Detailed Information on the
Charter Schools Grant Assessment

Improve the collection of program performance data and use these data to inform funding recommendations, program management, and technical assistance efforts.

Make information available to the public in a transparent manner with emphasis on improving the range and quality of program resources.

Work one-one-one with Charter School Program grantees to improve the accuracy of and timeliness of performance reporting through full implementation of the program's three-phase monitoring strategy, including integrated data collection with EDFacts, evaluation of project-level objectives, and on-site monitoring and technical assistance.

Work with Congress to correct structural flaws in the program and to ensure that the reauthorization of the Charter School Program works to address the evolving needs of charter schools.

Measure: The number of States with charter school legislation (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico).

Explanation:

Measure: The number of charter schools in operation.

Explanation:

Measure: The percent of fourth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above proficient on State assessments in reading/language arts.

Explanation:This measure focuses on progress toward the statutory goal of 100-percent proficiency in reading/language arts by SY 2013-2014. The baseline will be calculated using SY 2005-2006 assessment data, since that was the first year States were required to assess all students in grades 3-8 and thus will support a more accurate comparison in subsequent years.

Measure: The percent of fourth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above proficient on State assessments in mathematics.

Explanation:This measure focuses on progress toward the statutory goal of 100-percent proficiency in mathematics by SY 2013-2014. The baseline will be calculated using SY 2005-2006 assessment data, since that was the first year States were required to assess all students in grades 3-8 and thus will support a more accurate comparison in subsequent years.

Measure: The percent of eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above proficient on State assessments in reading/language arts.

Explanation:This measure focuses on progress toward the statutory goal of 100-percent proficiency in reading/language arts by SY 2013-2014. The baseline will be calculated using SY 2005-2006 assessment data, since that was the first year States were required to assess all students in grades 3-8 and thus will support a more accurate comparison in subsequent years.

Measure: The percent of eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above proficient on State assessments in mathematics.

Explanation:This measure focuses on progress toward the statutory goal of 100-percent proficiency in mathematics by SY 2013-2014. The baseline will be calculated using SY 2005-2006 assessment data, since that was the first year States were required to assess all students in grades 3-8 and thus will support a more accurate comparison in subsequent years.

Measure: The Federal cost per student in a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more years).

Explanation:This measure focuses on progress toward the statutory goal of 100-percent proficiency in reading/language arts by SY 2013-2014. The baseline will be calculated using SY 2005-2006 assessment data, since that was the first year States were required to assess all students in grades 3-8 and thus will support a more accurate comparison in subsequent years.

Measure: The ratio of funds leveraged by States for charter school facilities to funds awarded by the Department under the State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grant program.

Explanation:This measure focuses on progress toward the statutory goal of 100-percent proficiency in reading/language arts by SY 2013-2014. The baseline will be calculated using SY 2005-2006 assessment data, since that was the first year States were required to assess all students in grades 3-8 and thus will support a more accurate comparison in subsequent years.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Charter Schools Program (CSP) expands the number of charter schools available to students by providing Federal financial assistance to support the planning, development, initial implementation, and evaluation of charter schools and encourages the creation of strong charter school laws in States.

Evidence: Title V, Part B, Subpart 1 of the ESEA as amended by No Child Left Behind

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: CSP funds contribute to the start-up costs of the new schools, which are often higher than other revenues would allow for. In 1998-99, the most frequent barriers charter schools faced during implementation were lack of start-up and operating funds (49 and 37 percent respectively). Additionally, while the number of charter schools operating is growing, 39% of charter schools reported having a waiting list in the 2002-03 school year.

Evidence: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, The State of Charter Schools 2000: Fourth-Year Report, Washington, D.C., 2000. Center for Education Reform, Charter Schools Today: Changing the Face of American Education- Statistics, Stories, and Insights, Washington, D.C., 2004

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: CSP is the only Federal program that supports the development of new charter schools as well as supporting the growth of successful charter schools. States typically do not provide planning and start-up costs; we are aware of only two States that provide similar assistance to charter schools.

Evidence:  

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The CSP is well designed to put planning and start-up costs in the hands of charter school developers at the time those funds are most needed, and to provide incentives for States to pass charter school legislation or raise their caps on charter schools. The only significant flaw is that States often have difficulty projecting the demand for start-up funds in a particular year, which has led to significant carry-overs. Program staff are working with States to address this problem.

Evidence: Program records, Title V, Part B, Subpart 1 of the ESEA as amended by No Child Left Behind

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: CSP funds, through the States, are reaching charter schools and students. In a recent survey of charter schools, 61 percent of charter school directors reported receiving CSP start-up funds, and 19 percent reported receiving dissemination funds. Further, there is evidence that shows that charter schools serve a greater proportion of "at-risk" students than traditional public schools.

Evidence: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report, Washington, D.C., 2004

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has adopted two long-term performance measures that assess the growth of charter schools and charter laws nationally.

Evidence: The long term measures are: (1) The number of States with charter school legislation (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), and (2) The number of charter schools in operation.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has baselines and targets for the two existing long-term measures, but is developing targets for its new long-term measures.

Evidence: Baseline data were collected in 1996. Based on projections of recent growth, the Department has set goals of 44 States with charter laws and 4,800 charter schools by 2010.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program has two annual performance measures that assess the growth of charter schools and charter school laws nationally. In addition, the Department recently developed two measures of student proficiency, as well as two efficiency measures for this program: (1) the Federal cost per student in a successful school (defined as a school in operation who has received a CSP grant for three or more years), and (2) the amount of State facilities funding leveraged by the State facilities incentives part of the program.

Evidence: The annual measures are: (1) The number of States with charter school legislation (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), (2) The number of charter schools in operation, (3) The percentage of charter school students who are achieving at or above proficient levels on State examinations in mathematics, and (4) The percentage of charter school students who are achieving at or above proficient levels on State examinations in reading.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has baselines and targets for two of the annual measures and one of the efficiency measures, and has made considerable progress. However, it has not yet developed baselines and targets for the student proficiency measures and the other efficiency measure.

Evidence: The 2007 targets are 44 States with charter laws and 3,900 charter schools.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The Department has instituted program-reporting requirements, including annual and final performance reports. These reports are used for program management, including assessing the growth of charter schools nationwide and determining continuation awards. These data have been sufficient to provide guidance and collect information for GPRA reporting; however, as the program has become more competitive, more complete and timely data are necessary. The Department is currently taking steps to ensure that grantees receive adequate technical assistance in order to provide high-quality data and comply with the reporting requirements.

Evidence: Annual Performance Reports, Final Performance Reports

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Department recently published the final report of an evaluation of the implementation of the CSP. The evaluation addressed questions of how States and schools are using CSP funds, and characteristics of charter schools, their authorizers and their students. A 2001 report examined the effect of charter schools on district operations and education. Additionally, the Department is conducting a study of the implementation of the No Child Left Behind accountability provisions in charter schools. Lastly, the Department is currently conducting an evaluation of the impact of charter schools on student achievement. The final report is expected to be available in 2007.

Evidence: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report, Washington, D.C., 2004U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research ad Improvement, Challenge and Opportunity: The Impact of Charter Schools on School Districts, Washington, D.C., 2001

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The FY 06 funding request is not tied to achievement of specific outcomes. [Because of fiscal constraints, the FY06 budget requests funding at the FY04 level rather than an amount tied to achievement of specific outcomes.] However, the budget request will allow the Department to support the creation of approximately 1,200 new charter schools and to leverage $18.7 million in State facilities funding. In addition, the Department has satisfied the second part of the question because the Department's budget submissions show the full cost of the program (including S&E). Through the PART process, the program has adopted student achievement performance measures. Over time, it may be possible to link budget levels to expected achievement of specific outcomes.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department has taken measures to ensure that States report high-quality data so that the Department can develop and report on meaningful long-term and efficiency measures of program effectiveness. Further, the Department communicates with States and schools on a monthly basis, and provides technical assistance as needed. The program has improved its strategic planning framework by adding two student achievement performance measures.

Evidence: Charter School Program Work Plan

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department collects data annually from program performance reports. However, data received are often inconsistent with other reports, and fail to provide adequate information to manage and improve the program. The program office is taking steps to ensure that the data collected are credible and timely. The collection and analysis of accurate grantee performance data will allow program staff to more effectively monitor grantee performance and award continuation and future funds to current grantees. Additionally, staff collect data from an external source for its GPRA measures, which has enabled the Department to set baselines and targets for the program's annual measures.

Evidence: Annual Performance Report, Final Performance Report, GPRA measures.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Program managers are held accountable through EDPAS plans, which link employee performance to relevant Strategic Plan goals. Specifically, staff are required to submit a program monitoring plan, and provide technical assistance to grantees focused on performance and results. Additionally, grantees are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results through monitoring visits, conferences and technical workshops, and annual performance reports. Information obtained is used to determine continued funding, need for additional technical assistance, and any need for performance/delivery changes. Assessment of this information is used for corrective action and continued grant funding is contingent upon demonstrating satisfactory progress. All CSP grantees have performance plans, which are assessed to ensure that grantee's program elements include specific, measurable, time-framed objectives and are linked to grantee evaluation plans.

Evidence: EDPAS agreements; Charter Schools Program Work Plan; Annual Performance report

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated within the timeframes set out by Department schedules and used for the purposes intended. However, some States tend to carry over large amounts of funds. The Department is working with States to resolve this issue.

Evidence:  

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Department recently developed two efficiency measures for this program. The first measure determines the Federal cost per student in a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more years). An adequate measure of Federal cost per charter school student will allow the program to more accurately determine grant award amounts, as well as to monitor States' performance. The program is currently developing plans to collect baseline data for this measure. The second measure examines the ratio of funds leveraged by States for charter school facilities to funds awarded by the Department.

Evidence: In FY 2005, the leveraging ratio (calculated as the total amount of funds available, including both State funds and the Federal grant, divided by the Federal grant) was 2.52, higher than the FY 2004 ratio of 1.82.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program has established working relationships with a variety of offices across the Department. For example, CSP has worked with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services to provide technical assistance on how charter schools can serve students with disabilities. Additionally, the program provides information about charter schools to the Title I (the program that is the centerpiece of No Child Left Behind) and Title II (Teacher Quality State Grants) program offices prior to their monitoring visits.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Recent agency-wide audits have not identified deficiencies in the financial management of this program.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: While no significant internal management deficiencies have not been identified for this program, the program has put in place a system to identify potential problems. The program is also taking steps to work with grantees to improve the quality of performance data (see also questions 3.1 and 3.CO.3)

Evidence: Program staff monitor drawdown of funds on a monthly basis to prevent high-risk situations, such as excessive or deficient drawdown amounts.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: The Department awards grants on a point system that is based on selection criteria published in the Federal Register.

Evidence:  

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Department maintains information on grantee activities through annual performance reports, site visits, and technical assistance activities.

Evidence:  

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The program annually collects data on grantee status through annual performance reports and site visits, including the number of charter schools in operation and progress toward project objectives. The quality of data received from grantees is inconsistent, however. The Department is working to provide technical assistance that will not only ensure higher-quality data, but that will also allow the Department to better analyze and disseminate the performance information. Further, the interim and final reports of Department-sponsored charter school research are available to the public through ED Pubs. Additionally, the Department's new EDEN data initiative includes a number of State-level data elements on charter schools, and expects to be available for analysis in late 2005. These data will be made available to the public, and will be disaggregated at the State level.

Evidence: Annual Performance Report; U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report, Washington, D.C., 2004

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Department has established two long-term performance measures for this program, and has made considerable progress toward meeting the goals. However, because the program has adopted a new student performance goal for which it is just beginning to collect data, the highest it can receive on this answer is "small extent".

Evidence: Forty-one States currently have charter laws, only 4 below the 2010 goal of 44 States. Currently, 3,625 charter schools are in operation, above the 2006 target of 3,600 schools.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Department has established four annual performance measures for this program, and has made considerable progress toward meeting the target on the number of States that allow charter schools and is exceding its target on sustainability (the number of charter schools that remain open, even after the federal grant end). However, the program is just beginning to collect data on the two new student achievement measures and so receives a "small extent" on this question. If more data on student achievement in charter schools become available over the next few months, this answer could change.

Evidence: Forty-one States currently have charter laws, 3 below the 2006 goal of 44 States. Currently, 3,625 charter schools are in operation, above the 2006 target of 3,600 schools.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The Department has established two efficiency measures to examine the cost effectiveness in achieving program goals, and has demonstrated progress in one of the measures. The Department is just beggining to collect data for the second measure, and has yet to report baseline data.

Evidence: The ratio of funds leveraged by the grants from the State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grant program has increased over two years. In the first year of the program, FY 2004, the ratio of total funds (including the Federal grant and State matching funds) to the Federal grant was 1.82. The ratio in the second year was 2.52, signifying an overall increase in State matching funds for charter school facility funding.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While the CSP provides a unique service to States and schools, a 2001 study of Texas charter schools showed that charter schools were able to operate at a higher cost efficiency than traditional public schools. While charter schools, on average, had lower revenues, charters spend less per pupil than the predicted level of public spending, holding student performance, school size, teacher wages, and other district characteristics constant.

Evidence: Texas Public Policy Foundation, An Analysis of Texas Charter School Performance, Texas A&M, 2001

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The GPRA measures have shown the program to be effective in meeting its objective of expanding the number of charter schools in operation and the number of states with charter school legislation. However, charter schools' impact on student achievement has not yet been proven. Conclusions from several independent evaluations in the last few years have been mixed, largely due to differing methodologies. The Department is currently conducting a random-assignment impact study on charter schools' effect on student achievement, and results are expected in 2007.

Evidence: Charter School Leadership Council, Studying Achievement in Charter Schools: What Do We Know?, Washington, D.C., 2005