on face, the public policy benefits of charter schooling in California are more evident than the costs. However, more data and benefit-cost analysis are needed to make a clear determination. [To view "Charter Schools and District Enrollment Loss," see ED595191 and "Do Charter Schools Cause Fiscal Distress in School Districts?" see ED595169.]

The claim that charter schools cause financial harm to school districts is a major element in the debate around charter schools in California. Critics allege that enrollment in charter schools drains resources from school districts, forcing them to make cuts to staff and services and eventually contributing to fiscal distress. The charge that enrollment loss causes harm to students instead of inspiring school districts to improve is a critical question and requires good evidence to answer. This brief examines the relationship between charter school enrollment and fiscal distress in California. We find no evidence that charter school enrollments increase the likelihood of school districts entering fiscal distress. Prior research suggests a variety of factors contribute to fiscal distress and as a result, state policymakers are unlikely to find resolution to the problem in the charter sector. [For "Charter Schools and District Enrollment Loss," see ED595191. For "Do the Costs of California Charter Schools Outweigh the Benefits?" see ED595193.]

State policy plays a critical role in determining whether and how well local education improvement strategies can be implemented. As states rework their education policies under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), state and local leaders need a way to assess their current policy environment and identify the changes needed to encourage local innovation and problem-solving. To identify the legal and regulatory barriers to local autonomy, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) researched 14 states that already have one or more large cities pursuing local innovation strategies. We find that: The accretion of state law over the years has constrained local education leaders' ability to innovate, improve, and transform their schools; States have set up command-and-control frameworks, viewing districts rather than schools as public education's first responders, which is at odds with school-level efforts to address the particular needs of students and communities; and State policy leads to conflicts and disincentives that play out for worse at the local level. This analysis is intended to help policymakers, education leaders, and advocates understand the changes in state law and policy needed to support local strategies that empower educators, promote new schooling options, and let parents choose.

High school redesign is one of the most elusive reform challenges to date. This paper explains why personalized high schools are hard to get and keep in a traditional school district, and shows how they can be made much more broadly available through changes in policy and philanthropic investments. Drawing from examples of successful and unsuccessful high school redesign efforts, this paper argues that stable leadership, school-level autonomy, and choice for both staff and families are necessary to support high school redesign at scale. One appendix is included: Impediments to Coherency. Endnotes are also included.