Charter Schools: New Model for Public Schools Provides Opportunities and
Challenges (Letter Report, 01/18/95, GAO/HEHS-95-42).

Charter schools are a rapidly growing education reform, offering a new
model for public schools. These schools are intended to address a
variety of concerns about the public educational system, including
unresponsive bureaucracies, restrictive rules, limited choices among
types of schools, and a lack of accountability for student performance.
As the number of charter schools has grown, so has their diversity.
These schools vary considerably in their autonomy, their instructional
programs reflect diversity and innovation, and they vary in how they
plan and measure student performance. Because of this diversity, these
schools pose new challenges for federal program administration. These
challenges stem from the lack of connection of some charter schools to
local school districts. Meanwhile, states are uncertain about how to
treat charter schools in regard to federal programs and federal
requirements such as those for special education. GAO summarized this
report in testimony before Congress; see: Charter Schools: New Models
for Public Schools Provides Opportunities and Challenges, by Linda G.
Morra, Director of Education and Employment Issues, before the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related
Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations. GAO/T-HEHS-95-52, Jan. 19,
1995 (five pages).

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-95-42
     TITLE:  Charter Schools: New Model for Public Schools Provides 
             Opportunities and Challenges
      DATE:  01/18/95
   SUBJECT:  Public schools
             State-administered programs
             Educational programs
             Aid for education
             Education program evaluation
             Accountability
             State/local relations
             Students
IDENTIFIER:  Arizona
             California
             Colorado
             Georgia
             Hawaii
             Kansas
             Massachusetts
             Michigan
             Minnesota
             New Mexico
             Wisconsin
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

January 1995

CHARTER SCHOOLS - NEW MODEL FOR
PUBLIC SCHOOLS PROVIDES
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

GAO/HEHS-95-42

Charter Schools


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
  IDEA - Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
  IEP - Individualized Education Plan
  LEA - Local Education Agency
  SEA - State Education Agency

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-256567

January 18, 1995

The Honorable Arlen Specter
Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health
 and Human Services, Education
 and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Edward M.  Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member, Committee
 on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate

Charter schools are a rapidly growing education reform, offering a
new model for public schools.  This model is intended to address a
variety of concerns about our educational system, including
unresponsive district bureaucracies, restrictive rules, limited
choices among types of public schools, and a lack of accountability
for student performance. 

Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools operate under
charters or contracts with school districts, state education
agencies, or other public institutions.  They are designed by groups
of parents, teachers, school administrators, other members of the
community, and private corporations.  Also, charter schools can
operate with considerable autonomy from external controls such as
district, state, and union requirements.\1 Charter schools get this
autonomy in areas such as curriculum, instruction, budget, and
personnel in exchange for being held accountable for student
performance.  As of January 1995, 11 states had passed legislation
authorizing charter schools.\2

This report responds to your request for information on charter
schools;\3 it answers the following questions: 

  How many charter schools have been approved under state laws? 

  What characterizes charter schools' instructional programs? 

  How autonomously do charter schools operate and what influences
     their autonomy? 

  How are charter schools held accountable for student performance? 

  What challenges do charter schools pose for federal education
     programs? 

To address these questions, we reviewed charters or charter
proposals, collecting information on the schools' instructional
programs, accountability systems, and financial and administrative
relationships with the school districts where they are located.  We
reviewed these documents for most of the 83 approved or proposed
charter schools we identified as of May 1994; these schools were in
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Minnesota (see app.  I for a
list of the 83 charter schools).  We also conducted telephone
interviews to collect information on individual charter schools;
their relationships with the school districts where they are located;
and school, district, and state experiences with how federal programs
work with charter schools.  We interviewed (1) the principals or
other representatives of 50 charter schools, (2) district officials
in 34 districts with charter schools, and (3) state officials in the
11 states with laws authorizing charter schools. 

We also analyzed the laws of the 11 states to determine similarities
and differences in charter schools' legal status, exemption from
state rules, approval process, funding, and accountability for
student performance.  We supplemented our legislative analysis with
information from officials in each state on issues that were unclear
in the legislation.  These officials reviewed relevant portions of
this report and provided oral comments.  We obtained updates from
these state officials, as of January 1, 1995, on (1) the number of
charter schools in their states and (2) whether the charter schools
were new or conversions of existing schools.  We did our study from
February 1994 through January 1995 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\1 Other education reforms, such as school-based management and
regulatory flexibility, can provide similar autonomy.  For more
information, see Education Reform:  School-Based Management Results
in Changes in Instruction and Budgeting (GAO/HEHS-94-135, Aug.  23,
1994) and Regulatory Flexibility:  What Happens When Schools Are
Allowed to Change the Rules?  (GAO/HEHS-94-102, Apr.  29, 1994). 

\2 These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and
Wisconsin. 

\3 This report was also requested by former Senator David
Durenberger, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States
Senate. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

As of January 1995, 134 charter schools had been approved in 9 of the
11 states with charter school laws.\4 As the number of charter
schools has grown, so has their diversity.  While charter schools may
be envisioned as new, highly autonomous schools, this is not always
the case.  Indeed, charter schools' diversity, as well as the many
differences in the laws authorizing them, make generalizing about
them difficult. 

Charter schools' instructional programs reflect diversity and
innovation.  They include innovative approaches, such as instructing
children of multiple ages in the same classroom--known as multiage
grouping--or teaching subjects in the context of a common theme, such
as citizenship--known as thematic instruction.  Some charter schools
emphasize specific subject areas, such as the arts or sciences;
others target their instructional programs to specific student
populations, such as those at risk of school failure or home-schooled
students. 

Charter schools vary considerably in their autonomy.  Some operate as
legally independent entities, for example, as nonprofit corporations
or teacher-owned cooperatives.  Five states--Arizona, California,
Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota--authorize legally independent
charter schools.  In contrast, some charter schools operate with no
greater autonomy than many traditional public schools.  Factors that
influence charter schools' autonomy include their legal status and
how they are approved, funded, and gain exemptions from rules. 

Charter schools also vary in how they plan to measure student
performance and how specifically they state those plans.  They expect
to use a wide variety of assessment methods and measure a wide
variety of student outcomes; many schools will include achievement on
standardized tests.  Some schools have their assessment systems in
place; others--including some schools already open--are still
developing their assessment systems.  Whether charter schools will be
held accountable for student performance depends on the quality of
assessments and completeness of reporting and remains an issue for
future evaluations of these schools. 

Charter schools pose new challenges for federal program
administration.  These challenges stem from the lack of connection of
some charter schools to school districts--the usual local point of
federal program administration.  States are uncertain about how to
treat charter schools in regard to federal programs and requirements
such as those for Title I and special education.\5 An important issue
is whether legally independent charter schools can be considered
local education agencies (LEAs),\6 like school districts.  If so, for
example, charter schools would be eligible to receive Title I funds
from their states and operate their own Title I programs.  Because of
states' uncertainty, clarification is needed on how charter schools
can be treated for federal program administration. 


--------------------
\4 These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. 

\5 Title I (formerly Chapter 1 of Title I) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) serves educationally deprived
children--those whose educational attainment is below that
appropriate for their age--in relatively high-poverty areas.  Title I
is the largest federal program for elementary and secondary
education; it serves over 5 million children and was funded at $6.9
billion in fiscal year 1994.  Federal special education programs
include a variety of state grant programs included in the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); these programs were funded at
$2.9 billion in fiscal year 1994.  Regulations implementing the IDEA
also specify a variety of requirements that must be met in serving
all disabled students. 

\6 An LEA is defined as "a public board of education or other public
authority legally constituted within a State for either
administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service
function for, public elementary or secondary schools in a city,
county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of
a State, or such combination of school districts or counties as are
recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public
elementary or secondary schools.  Such term includes any other public
institution or agency having administrative control and direction of
a public elementary or secondary school." (20 U.S.C.  2891(12).)


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Charter schools are a new and increasingly popular entrant in the
debate on restructuring and improving U.S.  public education.  The
model offered by charter schools differs substantially from the
traditional model for governing and funding public schools.  Charter
schools operate under a charter or contract that specifies the terms
under which the schools may operate and the student outcomes they are
expected to achieve.  Charter schools may be exempt from most local
and state rules, hire their own staff, determine their own
curriculum, receive funding directly from the state, and control
their own budgets.  In contrast, traditional public schools are
subject to substantial external controls, such as local, state, and
federal requirements, which limit their authority over curriculum and
personnel decisions.  Federal, state, and local funding for
traditional public schools usually flows through the district, and
individual schools often have little control over their budgets. 

Between 1991 and 1994, 11 states enacted legislation authorizing
charter schools to achieve a variety of purposes, including

  encouraging innovative teaching,

  promoting performance-based accountability,

  expanding choices in the types of public schools available,

  creating new professional opportunities for teachers,

  improving student learning, and

  promoting community involvement. 

The federal government has also acted on behalf of charter schools. 
Two major pieces of federal education legislation passed in 1994
include provisions on charter schools.  The Improving America's
Schools Act, which reauthorized and amended the ESEA of 1965,
includes a new federal grant program to support the design and
implementation of charter schools (see app.  II for a description of
this program).  The Improving America's Schools Act also specifies
the conversion of a school to charter school status as a possible
corrective action that a school district can require of a school that
has been identified for school improvement.  The Goals 2000:  Educate
America Act allows states to use federal funds provided under the act
to promote charter schools. 


   GROWTH IN CHARTER SCHOOLS
   REFLECTS DIVERSE NATIONAL
   REFORM MOVEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

As of January 1995, nine states had approved 134 charter schools with
diverse instructional and operating characteristics.  Another two
states--Georgia and Kansas--had adopted laws authorizing charter
schools but had not yet approved any.  (See table 1.) As many as 14
more states may consider legislation in 1995.\7 Approved charter
schools include 85 new schools and 49 conversions of existing schools
(see fig.  1), with some states only allowing such conversions (see
table 2). 



                          Table 1
          
          Number of Charter Schools Authorized and
                 Approved Under State Laws

                Year   Number of charter         Number of
                 law    schools approved   charter schools
State         passed  as of January 1995        authorized
------------  ------  ------------------  ----------------
Arizona         1994                   3                \a
California      1992                  73               100
Colorado        1993                  16                50
Georgia         1993                   0                \b
Hawaii          1994                   1                25
Kansas          1994                   0                15
Massachusett    1993                  14                25
 s
Michigan      1993\c                   8                \d
Minnesota       1991                  14                35
New Mexico      1993                   4                 5
Wisconsin       1993                   1                20
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Charter schools in Arizona may be sponsored by a school district,
the state board of education, or the state board for charter schools. 
The state board of education and state board for charter schools may
each sponsor up to 25 schools each fiscal year.  No restrictions
exist on the number of charter schools approved by school districts. 

\b No limit. 

\c In November 1994, a Michigan court ruled that Michigan's charter
school law violated the state's constitution.  Although Michigan is
appealing the case, it enacted a new law in January 1995. 
Information in this report reflects changes made in the new law.  The
new law includes a provision to repeal substantial portions of it
should the original law be upheld on appeal. 

\d Michigan's new charter school law limits the number of charter
schools state universities may approve to 75.  No restrictions exist
on the number of charter schools approved by other institutions. 

   Figure 1:  Charter Schools
   Include New Schools and
   Conversions of Existing Schools

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



                          Table 2
          
           State Laws Vary in Authorizing Charter
          Schools as New Schools or Conversions of
                      Existing Schools


                May be new     Are limited     May include
                schools or         only to  conversions of
            conversions of  conversions of        existing
                  existing        existing         private
State              schools         schools         schools
----------  --------------  --------------  --------------
Arizona                  X                               X
California               X
Colorado                 X
Georgia                                  X
Hawaii                                   X
Kansas                   X
Massachuse               X
 tts
Michigan                 X                               X
Minnesota                X                               X
New Mexico                               X
Wisconsin                X
----------------------------------------------------------
Charter schools' diverse instructional programs include approaches
such as instructing children of multiple ages in the same classroom,
known as multiage grouping; teaching subjects in the context of a
certain theme, known as thematic instruction; and using the Internet
as an instructional tool.  Some charter schools specialize in certain
subject areas, such as the arts, sciences, or technology; others
emphasize work experience through internships or apprenticeships. 
Some charter schools target specific student populations, including
students at risk of school failure, dropouts, limited English
proficient students, noncollege-bound students, or home-schooled
students.  Under the state laws in California, Colorado, Kansas, and
Wisconsin, charter schools that target students at risk of school
failure receive preference for approval. 


--------------------
\7 These states include Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. 


   CHARTER SCHOOLS' AUTONOMY
   VARIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

As some advocates envision them, charter schools would operate with
far greater autonomy than traditional schools.  They would operate
independently from the school districts where they are located and
unconstrained by government regulations; they would control their own
budgets, personnel, curriculum, and instructional approaches.  While
this is the case for charter schools in some states, other states
have laws that authorize charter schools with more limited autonomy. 
State laws influence charter schools' autonomy by how they provide
for their (1) legal status, (2) approval, (3) funding, and (4)
exemption from rules. 


      SOME CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE
      LEGALLY INDEPENDENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Charter schools under four states' laws are legally independent from
the school districts where they are located; that is, the charter
schools are legally responsible for their operations (see table 3). 
Charter schools in Minnesota, for example, operate as nonprofit
corporations or cooperatives.  In five states, charter schools must
be part of a school district that is legally responsible for the
school's operations (see table 3).  In one state, California, a
charter school's legal status is determined through negotiation with
the local school board that approves its charter.  Some charter
schools in California have organized as legally independent nonprofit
corporations; others are legally part of a district; and some
schools' legal status remains to be determined.  In one state,
Hawaii, the legal status of charter schools remains uncertain and
awaits a decision by the State Attorney General. 



                          Table 3
          
             Some State Laws Authorize Legally
                Independent Charter Schools

                                               All charter
               All charter         Charter         schools
                   schools  schools can be    legally part
                   legally         legally  of traditional
State          independent     independent        district
----------  --------------  --------------  --------------
Arizona                  X
California                               X
Colorado                                                 X
Georgia                                                  X
Kansas                                                   X
Massachuse               X
 tts
Michigan                 X
Minnesota                X
New Mexico                                               X
Wisconsin                                                X
----------------------------------------------------------
The legal status of a charter school may influence its authority over
budgeting and personnel decisions.  Legally independent charter
schools generally control their own budgets and make their own hiring
and firing decisions.  Charter schools that remain legally part of a
school district may have little control over budgeting or personnel,
although this varies. 


      APPROVAL AND APPEALS
      PROCESSES FOR CHARTER
      SCHOOLS VARY AND MAY
      INFLUENCE AUTONOMY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

All charter schools must be approved by some public institution. 
Most have been approved by a school district or state board of
education, although some states involve neither.  State laws vary
considerably in the options they give to charter schools seeking
approval.  State laws also vary in allowing applicants to appeal a
decision to reject a charter school application.  (See table 4.)
Required school district approval could result in less autonomous
charter schools if districts use their leverage with the schools to
maintain more traditional relationships with them.  The availability
of multiple approval options could result in more autonomous charter
schools because applicants could seek the least restrictive
situation.  As a condition for approving a charter, for example, one
district required charter schools' terms of employment--for teacher
tenure, salary, and schedule for advancement--to be the same as those
for other schools in the district.  Evidence from California
indicates that districts were least supportive of charter schools
seeking the most independence.\8



                          Table 4
          
             Approval and Appeals Processes for
           Charter Schools Vary Under State Laws

------------  --------------------------------------------
Arizona       Local boards of education, the state board
              of education, or the state board for charter
              schools may approve charter schools and
              grant their charters. Rejected applications
              may be resubmitted.

California    Local school board or county board of
              education approval required. Rejected
              applicants may appeal to the county
              superintendent.\a

Colorado      Only local school boards can approve charter
              schools. Rejected applicants may appeal to
              state board of education, which can overturn
              local board decision.

Georgia       Local school board and state board approval
              required. Local and state boards may allow
              deficient applications to be resubmitted.
              State may request a hearing to receive
              further information on applications rejected
              by local school boards.

Hawaii        Approval required by three-fifths of the
              schools' administrative, support, and
              teaching personnel and parents. State board
              of education approval is automatic unless it
              finds that the school plan conflicts with
              statewide educational performance standards.
              Local school boards may amend applications
              to resolve any conflicts with statewide
              standards.

Kansas        Local school board approval required. State
              board of education reviews each application
              for compliance with state and federal laws
              and regulations. If the application is in
              compliance, the state board must approve the
              application.

Massachusett  Secretary of Education approval required
s             only. No appeals process.

Michigan      Local school boards,\b state universities,
              community colleges, and regional
              intermediate school districts may approve
              charter schools. Applicants rejected by the
              board of a school district may appeal to the
              board for reconsideration by the school
              electors of the school district if at least
              15 percent of the electors sign the petition
              and it includes all required information.
              The board will grant the charter if a
              majority of the school electors voting votes
              to grant the charter.

Minnesota     Local school board and state approval
              required. Rejected applicants may appeal to
              state board if two members of the school
              board voted for sponsorship. State board
              becomes the sponsor if the appeal is upheld.

New Mexico    State board of education approval only;
              school applies to state, district may
              include its recommendation concerning
              approval and must approve the school's
              budget. No appeals process.

Wisconsin     Local school board and state board approval
              required. No appeals process.
----------------------------------------------------------
\a One school in California may apply directly to the state for
approval.  This school is the Lab School at the University of
California, Los Angeles, which was authorized to become a charter
school under special legislation in 1994. 

\b Michigan law prohibits the state's smallest school districts from
approving charter schools. 


--------------------
\8 M.R.  Diana and R.G.  Corwin, Vision and Reality:  A First-Year
Look at California's Charter Schools, Southwest Regional Laboratory
(May 1994). 


      CHARTER SCHOOLS' FUNDING
      ARRANGEMENTS VARY AND MAY
      INFLUENCE AUTONOMY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Charter schools' funding arrangements vary in (1) the extent to which
the funding amounts are negotiable and (2) how funds flow to the
schools.  Charter schools' autonomy could be limited when funding
amounts are subject to negotiation with the school district that
approves the charter.  Districts may seek to retain control over some
funds as a condition for approval. 

In six states, the amount of state or local funding for charter
schools is subject to negotiation with the school districts that
approve the charters.  In four states, funding for charter schools is
set by the state, and the amount is not subject to negotiation with
school districts.  In one state, Arizona, funding is subject to
negotiation when charter schools are approved by school districts,
but not when they are approved by the state.  In states in which
funding is not subject to negotiation, funds flow from the state
directly to the charter school, with the exception of Massachusetts
and Michigan.  In states in which funding is subject to negotiation,
funds flow from the state to the district to the charter school. 
(See table 5.)



                          Table 5
          
           How Charter Schools Are Funded Varies

------------  --------------------------------------------
Arizona       If the state sponsors the charter school,
              state funds flow from the state to the
              school, amount not subject to negotiation;
              federal funds flow from the state to the
              school. If a district sponsors the charter
              school, federal, state, and local funds flow
              through the district to the school; the
              amount of funds available to the school must
              be the minimum per pupil expenditure in the
              district, as defined by the district, total
              amount subject to negotiations on district
              services to the school.

California    State and federal funds flow from the state
              to the county to the district to the charter
              school. Local funds flow from the district
              to the charter school. Amounts from each
              source are subject to negotiation with the
              district.

Colorado      State and federal funds flow from the state
              to the district to the charter school. Local
              funds flow from the district to the charter
              school. At least 80 percent of the per pupil
              operating revenue of the district, which
              includes state and local funds, follows the
              student to the charter school. The actual
              amount of funding is subject to negotiation
              with the district.

Georgia       State and federal funds flow from the state
              to the district to the charter school. Local
              funds flow from the district to the charter
              school. Amounts from each source are subject
              to negotiation with the district.

Hawaii        State funds flow from the state to the
              charter school, amounts not subject to
              negotiation. Allocation of federal funds
              remains to be determined.

Kansas        State, local, and federal funds flow from
              the state to the district to the charter
              school, amounts from each source subject to
              negotiation with the district.

Massachusett  State and local funds flow from the state to
s             the district to the charter schools, amounts
              from each source not subject to negotiation.
              Charter schools collect a tuition payment
              that is based on average cost per student
              for each student from the district where the
              student lives. Allocation of federal funds
              remains to be determined.

Michigan      The institution that approves a charter
              school becomes its fiscal agent. State and
              federal funds flow from the state to the
              fiscal agent to the charter school, amounts
              not subject to negotiation. Public schools
              do not receive local funds.

Minnesota     State and local funds flow from the state to
              charter schools, amounts not subject to
              negotiation. Some federal funds flow from
              the state to the district to the charter
              schools; some flow directly from the state
              to the charter schools.

New Mexico    State and federal funds flow from the state
              to the district to charter schools, amounts
              subject to negotiation with the district.
              Public schools do not receive local funds.

Wisconsin     State and federal funds flow from the state
              to the district to charter schools. Local
              funds flow from the district to the charter
              school. Amounts from each source are subject
              to negotiation with the district.
----------------------------------------------------------

      CHARTER SCHOOLS' AUTONOMY
      FROM STATE AND DISTRICT
      RULES VARIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

Charter schools' autonomy from state and district rules varies
considerably across states.  Some state laws exempt charter schools
from most state education rules; that is, charter schools receive a
blanket exemption.\9 Other states require charter schools to request
exemption from specific rules (rule-by-rule exemption), requests that
are subject to district or state approval or both.  (See table 6.)
Legally independent charter schools are not subject to district rules
unless agreed to as part of negotiations leading to charter approval. 
In contrast, charter schools that are legally part of a district are
subject to district rules unless waivers are negotiated.  Some
districts have denied waivers from local rules requested by charter
schools.\10



                          Table 6
          
          Extent to Which Charter Schools Exempted
            From State and District Rules Varies

------------  --------------------------------------------
Arizona       Blanket exemption from most state rules;
              district rules not applicable due to charter
              schools' legal independence, unless
              negotiated into contract.

California    Blanket exemption from most state rules;
              rule-by-rule or blanket exemption from
              district rules, subject to district
              approval.

Colorado      Rule-by-rule exemption from most state
              statutes and rules and district regulations,
              subject to state and district approval.

Georgia       Rule-by-rule or blanket exemption from state
              and district rules, subject to state and
              district approval.

Hawaii        Blanket exemption from most state rules.

Kansas        Rule-by-rule exemption from state and
              district rules, subject to state and
              district approval.

Massachusett  Exemption from state rules on curriculum and
s             teacher tenure and dismissal. Other rule-
              by-rule exemptions from state rules subject
              to state approval. District rules not
              applicable due to charter schools' legal
              independence, unless negotiated into
              contract.

Michigan      Charter schools must adhere to all
              applicable state laws. No specific exemption
              process. District rules not applicable due
              to charter schools' legal independence,
              unless negotiated into contract.

Minnesota     Blanket exemption from most state rules;
              district rules not applicable due to charter
              schools' legal independence, unless
              negotiated into contract.

New Mexico    Rule-by-rule exemption from state and
              district rules, subject to state approval
              and district agreement.

Wisconsin     Blanket exemption from most state rules;\a
              rule-by-rule waivers from district rules
              subject to district approval.
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Charter schools in Wisconsin must meet three general state
requirements.  First, they must participate in the state student
assessment system, which includes testing requirements at grades 3,
8, and 10.  Second, they must participate in the school and district
performance reporting system, which requires schools to report a
variety of data to the state, such as the number of dropouts and
suspensions.  Third, charter school instructional staff must obtain a
charter school license or charter school permit. 


--------------------
\9 Even with blanket exemptions, charter schools remain subject to
some rules, such as those concerning health and safety and civil
rights. 

\10 M.R.  Diana and R.G.  Corwin, An Early Look at Charter Schools in
California, Southwest Regional Laboratory (April 1993). 


   CHARTER SCHOOLS VARY IN PLANS
   FOR ASSESSING STUDENT
   PERFORMANCE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The extent to which charter schools can be held accountable depends
on how the schools assess student performance and report results to
the public institutions responsible for their oversight and contract
renewal.  The schools' charters indicate plans to use a wide variety
of assessment methods to measure a wide variety of student outcomes. 
Some of these assessments and outcomes were subject to negotiation
with the charter-granting institution; others are mandated under law
in some states (see table 7).  Some charter schools state their plans
for assessment in great detail, have their assessment systems in
place, and have begun collecting data.  Others--including some
schools already open--state their plans in more general terms and are
still developing their assessment systems. 

Student assessments used by charter schools include portfolios,
exhibitions, demonstrations of students' work, and often standardized
achievement tests.  Student outcomes include objective outcomes--such
as specific achievement levels or gains on standardized tests,
attendance and graduation rates--and subjective outcomes, such as
becoming an independent learner, understanding how science is applied
to the real world, participating in community service, and
understanding the responsibilities of citizenship. 

Because charter schools' efforts to assess and report student
performance are fairly recent, several important questions about
accountability are unanswered.  First, are charter schools collecting
adequate baseline data to judge changes in student performance? 
Accurate judgments may be difficult in schools that opened before
their assessment methods were developed.  Second, will charter
schools report data by race, sex, or socioeconomic status so that the
performance of specific student groups can be assessed?  No state
laws require charter schools to do so; some include no reporting
requirements; and most leave the type of reporting to local
discretion (see table 7).  Third, what are the implications of
requiring charter schools to meet state performance standards and to
use standardized, norm-referenced tests?  Will it discourage charter
schools with specialized purposes or that target low-achieving
student populations?  Will it encourage charter schools to have more
traditional instructional programs? 



                          Table 7
          
             Requirements for Charter Schools'
          Accountability Systems Vary Under State
                            Laws

------------  --------------------------------------------
Arizona       Criteria to measure the effectiveness of the
              school must be included in a proposal to
              establish a charter school. Charter schools
              must design a method to measure pupil
              progress toward the outcomes adopted by the
              state board of education. Each school must
              participate in the essential skills test (a
              performance-based test) and a standardized,
              norm-referenced achievement test and must
              report annually on the results of such
              testing.

California    Charter proposals must identify educational
              goals, measurable student outcomes, and the
              method to assess them. Charter schools are
              required to conduct pupil assessments, in
              accordance with state standards, and meet
              statewide performance standards. Charter
              schools must submit annual performance and
              fiscal reports to the school board that
              granted the charter.

Colorado      Charter schools are subject to the state's
              Standards Based Education Act. Content
              standards and assessments must be developed
              and adopted locally (by districts or charter
              schools). The adopted content standards must
              meet or exceed state model standards.
              Charter schools must also participate in the
              state student assessment program beginning
              in 1996. A plan for evaluating pupil
              performance must be included in charter
              applications, and the results of such
              evaluations must be included in a report
              when seeking renewal by the local board of
              education.

Georgia       Charter petitions must include performance-
              based objectives, student outcome-based
              objectives, and the means for measuring
              those objectives on a yearly basis to
              improve student learning and to meet
              national and state educational goals.
              Results indicating the progress made by the
              school in meeting performance objectives
              must be reported annually to parents, the
              community, the local board, and the state
              board.

Hawaii        Charter schools must conduct self-
              evaluations annually. The implementation
              plan must detail specific student outcomes
              to be achieved and ensure compliance with
              statewide student performance standards.
              There are no specific reporting requirements
              but each student-centered school will be
              evaluated every 4 years by the State
              Department of Education to ensure compliance
              with statewide student performance
              standards.

Kansas        Applications must include an explanation of
              how pupil performance in achieving the
              specified outcomes will be measured,
              evaluated, and reported. Each charter school
              must participate in the state assessment
              system and the quality performance
              accreditation process unless otherwise
              exempted by the local and state boards of
              education. At the end of each school year,
              the local school board will evaluate the
              impact the charter school has had on the
              educational system of the district and will
              submit such evaluation to the state board.

Massachusett  Charter schools must meet the same
s             performance standards and testing and
              portfolio requirements set by the board of
              education for students in other public
              schools and must report annually on progress
              made toward achieving goals set forth in the
              charter. Annual reports must be submitted to
              the state secretary of education, to each
              parent or guardian of its enrolled students,
              and to each parent or guardian considering
              enrollment.

Michigan      The charter must contain the school's
              educational goals and the methods by which
              it will be held accountable. Pupil outcomes
              will be assessed using a Michigan education
              assessment program test or other models as
              authorized by law or one or more of the
              following: the California Achievement Test,
              the Stanford Achievement Test, the
              Metropolitan Achievement Test, or the Iowa
              Test of Basic Skills. There are no specific
              reporting requirements, but contracts must
              describe the methods to be used to monitor
              performance in meeting each school's
              targeted educational outcomes.

Minnesota     Charter schools must design their programs
              to meet or exceed outcomes adopted by state
              board of education or, if none, those in the
              charter, and must report annually to their
              sponsor and the state board.

New Mexico    Charter proposals must include pupil
              performance standards that meet or exceed
              state board standards. Schools must provide
              an annual accountability report to the
              parents of children enrolled in the school,
              the community, the local school board, and
              the State Department of Education.

Wisconsin     Charter schools must ensure that their
              students maintain sufficient progress toward
              the same educational goals and objectives as
              other public school students. Charter
              petitions must include the methods to
              achieve these goals and to measure pupil
              progress. Charter schools must participate
              in the state student assessment system,
              which requires testing of students in grades
              3, 8, and 10 using state assessments.
----------------------------------------------------------

   CHARTER SCHOOLS POSE NEW
   CHALLENGES FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Charter schools pose new challenges for federal programs in
allocating funds, providing services, and assigning legal
responsibility.  These challenges stem from the lack of connection of
some charter schools to school districts--the usual local point of
federal program administration. 

School districts are considered LEAs for the purposes of federal
program administration; they receive allocations of federal funds
from their states and are held legally responsible for meeting
program requirements.  However, an important issue is whether some
charter schools--those with legal independence--can be considered
LEAs.  While legally independent charter schools appear to meet the
definition of an LEA, states are uncertain about this and have
approached the issue differently.  Title I and special education
programs illustrate challenges posed by charter schools to federal
education program administration. 


      TITLE I AND CHARTER SCHOOLS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

As an LEA, a charter school would be eligible to receive Title I
funds directly from its state education agency (SEA) and held legally
responsible for its Title I program.\11 As a school considered part
of a traditional school district, a charter school would be eligible
for Title I funds just as any other school in a district and would
not be eligible to receive funds directly from its SEA. 

Current law provides SEAs flexibility in allocating grants to LEAs
that could apply to charter schools considered LEAs.\12 However, SEAs
using census data to calculate LEA allocations face a complication
because census data do not exist for charter schools, and SEAs must
use the same measure of low income throughout the state.\13 It is
uncertain, for example, whether an SEA could use other data adjusted
to be equivalent to census data for this purpose.\14 An SEA might be
able to apply for a waiver under the new charter schools grant
program to permit use of such adjusted data; however, language in
different waiver provisions makes this unclear.\15 In commenting on a
draft of this report, the Department of Education stated that it
intends to use the broader authority to grant waivers under the
charter schools provision to promote flexibility in charter schools
(see app.  III). 

Of those states that authorized legally independent charter schools,
Arizona and Massachusetts have not yet decided on how to treat them
concerning Title I.  California, Minnesota, and Michigan have decided
on contrasting approaches. 


--------------------
\11 LEAs are eligible for Title I basic, concentration, and targeted
grants.  An LEA is eligible for a Title I basic grant in fiscal year
1995 if it enrolls at least 10 low-income children.  Beginning in
fiscal year 1996, an LEA will not be eligible for a basic grant if
the number of low-income children is equal to 2 percent or less of
the total school-age population in the LEA.  An LEA is eligible for a
Title I concentration grant if the number of low-income children in
the county (for fiscal years 1996 through 1998) or LEA (for fiscal
years beginning with 1999) exceeds 6,500 or the number of low-income
children exceeds 15 percent of the total number of school-age
children in the county (for fiscal years 1996 through 1998) or LEA
(for fiscal years beginning with 1999).  An LEA is eligible for a
Title I targeted grant if the number of low-income children in the
LEA is at least 10 and if that number is at least 5 percent of the
school age-population in the LEA (P.L.  103-382, sections 1124(b),
1124A(a)(1)(A), 1125.)

\12 A provision on special allocation procedures permits SEAs to
allocate basic, concentration, and targeted grants to LEAs (1) if two
or more LEAs serve, in whole or in part, the same geographical area;
(2) if an LEA provides free public education for children who reside
in the school district of another LEA; or (3) to reflect the merger,
creation, or change of boundaries of one or more LEAs (P.L.  103-382,
sec.  1126(b)). 

\13 In determining the number of eligible children in an LEA, an SEA
must count the number of children in low-income families using the
same measure of low income throughout the state (34 CFR, sec. 
200.23(b)(1)(ii)).  Some SEAs use data on participation in the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children program or free and reduced-price
lunch program for this purpose.  In 1994, the SEAs in 24 states used
census data for this purpose.  Seven of these states have passed
charter schools legislation:  Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.  Three of these states
authorize legally independent charter schools:  Arizona, Michigan,
and Minnesota. 

\14 Additional language on special allocation procedures in the
Conference Report for the Improving America's Schools Act suggests
SEA discretion:  "State education agencies may reallocate part A
grants as appropriate when multiple local education agencies serve
the same area, or an agency provides educational services to children
residing in a different local education agency." (H.R.  Rep.  No. 
761, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.  637 (1994)). 

\15 A provision on waivers concerning the new charter school grant
program specifies, "[t]he Secretary may waive any statutory or
regulatory requirement over which the Secretary exercises
administrative authority except any such requirement relating to the
elements of a charter school...." However, another section on waivers
specifies, "[t]he Secretary shall not waive under this section any
statutory or regulatory requirements relating to...the allocation or
distribution of funds to States local educational agencies, or other
recipients of funds under this Act...." (P.L.  103-382 sections
10304(e) and 14401(c)). 


         CALIFORNIA
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1.1

The California Department of Education has not decided whether its
legally independent charter schools are LEAs for Title I purposes. 
To avoid creating a new funding structure, it treats all charter
schools as regular schools within a district for Title I funding.  If
a charter school is eligible for Title I funding, then the district
must determine the charter school's share the same way it does for
other eligible schools.\16


--------------------
\16 Management Advisory:  93-10, California Department of Education
(Dec.  21, 1993), p.  11. 


         MINNESOTA
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1.2

While state officials in Minnesota consider charter schools LEAs, the
state Title I office has delegated responsibility for Title I to
districts and given them two options for serving charter schools. 
Under the first option, the district employs the Title I staff and
provides services at the charter school.  Under the second option,
the district allocates part of its Title I funds to the charter
school, and the charter school employs the Title I staff.  Under
either option, the state considers the district legally responsible
for the charter school's Title I program.  The state adopted this
arrangement because it lacked census data on charter schools but was
required to use census data as part of its statewide distribution
approach to allocating Title I funds to LEAs.\17


--------------------
\17 In Minnesota and some other states, the SEA allocates Title I
funds to LEAs without regard to their county because many LEAs
overlap county boundaries.  While still requiring special approval
from the Secretary of Education, current law makes this "statewide
distribution" approach more flexible.  SEAs must no longer make Title
I allocations using "precisely the same factors for determining a
grant" as are used by the Secretary of Education, which include
census data.  They may now use alternative data approved by the
Secretary (P.L.  103-382, sections 1124(a)(2)(B), 1124A(a)(4)(B),
1125(d)(2)). 


         MICHIGAN
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1.3

The state Title I office in Michigan considers charter schools LEAs
and plans to allocate Title I funds directly to them; it considers
the schools legally responsible for administering their own Title I
programs.  To ensure that charter schools get a fair share of Title I
funding, the state Title I office devised a way to divide a
traditional LEA's Title I allocation with a charter school within its
boundaries.  As of September 1994, Michigan had used this method in
one charter school, the charter school at Wayne State University in
Detroit.  The state Title I office, with the consent of the district
and the charter school, allocated part of Detroit's Title I
allocation to the charter school on the basis of the number of
students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch at the school.  The
state expects to use the same method for other charter schools,
although this may be more difficult when students from more than one
district attend a charter school, the state coordinator said. 


      SPECIAL EDUCATION AND
      CHARTER SCHOOLS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2

Whether charter schools are LEAs or part of a traditional school
district has implications for (1) which institution--the school or
the district--is legally responsible for meeting federal special
education requirements and (2) how states and districts fund special
education services.  Under the IDEA, LEAs must provide a "free
appropriate public education" to disabled children.  Regulations
implementing the act specify requirements that LEAs must follow in
identifying children with disabilities and selecting their special
education services.  While the IDEA provides some federal funding for
special education, most funding comes from state and local sources. 
Charter schools pose a particular challenge to funding special
education when local revenues are used for this purpose.  Since
charter schools do not levy taxes, another institution must provide
the revenue. 

Minnesota, which treats its charter schools as individual LEAs,
resolved issues of legal responsibility and funding after some
uncertainty and may serve as a useful example for other states. 


         DETERMINING LEGAL
         RESPONSIBILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2.1

The SEA in Minnesota decided that legal responsibility for meeting
federal special education requirements for children in charter
schools depends on whether the district or the parent places the
child in the charter school.  If the district where the student lives
places the child in a charter school, then the district remains
legally responsible.  If the parent places the student in a charter
school, then this is "akin to the child moving to another
district,"\18 and the charter school becomes legally responsible. 
These decisions were established in rulings on complaint
investigations. 

In one case, the complainant alleged that the district where the
student lived failed to implement the student's individualized
education plan (IEP) at the Metro School for the Deaf.  The Minnesota
Department of Education ruled that the district was in violation and
was responsible for ensuring service provision because it had placed
the student in the charter school.\19 In another case, the
complainant also alleged that the district had failed to implement
the student's IEP at a charter school, specifically, that the student
had received no speech services during the school year.  The
Minnesota Department of Education ruled that, because the student was
placed at the Cedar Riverside Charter School by parental choice, the
district of residence was not responsible for providing the student a
free appropriate public education and that the charter school was now
responsible for doing so.\20


--------------------
\18 Letter of Findings, Minnesota Department of Education (Nov.  24,
1993), p.  2. 

\19 Letter of Findings, Minnesota Department of Education (Mar.  30,
1994). 

\20 Letter of Findings, Minnesota Department of Education (Nov.  24,
1993). 


         FUNDING SPECIAL EDUCATION
         SERVICES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2.2

In Minnesota, the SEA allocates state funds directly to charter
schools as a partial reimbursement for special education costs. 
Charter schools, in turn, bill unreimbursed costs to the districts
where the students live.  The districts are expected to use revenues
from property taxes or federal special education funds to fund the
unreimbursed amount.  In the future, the SEA may allocate federal
special education funds directly to charter schools.  Officials in
several districts said they were unhappy with the state's expectation
that they use local property taxes for unreimbursed costs for charter
schools' special education programs because the charter schools are
legally independent. 


   CONCLUSION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Charter schools offer a new model for autonomous public schools that
provides opportunities for diverse and innovative approaches to
education.  A great deal, however, remains to be learned about these
schools, for example, whether limits on their autonomy will stifle
innovation.  Furthermore, this autonomy poses challenges for holding
charter schools accountable for student performance and administering
federal programs. 

Accountability for student performance is a critical aspect of the
charter schools model, given the schools' autonomy from external
controls that govern traditional public schools.  Whether charter
schools can be held accountable for student performance depends in
part on how well student performance is assessed and reported. 
Important issues for future evaluations of these schools include
whether charter schools (1) collect adequate baseline data to judge
changes in student performance and (2) report data by race, sex, or
socioeconomic status to assess the performance of specific student
groups. 

The challenges charter schools pose for federal program
administration concern their status as single schools operating as
LEAs.  Current law and regulations did not anticipate such an
arrangement.  Unless the Department of Education clarifies (1)
whether charter schools may be considered LEAs and (2) how these
schools can be treated for purposes of administering Title I and
special education programs, uncertainty will persist that could
impede charter schools' implementation. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
   SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We recommend that the Secretary of Education determine whether states
may consider charter schools LEAs for federal program administration. 
In addition, if charter schools may be LEAs, the Secretary should
provide guidance that specifies

  how states may allocate Title I funds to charter schools,
     particularly in states that use census data to count low-income
     children, and

  how states may determine charter schools' legal responsibility for
     providing special education services. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

The Department of Education provided written comments on a draft of
this report (see app.  III).  The Department said our report raised
thoughtful issues about the challenges facing charter schools and
presented an informative survey of their development nationally.  The
Department also commented on our recommendations to the Secretary and
questions we raised about the applicability of different waiver
provisions. 

In its comments on our recommendations, the Department stated that it
(1) encourages states to develop legal arrangements that best support
state and local strategies and (2) intends to work with states on a
case-by-case basis to address issues raised in our report concerning
federal program administration in charter schools.  We support the
Department's intention to work with states to resolve these issues. 
However, the Department's response does not fully clarify whether,
and under what conditions, charter schools can be considered LEAs and
we believe the Department should do so. 

In the draft reviewed by the Department, we also noted that the
applicability of different waiver provisions in the Improving
America's Schools Act was uncertain in regard to charter schools.  In
its comments, the Department stated that it intends to use the
broader authority to grant waivers under the charter schools
provision of the act to promote flexibility in charter schools.  We
revised the report to incorporate the Department's comments on this
matter. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees, the
Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.  Please call
Richard Wenning, Evaluator-in-Charge, at (202) 512-7048, or Beatrice
Birman, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7008 if you or your staff
have any questions about this report.  Other staff who contributed to
this report are named in appendix V.




Linda G.  Morra
Director, Education
 and Employment Issues


CHARTER SCHOOLS PROPOSED OR
APPROVED AS OF MAY 1994
=========================================================== Appendix I



                         Table I.1
          
          Charter Schools Proposed or Approved as
                  of May 1994--California

School and                                      Grades
address         Date opened     Enrollment      served
--------------  --------------  --------------  ----------
Vistas-Bear     July 1993       32              6-8
Valley Charter
School
P. O. Box
6057
Big Bear Lake,
CA 92315

El Dorado       September 1993  1,000           K-12
Charter
Community
6767 Green
Valley Road
Placerville,
CA 95667

Early           September 1993  \a              Pre-K
Intervention-
Healthy Start
Charter School

Folsom Middle   October 1993    857             7-8
School
500 Blue
Ravine Road
Folsom, CA
95630

Grass Valley    August 1993     120             K-8
Alternative
10840 Gilmore
Way
Grass Valley,
CA 95945

Accelerated     September 1994                  K-6
School
P. O. Box
341105
Los Angeles,
CA 90034

Canyon School   August 1993     240             K-5
421 Entrada
Drive
Santa Monica,
CA 90402

Edutrain        \a              \a              7-12
1100 S. Grand
Avenue
Los Angeles,
CA 90015

Fenton Avenue   January 1994    1,150           Pre-K-6
School
11828 Gain
Street
Lake View
Terrace, CA
91342

Marquez         July 1993       \a              K-5
School
16821 Marquez
Avenue
Pacific
Palisades, CA
90272

The Open        July 1993       384             Elementary
School
1034 Steams
Drive
Los Angeles,
CA 90035

Palisades       July 1993       300             K-5
Elementary
Charter
School
800 Via De La
Paz
Pacific
Palisades, CA
90272

Palisades High  September 1993  210 in charter  9-10 in
School                          school          charter
15777 Bowdoin                   component       school
Street                                          component
Pacific
Palisades, CA
90272

Vaughn Next     September 1993  1,170           K-6
Century
Learning
Center
13330 Vaughn
Street
San Fernando,
CA 91340

Westwood        September 1993  600             K-5
School
Los Angeles
Unified School
District, CA
2050 Selby
Avenue
Los Angeles,
CA 90025

Natomas         July 1993       \a              7-9
Charter
School
3700 Del Paso
Road
Sacramento, CA
95834

Jingletown      September 1993  115             \a
Middle School
2506 Truman
Avenue
Oakland, CA
94605

Linscott        September 1993  125             K-5
Charter
School
220 Elm
Street
Watsonville,
CA 95076

Sonoma County   September 1994  60-90           K-6
Charter
1825
Willowside
Road
Santa Rosa, CA
95401

Pioneer         January 1994    785             K-8
Primary/
Pioneer
Middle
8810 14th
Avenue
Stanford, CA
93230

Schnell         September 1993  500             K-5
2871 Schnell
School Road
Placerville,
CA 95667

Ready Springs   1993            70              K-8
Home Study
Ready Springs
Union School
District, CA
10862
Spenceville
Road
Penn Valley,
CA 95946

The Eel River   September 1994  \a              K-12
School
P. O. Box 218
Covelo, CA
95428

Bowling Green   July 1993       814             Elementary
Elementary

San Carlos      September 1994  120             4-6 and K-
Community                                       12 in the
School                                          future
c/o Don
Shalvey
San Carlos
School
District, CA
826 Chestnut
Street
San Carlos, CA
94070

O'Farrell       \a              1,400           6-8
Community
School
6130 Skyline
Drive
San Diego, CA

Waldorf         \a              \a              K-8
Charter School

The Charter     July 1994       500             6-12
School of San
Diego
3150 Rosecrane
Street
Suite 200
San Diego, CA
92110

Darnall E-      September 1993  550             K-5
Campus
6020 Hughes
Street
San Diego, CA
92115

International   July 1994       540             9-12
Studies
Academy
693 Vermont
Street
San Francisco,
CA 90107

San Francisco   September 1994  \a              K-3
Charter Early
Childhood
School
73 Arbor
Street
San Francisco,
CA 94131

Deterding       1994            620             Preschool-
Charter School                                  6

Charter 25      July 1993 (Two  150 (90 in      K-12
6134 Highway    charter         Homeschool and
9               schools housed  60 in White
Felton, CA      together but    Oak)
95018           working
                independently)

Peabody         September 1993  624             K-6
Charter
School
3018 Calle
Noguera
Santa Barbara,
CA 93105

Santa Barbara   September       60              K-3
Charter         1993
School
6100 Stow
Canyon Road
Goleta, CA
93117

Altimira        September 1994  \a              K-8
P. O. Box
1546
Sonoma, CA
95476

Twin Ridges     September 1993  77              K-8
Alternative
Charter
School
P. O. Box 529
North San
Juan, CA 95960

Options for     July 1993       176 students    7-12
Youth                           in two centers
29 Foothill                     (Victor
La Placenta,                    Valley -103
CA 91214                        and Hesperia
                                Unified
                                District -73)

West Park       July 1994       \a              K-7
Academy
Charter
School
2695 S.
Valentine
Avenue
Fresno, CA
93706

Carlin C.       September 1993  531             K-5
Coppin
Elementary
150 East 12th
Street
Lincoln, CA
95648

Glen Edwards    July 1993       700             K-5
Elementary
1400 1st
Street
Lincoln, CA
99648

Home            July 1993       392             New school
Independent                                     serving K-
Study and                                       12 and
Adult Charter                                   adults. No
870 J Street                                    adults
Lincoln, CA                                     presently
95648                                           enrolled.

Lincoln High    August 1993     700             9-12
1081 7th
Street
Lincoln, CA
95648

Sheridan        July 1993       88              K-5
Elementary
4730 H Street
Sheridan, CA
95681
Mailing
address:
P.O. Box 268
Sheridan, CA
95681

Yucca Mesa      September 1993  600             K-6
P. O. Box 910
Yucca Valley,
CA 92286
----------------------------------------------------------
\a GAO was unable to get this information before publication. 



                         Table I.2
          
          Charter Schools Proposed or Approved as
                   of May 1994--Colorado

School and                                      Grades
address         Date opened     Enrollment      served
--------------  --------------  --------------  ----------
The Connect     September 1993  70              6-8
School
24951 East
Highway 50
Pueblo, CO
81006

Academy         September 1993  350             K-7
Charter
School
794A South
Briscoe
Street
Castle Rock,
CO 80104

Core Knowledge  1994            165             K-6
Institute of
Parker
Castle Rock,
CO 80104

Pueblo School   September 1994  323             K-9
for Arts &                                      presently
Sciences                                        and K-12
University of                                   in the
Southern                                        future
Colorado
2200 Bonforte
Blvd.
Pueblo, CO
81001-4901

Community of    September 1994  60              6-8
Learners
P. O. Box
4380
Durango, CO
81302

EXCEL Charter   September 1994  113             6-9
School
P. O. Box
1350
Durango, CO
81302

The Discovery   Fall 1995       144             K-8
School
Aurora Public
Schools
18393 E.
LaSalle Place
Aurora, CO
80013

Academy of      1994            350             K-7
Charter
Schools
11285 Highline
Drive
Northglenn, CO
80233

Community       September 1994  470             K-12
Involved
School
1829 Denver
West Drive,
#27
Golden, CO
80401

Sci-Tech        \a              100 with plans  K-12
Academy                         to expand to
1829 Denver                     500
West Drive,
#27
Golden, CO
80401

Clayton         \a              88              Preschool-
Charter                                         3
School
Denver Public
Schools
900 Grant
Street
Denver, CO
80203

Denver Youth    Planning to     120 (expected)  Middle
Academy         open in fall                    grades
Denver Public   1995
Schools
900 Grant
Street
Denver, CO
80203
----------------------------------------------------------
\a GAO was unable to get this information before publication. 



                         Table I.3
          
          Charter Schools Proposed or Approved as
                 of May 1994--Massachusetts

School and                                      Grades
address         Date opened     Enrollment      served
--------------  --------------  --------------  ----------
Benjamin        Not open        270 (expected)  K-8
Franklin
Classical
390 Oakland
Parkway
Franklin, MA
02038

Boston          Not open        700 (expected)  K-12
Renaissance
529 5th
Avenue
New York, NY
10017

Boston          Not open        150 (expected)  7-11
University
775
Commonwealth
Avenue
Boston, MA
02115

Cape Cod        Not open        100 (expected)  7-12
Lighthouse
P. O. Box 968
South Orleans,
MA 02662

City on a Hill  Not open        60 (expected)   9-10
Charter                                         expanding
School                                          to 7-12
39 Jordan
Road
Brookline, MA
02146

Community Day   Not open        140 (expected)  K-6
190 Hampshire
Street
Lawrence, MA
01840

Fenway II       Not open        \a              9-12
250 Rutherford                                  expanding
Avenue                                          to 6-8
Charlestown,
MA 02129

Francis W.      Not open        \a              7-12
Parker
234
Massachusetts
Avenue
Harvard, MA
01451

Lowell Charter  Not open        400             K-4
School                          (expected)      expanding
529 5th                                         to K-12
Avenue
New York, NY
10017

Lowell          Not open        100 (expected)  9-12
Middlesex
Academy
33 Kearney
Square
Lowell, MA
01852

Neighborhood    Not open        45 (expected)   K-8
House
232 Centre
Street
Dorchester, MA
02124

South Shore     Not open        60 (expected)   K-12 and
936 Nantasket                                   adults
Avenue
Hull, MA 02045

Western         Not open        35 (expected)   K-4
Massachusetts
Hilltown
3 Edward
Street
Haydenville,
MA 01039

Worcester       Not open        500 (expected)  K-4
529 5th                                         expanding
Avenue                                          to K-12
New York, NY
10017

YouthBuild      Not open        50 (expected)   \a
173A Norfolk
Avenue
Roxbury, MA
02119
----------------------------------------------------------
\a GAO was unable to get this information before publication. 



                         Table I.4
          
          Charter Schools Proposed or Approved as
                   of May 1994--Minnesota

School and                                      Grades
address         Date opened     Enrollment      served
--------------  --------------  --------------  ----------
Metro Deaf      Fall 1993       14              K-7
289 E. 5th
Street
Suite 102
St. Paul, MN
55101

Cedar           Fall 1993       85              K-8
Riverside
Community
School
1808 Riverside
Avenue
Suite 206
Minneapolis,
MN 55454

St. Paul        Not open        \a              K-12
Community
School
c/o Holos
Foundation
12 Oliver
Avenue, South
Minneapolis,
MN 55405

Skills for      March 1994      Start with 20,  9-12
Tomorrow                        maximum 80-
52 10th                         100
Street,
South Dun 227
Minneapolis,
MN 55403-2001

Toivola-        September 1993  196             K-12
Meadowlands
7705 Western
Avenue
P.O. Box 215
Meadowlands,
MN 55765

City Academy    September 1992  40              Ages 13-
St. Paul, MN                                    21
School
District
1109 Margaret
Street
St. Paul, MN
55106

New Heights     September 1993  216             K-12
Schools, Inc.
614 W.
Mulberry
Stillwater, MN
55082

Bluffview       March 1993      76              K-3 the
Montessori                                      first year
101 E.                                          and adding
Wabasha                                         4-6 the
Winona, MN                                      second
55987                                           year

Minnesota New   Fall 1994       100-200         7-12
Country
School
P. O. Box 423
Henderson, MN
56044

Dakota Open     Fall 1994       \a              7-12
Charter School

Parents Allied  Fall 1994       81              Pre-K-12
With Children
and Teachers
(PACT)
600 East Main
Street
Anoka, MN
55303
School site:
440 Pierce
Street
Anoka, MN
----------------------------------------------------------
\a GAO was unable to get this information before publication. 


FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAM TO SUPPORT
CHARTER SCHOOLS
========================================================== Appendix II

The Improving America's Schools Act, which reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,\21

includes a provision establishing a new federal grant program to
support the design and implementation of charter schools.\22 The text
of this provision appears here. 



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III

--------------------
\21 P.L.  103-382, October 20, 1994. 

\22 P.L.  103-382, Title X, part C, sections 10301-10307. 


COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix IV

GAO would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following
experts.  These individuals provided valuable insights on the issues
discussed in this report; however, they do not necessarily endorse
the positions taken in the report. 

Priscilla Wohlstetter, Associate Professor of Politics and Policy
School of Education, University of Southern California

Ted Kolderie, Senior Associate, Center for Policy Studies


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
=========================================================== Appendix V

GAO CONTACTS

Richard J.  Wenning, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-7048
Beatrice F.  Birman, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report:  Patricia M.  Bundy,
Evaluator; Sarah Keith, Intern; Julian P.  Klazkin, Senior Attorney;
Sheila Nicholson, Evaluator; Diane E.  Schilder, Senior Social
Science Analyst. 

