Changing to Charter. Rebecca A. Shore
actions in order to convert to charter status. Whereas this is one policy environment for public school conversion, understand that each state will have laws that govern conversion status that readers, if pondering a conversion, will need to know and understand during the application process.
Application Process
Every state has its own application and process to determine which proposals will receive a charter. A cursory look across the applications themselves reflect the uniqueness and variety within charter school laws. As stated previously, NAPCS does not go deep in the charter conversion area by merely recommending the inclusion of a stakeholder approval section to the regular charter application. Each authorizer, pending their state’s law, can go deeper with questioning; and some, due to their local context, have done just that.
North Carolina created an entire section to address conversions of charter schools because the advisory board that reviewed these proposals believed more information was needed. After an applicant selects their designation as a conversation proposal, the application divides between public and private school conversion. A public school conversion is much simpler within the application as candidates must provide this information: the six-digit school identification number and evidences of support for the conversion. The evidences sought by the authorizer “must include:
1. Statement of Support signed by the majority of the teachers and instructional support personnel currently employed at the school,
2. Last payroll outlining current staff receiving compensation from the traditional public school,
3. Current school enrollment, and
4. Parental support of the conversion.”9
Later in the application, questions arise on student lottery as any converted public school must give preference to students who lived in the attendance zone previously served.
For private school conversion applicants, their level of scrutiny increases significantly with more robust questioning. First, the previously existing private school’s name and location must be provided. Second, the application demands the compilation of a three-year financial history, including any IRS-900 forms, to review the financial viability of the private school.
Undoubtedly, this request seeks to gauge the acumen of the business leaders and if the real conversion motive was to cover previously accrued debt. Finally, the application digs deep with questions covering these topics: rationale for conversion, compliance with nonsectarian clause of the law, enrollment/demographic trends of the last three years, evidence of the private school’s academic success, and staffing plans (including possible turnover due to the state’s teacher certification requirements).10
Authorizer Considerations
Once the application has been packaged and sent to the authorizer, the applicant wait begins. As these charter proposals can be more than 150 pages, and many proposals are submitted each cycle, the review process takes time. Authorizing entities often read and score an application determining which should come forward to receive a face-to-face interview. The applicants discover the concerns of that initial review and then prepare to address them in a formal interview. When the review and interview are completed, the authorizing entity votes on whether or not to extend the charter.
The process for conversion charters operates just like others; however, the depth of questioning faced by these applicants can get much deeper. For example, the chair of the NC Charter School Advisory Board (CSAB), in reviewing a charter school conversion proposal, did not mince his words when he said, “I feel like there’s another layer of scrutiny that should be applied.” One of his colleagues focused upon private school conversions by indicating their board would judge a candidate’s gravity in commitment to become a public school and watching for any attempt of transferring private debt to the public coffers.11 Authorizer board members want to see schools succeed and must ask diligent questions in order to make the difficult decisions.
Back-to-Back Applications in One Meeting
At its regularly scheduled meeting in December 2017, the NC Charter School Advisory Board experienced a rather interesting situation—back-to-back private school conversions in a formal interview. The applicants were about as different as possible: Hobgood Academy resided in the rural, eastern part of the state, served grades K–12, and would close unless the conversion gained approval. Conversely, Mountain Island resided in the suburban, western part of the state and was religiously based.
Hobgood Academy, where no prior charter school existed, received a vigorous debate. Concerns were voiced, but members of the board were sensitive to the fact that no public school choice existed in the area. Ultimately, this application was denied in a split vote due to concerns about debt transfer and the grade structure of the school. While officials representing the proposal could not effectively answer the questions posed by the review board, they were reminded that they could “apply in the following year as long as the applicant fixes the issues.”12
This applicant did return in the next cycle and went through the process again. To address many of their concerns, they partnered with a CMO for limited services—financials and student data—while completely overhauling their board. Further, the school modified its grade configuration to focus on K–8 leaving 9–12 as private. This change garnered quite a few questions to ensure the two entities were separated in every matter so as not to cause an audit finding.
Board members were better prepared and answered questions to the satisfaction of the authorizer. In fact, the authorizing entity thanked them for their “hard work and dedication” while stating they are “now ready for conversion.” Prior to the vote, the authorizing board chair said the following: “This is a strong application and an indication of the importance of a rigorous application process.”13 Knowing that they received unanimous approval reveals an important lesson—a negative vote does not end all hope for an application in the future.
Mountain Island, while receiving unanimous approval, faced its own challenges during the interview. Concern arose around the name of the school as it resembled the name of another charter school in that same area. Discussion also hovered around the topic of debt and note to the words of a CSAB member, “the school must figure out the financials” but they did “not see the same glaring financial issues from the prior school.”
As a motion was made to approve the proposal, an objection arose causing that motion to be withdrawn. A member noticed a particular course requirement that could exclude students and they were not “comfortable recommending approval of another charter with that piece.”14 The issue was resolved, but it reveals the detailed analysis and review that all charter applicants must face—whether they succeed or fail in their endeavor to earn a charter from their state authorizers.
Stakeholder Support Expectation
NAPCS, in publishing its model charter school law, has defined conversion charters and included information recommended for inclusion in state charter school laws. Within the expectations for a charter application, NAPCS includes this singular endorsement for the law:
In the case of a proposed charter public school that plans to convert an existing non-charter public school to charter public school status, the application shall additionally require the applicants to demonstrate support for the proposed charter public school conversion by a petition signed by a majority of the teachers, a petition signed by a majority of parents of students in the existing non-charter public school, or a portion signed by a majority of the school. Board.15
Notice the use of the term “or” in the groups that should be petitioned for approval, meaning that only one should be set as an expectation. The intent is without question—ensuring that stakeholders have an opportunity to voice their opinions regarding the possible conversion—because NAPCS understands the unforeseen and often unstated issues that can arise before, during, and after the conversion process.
South Carolina, rather than inserting language into their charter law, promulgated regulations that set forth the expectations for public school conversion; and the State Board of Education went further than NAPCS recommended by instituting at least