The Long and Winding Road After Shasta Kathleen

The Long and Winding Road After Shasta Kathleen Hermsmeyer, Ed. D. Michelle Lopez, Esq. Young, Minney & Corr, LLP Superintendent, Springs Charter Schools Laura Mudge Executive Director, Olive Grove Charter School Nick Driver Vice President of Strategic Development, CSMC

Session goals § Provide case studies, best practices and guidance going forward § Describe the most common challenges that face all independent study charter schools affected by the Shasta decision § Share direct tips and advice from Independent Study charter leaders that have been authorized as multiple schools § Answer your questions 2

Landscape § There are 290 independent study charter schools in California, 22% of the total § Most of these schools are affected by Shasta. And a majority of those affected have sought waivers. There were 11 new Independent Study charter schools that opened this school year as a result of the Shasta decision, 14% of all new schools. § That means many more are expected to open next school year or the following. 3

Big Picture § Independent Study charter schools represent the fastest growing segment of the charter school movement. § District enrollment continues to decline, and districts are desperate to stop this decline. § So…. . 4

Long legal battle – Anderson v. Shasta § Non-classroom based charter school facilities: Out of District but In-County (“ODIC”) § The 3 rd District Court of Appeal has recently interpreted the Charter Schools Act to limit all ODIC facilities of nonclassroom based charter schools to the boundaries of the authorizing school district with few exceptions. (Anderson Union High School Dist. v. Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal. App. 5 th 262) § The ruling forces affected independent study charter schools to become authorized in multiple districts and counties, many of them hostile to new charters 5

The Long and Winding Road has already begun for many schools § Because of this illogical ruling, many new schools will be authorized by county offices of education or the State Board of Education § As stated earlier, 11 schools have already had their resource centers newly authorized this year. Many more will be forced to obtain new charters in districts in which they have resource centers. 6

Different strategies and schools of thought § Depending on their circumstances, affected charter schools have taken different paths to compliance with Anderson-Shasta. § Many have taken a wait and see attitude, which can often work well. § We are going to highlight a few that have been more pro-active in getting fully compliant. 7

Case Study: Springs Charter Schools § Springs Charter Schools history and background § How Springs was affected by Shasta § How it has embraced the challenges § Where Springs is now § Lessons learned 8

Example 1: Transition Plan 9

Example 2: Transition Plan 10

Case Study: Olive Grove Charter School § Olive Grove history and background § How Olive Grove was affected by Shasta § How it has embraced the challenges § Where Olive Grove is now § Lessons learned 11

History – Olive Grove Charter School § Olive Grove Charter School first enrolled students in the 2001/2002 school year, over 16 years ago, as Olive Grove Home Study Charter School, dependent upon and governed by Los Olivos School District. § New Cuyama offered to authorize Olive Grove, but was met with the threat of a lawsuit from Santa Barbara School District. § OGCS went to county and then the state on appeal and was granted SBE authorization in July 2015. The doors of OGCS under SBE authorization opened in August 2015. § October 2016, only 15 months into our 60 month charter authorization, the Shasta ruling affected four OGCS Learning Centers. This forced Olive Grove to once again start the Charter Petition process. 12

Hardships – Olive Grove Charter School § § § § Time - 70 weeks or 490 days spent on this current process (as of March 2018) Admin Hours - 990 hours or $75, 642. 20 in salary/benefits Teacher Hours - 650 hours or $42, 784 in salary/benefits Financial - $200, 000+ (including legal, admin/staff salary/benefits, back-office costs, etc. ) District and County Superintendents all met and discussed unilateral denial prior to petition review Local Districts shared denial responses Santa Barbara County Board President stated that he wished all his schools had the same compassion, care, and concern for individual students and their needs as OGCS. He also stated he was confident that SBE would approve OGCS. Family Instability o Concerned about the educational needs of their children being met. o Feelings of uncertainty o Continued negative press coverage o Want to feel good about education at Olive Grove, but media paints a bleak and unfactual picture. 13

Hardships, cont’d – Olive Grove Charter School § 10 to 15 month process. Olive Grove went through the process 3 times in 4 years. o o 2 -3 months to revise charter petitions 3 months at the district level due to stall tactics being used 2 -3 month turnaround for the Santa Barbara County Education Office 3 -5 months for the State process (ACCS meets every other month, need to turn in Charter Petitions 2 months in advance, then another month for State Board of Education meeting. ) Anger local district and county Superintendents and Boards Financial costs associated with charter petition process Time and energy required for process Difficult to hire and retain excellent staff members with uncertainty Difficult to give students a safe and stable environment for learning with uncertainty § Difficult to financially prepare for the following year and added supports when going through each 10 -15 month process. Budget forecasting is impacted. § § § 14

Takeaways: Top Challenges 1. Enrollment ◦ Delayed authorization means some families may move to other schools, impacting enrollment and budget 2. Authorizer Relations ◦ SBE/CDE will likely become many schools’ new authorizer 3. Special Education ◦ In some but not all cases, existing agreements can remain. 15

Takeaways: Top Challenges, cont’d 4. Burnout ◦ Short term, the increased administrative workload is taxing 5. Governance ◦ Long term, the increased board meetings and additional workload will be burdensome 6. School Culture ◦ New schools and a new structure may affect culture 7. Budget and Finance ◦ Initial state funding will be late 16

Charter Movement Challenges/Impact UP - Number of charter schools will grow UP – Percentage of IS charter schools overall UP - Number of schools authorized by the state UP – Pressure/workload on SBE/CDE UP – Uncertainty around the future of SBE as an strong authorizing backstop Ø UP – Potential for new legislation further restricting independent study school authorizations Ø Ø Ø 17

Legislation to remedy this situation AB 2011 (Kiley) - Charter schools: facilities used for fulfilling state educational mandates: geographical restrictions. This bill would exempt a charter school facility from the geographical restrictions that would otherwise apply if all of the pupils attending the charter school attend through non-classroombased instruction and the facility is used for purposes of fulfilling state educational mandates. 18

Positives Growing out of a single site charter into a home office with multiple schools has some benefits: ◦ Diversification of revenue streams ◦ Some school leaders wanted to grow but boards were reluctant ◦ Possibly increased revenues ◦ Economies of scale ◦ Possible diversification of authorizers can lead to lower political/financial risks 19

Possible Opportunity – Positive Restructure Separate Foundation • Seeks grants • No public meeting laws • Members don’t disclose finances 20 Home Office Network • Holds real estate • Contracts with schools for back office, management, curriculum services • Manages multiple boards • Manages real estate LLCs • Provides services to its and other schools

Questions? Our contact information: Dr. Kathleen Hermsmeyer: kathleen. hermsmeyer@springscs. org Laura Mudge: lmudge@olivegrovecharter. org Michelle Lopez: mlopez@mycharterlaw. com Nick Driver: ndriver@csmci. com 21