· Expanding charter school sponsorship to include more appropriate authorizers will strengthen the charter school process.

o Universities and colleges
o Mayors of large cities
o Large, properly screened non-profits

· Independent authorizers are critical for effective oversight.

o Local school districts have their own schools to run, often placing charter schools on a much lower priority.
o Local school districts are often reluctant to authorize what they perceive as 'competition.'
o Local school districts have trouble breaking compliance-oriented habits.
o Many school districts would like having others share their oversight obligations.
o This will not replace school district oversight -- it will merely complement it.
o California's charter school community is overwhelmingly in favor of this proposal.

· Why multiple authorizers:

o California is facing monumental challenges of overcrowded schools. Other entities committed to public education can alleviate the burdens that school districts face.
o Under the 1998 Charter Schools Expansion Act and "No Child Left Behind", states with multiple sponsor provisions are given additional funding priority.
o Independent offices within universities and city offices learn their jobs quickly.
o Independent organizations hold their schools more accountable through expertise and the ability to prioritize oversight.
o Twelve states around the nation have provisions that allow similar entities this authority, without the problems that a district-only model invites.
o Best models include: New York, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin.

· Why higher education:

o California's most respected universities already heavily involved in the operation of charter schools. (UCSD, UCLA, USC, CSU L.A., Northridge and Fresno)
o Great successes elsewhere - high expertise, greater accountability and long track record (Michigan and New York)
o Most universities operate in areas where reform is most needed: in inner-cities, with typically under-performing public schools.
o Universities can seamlessly attract, recruit and maintain a more qualified student-base to stay in these under-served communities and teach.

· Why mayors of large cities:

o Mayors across the state want to play a greater role in public education.
o Great success elsewhere: Indianapolis and Milwaukee mayors.
o Mayors are increasingly held accountable for the state of their public schools, while they have no authority to make a difference.
o Mayors who see local school board as a political 'stepping stone' can now have greater power, without granting them the power to appoint school board members, which many have called for.
o Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales are high-profile mayors who have been active in charter schools.

· Why large non-profits:

o Many large, educationally oriented non-profits make the education of youth part of their mission. This is a natural extension of their mission.
o Non-profits can bring extra resources to underserved communities.
o Non-profits that sponsor charter schools are held accountable to the local community.
o Non-profits are being more and more utilized in California to provide educational services (Proposition 49 - Schwarzenegger after school initiative).