Cyber and HomeSchool Charter Schools: How States are Defining New Forms of Public Schooling*
Luis A. Huerta
Teachers College-Columbia University
María-FernandaGonzález
University of California,Berkeley
Introduction
Cyber and home school charters are quietly gaining momentumacross the country and are beginning to challenge traditional definitions ofpublic schooling by delivering instruction absent the traditional “brick andmortar” school house. Cyber and home school charters have emerged within awider charter school movement which in the last decade has quickly expanded toinclude 2,700 charter schools in 40 states and the District of Columbia, serving over 684,000students (Center of Education Reform,2003). The appeal of charter schools is apparent in the dynamic growth of themovement, yielding a 40% increase in enrollment in the last 5 years, from1999-2003. A contributing factor to the increasing enrollment statistics is theoutgrowth of nonclassroom-based charter schools. Over the last 5 years anestimated 60 cyber charters have come on-line in 15 states, which currentlyserve over 16,000 students and account for 2% of the national charter schoolstudent population (Center for Education Reform, 2003). Adding to the abovefigure the 52,000 students enrolled in home school charters in California and Alaska, and the totalenrollment of nonclassroom-based charters increases to 10% of the nationalcharter school student population.
Similar to traditional charter schools, cyber and homeschool charters are independent public schools created through formal agreementwith a state or local sponsoring agency, designed and operated by parents,community members, and entrepreneurs, and allowed to operate free from moststate and local regulations governing schools—including, staffing, curriculum,school calendar, resource allocation, governance, and school/classroom sizes(Finn, Manno & Vanoureck, 2000; RPP International, 2000; Center for EducationReform, 2000; Mullholland & Bierlein, 1995; Geske, Davis & Hingle,1997). What sets cyber and home school charters apart from traditionalschooling models is the non-classroom based instruction which students receiveoutside the confines of the traditional school house setting. Instruction isinstead delivered through alternative mediums, including: parents as primaryinstruction providers, computer-based instruction using pre-packaged softwareprograms, and teacher directed distance-learning or cyber learning wherestudents receive either asynchronous or synchronous (real-time) instruction viathe internet from a teacher or other instructor. Cyber and home school chartersalso differ from traditional charter schools in the type of students they enroll,serving primarily students who were previously privately home schooled, anddrawing enrollment from wide catchment areas which cross district lines and mayspan an entire state.
This paper seeks to illuminate how these alternativecharter school models are developing within the wider public school communityand the charter school movement. Our primary focus will be on California and Pennsylvania, where recent public scrutinyof cyber and home school charters has prompted debate among policy makers, educators,and parents, who have begun to reconcile the objectives of an expanding schoolchoice movement with the demands of public accountability. Our analysis willfocus first on the salient policy issues that have surfaced in several stateswhere nonclassroom-based charter schools are operating. In the second section,we trace the emergence of nonclassroom-based charters with a specific focus onhow states are beginning to draw legal and regulatory definitions of both cyberand home school charters. Our discussion will also outline the importantdistinctions between the two nonclassroom-based schooling models. In the thirdsection we present a comprehensive legal and regulatory analysis of recentlegislative changes in Californiaand Pennsylvania.The important legislative responses which have resulted from public debates inthese states, have affected the daily operation of non-classroom based charterschools, and have challenged the viability of sustaining these alternativeschooling models under the context of increased state accountability demands.The Californiaand Pennsylvaniacontext provide important lessons from which other states can learn. Thesepolicy lessons will help frame the policy recommendations which we advance inthe final section of this paper.
The size and scope of cyber and home school charters inthese states is important. Currently, Californiaoperates the most home school charters, numbering 119 and serving nearly 50,000students—31% of operating charters and 30% of the total charter school studentpopulation (California Department of Education, 2003b). While Pennsylvania has the most cyber schools with8 schools in operation, serving nearly 4,700 students—8% of operating chartersand 13% of the total charter school student population (Pennsylvania Departmentof Education, 2003).
The public and legislative debates that have surfaced in California and Pennsylvania have beenprompted in part by widely publicized accounts in newspapers and other mediaoutlets, that have reported on the questionable practices of some cyber andhome school charters. The reports have detailed the mismanagement of publicfunds including profiteering and withholding of services to students; thequestionable accountability practices that result in minimal oversight ofteaching and learning processes; and the borderless student enrollment zonesspanning entire states, that have resulted in both fiscal and accountabilitychallenges for districts from which students transfer, as well as the schoolswhere transferring students enroll.
In northern California,a recent report described how the operators of a home school charter chargedtheir school a management fee of 37.5%, which amounted to a profit of over$500,000 from the $1.4 million in state revenue received by the school (Asimov,2001a). In Pennsylvania,several reports have detailed how the state’s largest cyber charter serving2,700 students, was accused by parents of withholding services and materials,including computers, Internet access and learning materials (the basic tools for a virtual schoolingmodel). The complaints prompted an investigation led by the Office of the StateSecretary of Education, that later resulted in the school closing when thelocal sponsoring district revoked its charter (Raffeale, 2002; Henrie, 2003). And finally, in Pennsylvania, news outlets reported on howschool districts across the state refused to forward tuition payments(per-pupil funding allotments) to cyber charters. The resident districts’claimed that they should not have to pay for students who enroll in schools outof their district and thus out of their direct charge. These actions on behalfof the resident district of students, lead to the near insolvency of severalcyber charters, and prompted the state to withhold aid from districts whorefused to send tuition payments to cyber charters. What resulted was astatewide debate about who is ultimately responsible for funding cyber charterstudents (Chute, 2001a; Chute & Elizabeth, 2001; Trotter, 2001).
Salient Policy Issues
While the autonomous nature of cyber and home schoolcharters may seem even more decentralized from the limited public authoritywhich governs traditional charter and schools, they are still aligned with thecommon conception which has advanced the charter school movement. Like allcharter schools, in exchange for their autonomy, cyber and home school chartersare expected to promote and create new educational innovations, including newteaching and learning methodologies, new organizational and administrativestructures, as well as new outcome-based and results oriented accountabilityprograms. Yet, as this renegade schooling model continues to emerge, its suddenprominence may be quelled by policy makers and educators who have begun askingwhether these new non-classroom based schooling models have gone too far indefining what is both innovative and permissible within a public school system.
To date, there has been little research that has focused onthe issues that non-classroom based charter schools are raising.[1]But as these schooling models have expanded, charter advocacy centers, researchclearinghouses, and education associations have begun to weigh–in on the issueand have published their own policy briefs outlining some important issues (seeEducation Commission of the States, 2003; Center for Education Reform, 2002;American School Board Journal, 2002). Our analysis will draw upon thesereports, as well as original data that we collected from state-level officialsin several states. In addition, we also refer to informative public newsaccounts that have surfaced in major national newspapers and have investigatedhow nonclassroom-based schooling models have emerged. This recent work hasprompted swift and strong action from state legislatures which have begun toadopt policies that monitor the nonclassroom-based charter school models.Legislatures in California,Pennsylvania,Ohio and Wisconsin have recently addressed issues concerning thepublic oversight of nonclassroom-based instruction and have adopted state-levelpolicy changes aimed at increasing accountability within the emergingnonclassroom-based charter school model. These states, and others that are sureto follow, will continue to be challenged in their attempts to make moretransparent links between the hazy lines of public accountability which haveresulted from the devolution of public authority under the charter schoolmodel.
The following are the key issues which are emerging asstates begin to create policies that define nonclassroom-based schooling modelsand account for how the alternative cyber and home-based charter schools willbe held accountable under the public purview.
• Determiningper-pupil funding for nonclassroom-based charter schools.
State officials and educators are debating whetheroperating a cyber or home school charter merits per-pupil payments equal totraditional school students. While the facilities, staffing, and transportationcosts are considerably lower for a student in a nonclassroom-based setting, thecosts for technology and learning materials needed for online or home-basedinstruction are still significant. The challenge for states is in determiningthe costs linked to new teaching and learning methodologies, new organizationaland governance models, and the accountability mechanisms thatnonclassroom-based schooling models are employing.
•Accountability of student performance and educational program quality.
The decentralized charter status that grants charter schoolswide levels of autonomy from state and local regulations, in conjunction with anon-traditional nonclassroom-based charter school setting, makes monitoringstudent performance and educational program quality, both difficult and costly.Reliance on parents as the primary instruction providers, as well as parent andstudent self-reporting of instructional progress, poses challenges inauthenticating students’ work and in measuring program quality.
• Definingenrollment boundaries and funding responsibility.
Cyber and home school students enroll in schools acrosswide geographic boundaries, crossing district enrollment zones and spanningacross an entire state. What results is an accountability challenge indetermining whether the host district which sponsors the charter, or thestudent’s resident district from which per-pupil payments flow, is ultimatelyresponsible for overseeing a student’s education.
• Theinflux of traditional home schoolers who are new to public education.
Cyber and home school charters are predominantly servingstudents who were previously home schooled in a traditional private home schoolsetting with minimal public funding and limited regulatory oversight. The largeinflux of students new to the public school roles has resulted in an unexpectedneed for additional funding to meet the demands of the large enrollment growth.This funding issue is exacerbated when districts are hard pressed to sendper-pupil payments to host districts across enrollment boundaries, and arelimited in their ability to monitor whether the funds are used responsibly bycyber or home school charters.
The Emergence ofCyber and Home School Charters
The rapid expansion of nonclassroom-based charters hassurpassed the ability of states to address important policy issues linked tothe oversight, standards and accountability models which govern thesenon-traditional public schools. The process of defining how nonclassroom-basedschooling models fit within a wider public school context, depends largely onunderstanding how teaching and learning, organizational and governance modelsemployed by cyber and home school charters, have evolved within the context ofexisting legislative parameters
DefiningNonclassroom-based Schooling
Several states have engaged in the process of creatingstatutes that define nonclassroom-based charter schools. However,nonclassroom-based charters have surfaced in some states where both charter lawand general education statues, do not expressly permit the schools to operate.[2]For example, only 10 of the 15 states in which cyber charters are operatinghave explicitly deemed the cyber charter school model permissible in stateeducation statutes.[3]Interestingly, home-based or home school charters are prohibited in 4 of the 10states (Pennsylvania,Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada) where cybercharters are permissible. In addition, 27 of the 41 existing charter schoollaws, explicitly prohibit home school charters, and only two (California and Alaska) explicitly permit home schoolcharters.[4] Theseemerging trends begin to reveal that some states are drawing distinctions amongnonclassroom-based charters, and distinguishing between a home school and acyber school model.
As nonclassroom-based charters extend to other states, thenext step for policy makers is to identify the teaching and learning,organizational and governance models employed by nonclassroom-based charters,and address how they fit within the existing definitions of what is permissibleunder both charter legislation and general state education statutes. Statesthat draw generic or loose definitions of nonclassroom-based schooling models,will be limited by vague or unclear expectations for both accountability inteaching and learning, and the oversight of how public funds are utilized.Drawing clear distinctions which define nonclassroom-based charter schoolmodels is an important first step in drafting legislative changes which willhold these schools accountable. Below we provide a detailed description ofdistinctions between the two nonclassroom-based schooling models. In addition,Table 1 provides an overview of how the cyber and home school charter modelscompare with a traditional school model.
Distinctions
A principle distinction between cyber and home schoolcharters, is who delivers instruction, how it is delivered, and where it isdelivered. Home school charter students
depend ontheir parents as the primary instruction providers for the bulk of theiracademic program.. Lessons and instruction created by parents, or inconjunction with assistance from curriculum packages or consultation withcharter school teachers, is delivered directly to students by their parents.Under the home school charter model, parents are the educators, while teachersserve as education consultants or coordinators. However, home school charterstudents may also participate in teacher or paraprofessional directed lessonsat school resource centers. Formal lessons are common in science instruction,both because parents may lack expertise in the subject, and because it is noteconomically feasible to provide all families with expensive equipment. Formallessons are also common in extra-curricular courses such as music, art,physical education, carpentry, and other subject areas. Resource centers arealso used for computer laboratories, tutoring centers, parent-teacherconferences and primarily as stock rooms for the vast curriculum libraries andequipment collection that is provided to home school charter families.
In contrast, cyber charter school students rely primarilyon computer-based learning and receive their instruction either synchronouslyor asynchronously. Synchronous instruction is delivered through the internet ina real-time virtual classroom environment by a teacher or paraprofessional whoguides students through instructional units. In most cases, students cancommunicate directly with the teacher and other students during lessons,including the ability to ask questions and participate in interactivediscussions. However, synchronous instruction demands expensive technology andteacher resources, making it the least common model for delivering instruction(KPMG, 2001). Asynchronous instruction—the more widely used instructional deliverymodel—is usually in the form of pre-recorded lessons created by a third-partycurriculum provider, or pre-packaged curriculum delivered via softwarepackages, where students work at their own pace completing assigned tasks aswell as assessments.[6]In some cases, students also attend resource centers where they participate inteacher-led lessons and then complete tasks on a computer. Yet, the majority ofinstruction is accessed from students’ home settings. Resource centers are alsoused for proctored testing, parent-teacher conferences, and as curriculum andequipment stock rooms.
In both cyber and home school charters, families arerequired to communicate via email, phone or in-person with school officials(depending on school or state regulations). Families must also provide progressreports on the student’s academic work including work samples, as well as a logof instructional hours which are used for attendance reporting. These limitedaccountability measures are a key issue that policy makers will encounter asthey delineate the legislative parameters which can embrace the unorthodoxschooling methodologies employed by cyber and home school charters.
The following section will take a closer look atnonclassroom-based charters in Californiaand Pennsylvania.Our analysis aims to provide a better understanding of how cyber and homeschool charters have emerged within the legislative context in each state, andhow schools are serving students in their nonclassroom-based settings. We willalso focus on the recent legislative changes aimed at advancing stricteraccountability of nonclassroom-based charters in California and Pennsylvania.
California’s Home SchoolCharter Schools
In California,home school charters emerged within a year after the California Charter SchoolsAct became law in 1992. As home school charters became operational a debate wassparked among state officials who argued whether promoting home schooling wasan intended objective of the charter legislation (Little Hoover Commission, 1996).[7]Yet, within 5 years the home school charter model had expanded rapidly. In 1997as the number of charter schools in Californiareached 100, home school charter students comprised nearly 50% of the 37,000students enrolled in charter schools. The popularity of the home school chartermodel swept mostly rural areas of California,where many new schools with enrollments upwards of 1,000 students quicklybecame operational, serving an eager audience of formerly private home schoolfamilies.
ExpandingDefinitions of Public Schooling
Home school charters in California have adopted a variety ofinstructional, organizational, and governance models, most of them uncommon intraditional public schools. Some home school charters operate independent studyor correspondence programs where students work at their own pace completingassignments. The curriculum is provided by teachers who closely monitorstudents’ progress through regular communication. Other home school chartersoperate a highly autonomous traditional home school model where parents as theprimary instruction providers design and deliver instructional lessons to theirchildren. Under the autonomous model, communication with teachers is limited toa monthly review of student learning records, comprised of parent createdlearning goals and student work samples that parents mail to teachers. Learningrecords are also used to log attendance hours supplied by parents for thepurposes of collecting state per-pupil funding grants.
The use of paraprofessionals to assist home school familiesin a variety of core subject areas as well as extra-curricular activities, isalso a common offering to families. Paraprofessionals are used to assist inteaching subject areas which parents may find difficult to teach, or forextra-curricular activities that also serve as opportunities for home schoolstudents to interact and participate in group activities. Paraprofessionals arecontracted by the school, often at the request of families, to provideinstruction in science, art, physical education, computer education, music,dance, and many other areas. For example, Horizon Instructional Systems, one ofthe state’s largest home school charters serving over 3,400 students, contractswith paraprofessionals who provide instruction in over 1,000 supplementaryclasses for students and families (Gaschler, 2000).
Traditional home school families flocked to the newpublicly funded form of home schooling primarily because of the richresources—computers, curriculum and materials, instructional support, fieldtrips and extra-curricular services—that were offered to newly enrolledfamilies.[8]The minimal accountability requirements common in the early years of California’s highly decentralizedcharter school movement, was an additional selling point that attractedtraditional home schoolers who were weary of aligning with a state entity. Forexample, recognizing that traditional home school families consider themselvesto be the primary instruction providers for their children, home schoolcharters have consciously adopted a “hands-off” approach to the technicaldelivery of instruction and have instead created an organizational modeldesigned to support parents as the teachers of their children. From the onset,home school charters were unlike any other public school, in that the primaryrole of teachers is not to teach, but rather to act as education coordinatorsor consultants for the families who enroll. In earlier research which examinedhome school charters in California,one home school charter teacher emphasized how the role of teachers was toequip the parents to be better teachers of their children and “not act likewe’re breathing down their neck or requiring production from them” (Huerta,2000, p.185). In essence, the private schooling choices of families are beingreinforced and expanded through the offerings of a public school system thatpromises minimal government intrusion (Huerta, 2000).
The minimal teaching demands on teachers, and the deferenceto parents as primary instruction providers, meant that home school charterscould service large amounts of students with minimal staffing ratios. Early inthe movement it was not uncommon to see teacher-student ratios as high as 1teacher for every 150 students (Huerta, 2000). While home school charters dooffer classes for students and their families to attend together, the coursesare not intended as direct instruction for children, but rather as a supplementto instruction received at home. One teacher explains how “our classes areenrichment only…to support what parents are already doing. So they [theparents] are really doing all the hard work at home” (Huerta, 2000, p.184).
AccountabilityConcerns Surface
As the home school charter model has evolved, viable schoolmodels have adopted patterns that have proven successful in sustaining anonclassroom-based schooling model. Such programs provide families withadequate learning materials and services, counsel families who are challengedby the demands of home schooling, assess student needs with input from parents,maintain amicable and cooperative working relationships with their sponsoringdistrict, and foremost, recognize the balance between autonomy and oversightwhich home school families cherish. Yet even among viable programs, importantissues over accountability have surfaced, challenging the viability of apublicly supported home schooling model.
Over time, questions that have scrutinized theaccountability structures of home school charters, have specifically focused onhow public officials oversee the teaching and learning which occurs in privatehomes, as well as whether public funds are being used efficiently. Oversight ofinstruction in the home school charter model is challenging, considering thatmany families who enroll in home school charters can reside hundreds of milesfrom the school district in which a charter is sponsored, spanning widegeographic regions across both district and county lines. A common practice forhome school charters is to operate satellite centers or annexes in regionswhere enrollment densities for their school are higher. Satellite centers areused as both office space for educational coordinators (teachers) that servestudents in the respective region, and as stock depots for books and otherlearning materials. Yet, while satellites place both a physical building andschool staff closer to students, the level of oversight may not be affected asparents are still the primary instruction providers. Amidst public scrutiny,home school charters have responded by providing additional services andincreasing oversight. Their responses have included offering more classes tofamilies, requiring additional contact hours, and more regular review ofstudent work samples, and in some cases opening more satellite centers.
However, even as some of the above issues dealing withaccountability of teaching and learning models have been addressed, publicofficials continue to be skeptical over school organizational and governancemodels that may lend themselves to profiteering, by districts, as well asnon-profit and for-profit organizations who operate home school charters.Specifically, state officials have reasoned that the low overhead costs foroperating a home school charter—inherent in the absence of brick and mortarfacilities and the limited number of teachers and other services essential totraditional school settings—has resulted in a margin that invites profiteeringby home school charter operators and their sponsoring districts. Sincedistricts receive state per-pupil funding levels equivalent to that fortraditional school students, officials have questioned how surplus revenues(money associated with the costs of operating a traditional school setting) areutilized.[9]Home school charters have responded by emphasizing that creating aninfrastructure to serve home-based students demands new costs that are uncommonto brick and mortar schools, including computers, software, Internet access,curriculum and learning materials, and extra services that are provided to homeschool students. In the next section, we will explain how recent legislativechanges prompted by concerns for stricter accountability and oversight ofnonclassroom-based charters in California, have progressively begun to addressspecific issues that have directly impacted the daily operation of home schoolcharter schools.
SB 399: Legislature Addresses Home SchoolCharters’ Questionable Practices
Home school charters emerged shortly after the CaliforniaCharter Schools Act was enacted in 1992.[10]Within two years, 25% of the first 50 schools that were granted charter statuswere operating home school programs.[11]Only 6 months after the charter legislation was enacted, Senator Gary Hart, theauthor of the original charter school legislation, was made aware of reportsthat several home school charters were offering parents cash payments and othergifts for enrolling in their school, as well as enrolling students who residedin districts that were several hundred miles away from the home district whichsponsored the charter (Hart, 1995). These early reports and the actions takenby legislators, marked the beginning of a decade long debate that has focusedon how the state should hold home school charters accountable under the publicpurview. While promoting home schooling was not an intended objective of theCalifornia Charter Schools Act, the popularity of the schooling model thatserves a home schooling population where parents deliver the primaryinstruction, has challenged both law makers and educators in creating newstatutes aimed at governing these schools. This section will provide ananalysis of regulatory changes over the last decade, which have aimed to definenonclassroom-based instruction and create legislative boundaries that increaseaccountability and oversight of home school charters.
Senator Hart quickly responded to the early reports oflegally questionable practices by authoring SB 399, which bolstered existingindependent study regulations with the intent of providing stricter oversightof independent study programs in both traditional and charter schools. The newlaw addressed the two important policy concerns that had surfaced and imposedthe following: (a) limited funding for independent study programs to studentswho reside in the home county or a contiguously adjacent county from which afunding apportionment is claimed for a student, and (b) restricted schools thatoffered independent study or “home study” programs, from providing services,materials, or other “things of value” to independent study students and theirparents, that were not offered to all district students (see CaliforniaEducation Code, § 51743.3). The new regulations were “not subject to waiver”and were applicable to all schools, including charter schools.
The new law was explicit in broadening the definition ofindependent study as it pertained to providing “things of value,” to includestudents “characterized as home study or otherwise” [see California EducationCode, § 51743.3 (a)]. Thus, the law directly limited the enticements that somehome school charters were offering newly enrolled families. However, the lawdid not explicitly include “home study” in the provisions which outlinedlimitations on enrollment boundaries. Nor did the law define nonclassroom-basedinstruction or the different teaching, learning and organizational models thatwere subject to new “independent study” regulations. What resulted was gray orvague language that provided a loophole that allowed charter operators tocontinue capturing large enrollments of home school students from widegeographic regions which spanned the state, beyond contiguous counties. Hadhome school charters complied with independent study regulation which limitedenrollment boundaries, their expansive enrollments would be jeopardized,resulting in the closure of many schools. Instead, home school chartersidentified their enrollment as “charter school average daily attendance” underthe guise of the more permissive regulation (the California Charter SchoolsAct) that allowed for unrestricted statewide enrollment boundaries, rather then“independent study average daily attendance”[12]that would have limited enrollment according to SB 399 regulations.
AB 544: A Derailed Attempt ToIncrease Accountability in Home School Charters
Issuesover how to hold home school charters accountable surfaced again in 1998 whenReed Hastings, a wealthy Silicon Valleyentrepreneur and a self-proclaimed charter school advocate, sponsored a ballotinitiative (known as the Hastings Initiative) that sought to eliminate thepractices of home school charters in California.The initiative called for limiting ADAfunding only to charter schools where primary instruction was provided inperson by a certified teacher and employee of the school—a direct attackagainst home school charters where parents provide primary instruction.[13]The ballot initiative also aimed to lift the statutory cap of 100 charterschools set by the original legislation, impose stricter accountabilitymeasures by requiring all charter schools to exceed the academic achievement ofcomparable non-charter public school students, and lastly, require all charterschool teachers to be certified or show proof of progress toward certification.[14] Hastings was concernedthat the decentralized context of charter schools provided too many libertiesto charters at the expense of strict accountability measures. His greatestconcern was the loosely defined operations of home school charters. He wasaware that home school charters were drawing too much negative attention to themovement, and they threatened the very existence of all charters. Hastings was alsoconcerned that home school charters had veered too far from the spirit of theoriginal legislation, so he acted to preserve the legitimacy of other charterschools whose educational settings were more traditional—mainly schools thatwere serving students in classroom settings. He hoped that his initiative wouldincrease accountability for all charters, while still retaining the freedomsafforded to them by the original legislation.
In anunprecedented move influenced by the public attention garnered by the ballotinitiative, the Legislature moved the initiative directly to the floor fordebate. What resulted was AB 544, a law that yielded to political compromiseand spared home school charters, when legislators eliminated provisions thatwould have required primary instruction be given directly by certifiedemployees of a charter school. The state bill however, did succeed in liftingthe original imposed cap on charter schools from 100 to 250 for the 1998-99school year and allowing the creation of up to 100 more schools in yearsthereafter. The new regulations also required all charter schools to hirecertificated teachers as well as requiring students to participate in the statesponsored standardized testing program.[15]
SB 434: Revisiting SB 399 andClosing Loopholes
By late 1999, theCalifornia Legislature launched another strike (SB 434) against home schoolcharters. This time the attack came fromdemocratic state senators who learned of the loose attendance and instructionaltime accounting systems utilized by a growing number of home school chartersacross the state. In spring of 1999, home school charters served an estimated22,000 students in 35 schools, which amounted to one-third of the state charterschool student population (Gunnison, 1999). Inthe new bill, Senators called for the closing of all charter schools employing"home-based" instructional models. Their attack, however, wasdiffused in legislative debates after agreeing to concessions that again sparedhome school charters from elimination.
What resulted were new regulationsthat more broadly extend independent study statutory requirements to charterschools offering “home study,” as well as other regulations aimed at increasingaccountability of all charter