Flexible and personalized,
nonclassroom-based
education is on the rise
In January 2017, nonclassroom-
The Anderson UHSD v. based education took center stage, when the
Shasta Secondary Home California Supreme Court declined to re-
view a lower court ruling confirming the lo-
School case underscored cation requirements of the Charter Schools
Act apply to all charter schools, including
the prominence of “nonclassroom-based” programs.
nonclassroom-based Interest in the Anderson Union High
School District v. Shasta Secondary Home
education, a school School case underscores the prominent
place of nonclassroom-based education in
choice option attorneys California’s public school system in an era
with Lozano Smith say of school-choice. These programs take many
forms that are often wildly different from
is often not what it is what one might consider when hearing the
term “nonclassroom-based.”
perceived to be. In California, an estimated 140,000 stu-
dents attend nonclassroom-based charter
schools – many of which operate in a physi-
cal facility, where classes are offered. Fol-
lowing Anderson, school leaders are keenly
aware of the need to compete in this area to
meet the heightened demand for alternatives
to traditional seat-based education. With
the rise in popularity of these programs,
20 Leadership
school leaders are reimagining nonclass-
room-based education, what it will be in
the future, and how they can play a role in
delivering it.
Among the many models of choice avail-
able, nonclassroom-based education has
emerged as a popular model. Chameleon-
like in its qualities, no two nonclassroom-
based programs are alike, and no two pro-
grams may be appropriate for the same
student. For these reasons, nonclassroom-
based education is an innovative and in-
triguing school choice option.
What is nonclassroom-based
education?
Nonclassroom-based education occupies a
unique niche in the school choice landscape.
Somewhat of a misnomer, it is not limited
to independent study or homeschooling in
the traditional sense. Rather, in California,
these programs may operate seat-based in-
struction up to four days per week and are
By Megan Macy and Erin M. Hamor
typically funded at the same level as tradi-
tional public schools.
In the charter school context, the term
“nonclassroom-based” merely describes a
wide-range of programs that are funded in a
particular way. The term has no relationship
to the physical space where students receive
instruction. It does not mean the school is
virtual, and it also does not mean that stu-
dents will not attend classes in a classroom.
In fact, charter schools are labelled as “class-
room-based” or “nonclassroom-based” pri-
marily for funding purposes.
Whether a program is considered class-
room-based depends on the amount of
instruction that occurs when students are
engaged in required educational activities
and are under the immediate supervision of
a certificated teacher. Such time is termed
“classroom-based instruction.” If a charter
school delivers at least 80 percent of instruc-
tional time in this manner, then the charter
school is eligible for classroom-based in-
struction apportionments. All other char-
ter school programs are deemed “nonclass-
room-based” programs, but may provide
up to 79 percent of instructional time in a
traditional classroom setting.
Nonclassroom-based charter schools ac-
count for student attendance in the same man-
ner as traditional independent study programs
– on the basis of students’ academic work
product – rather than seat-time. Teachers as-
sess the time value of student work product to
determine completion of a statutory “mini-
mum day.” The work must be completed on
the school day for which it is claimed as at-
tendance, and a student cannot generate more
than one day of attendance in any calendar day.
Putting aside the technicalities of school
funding, nonclassroom-based programs
enjoy unique f lexibility and present op-
portunities for schools to offer increasingly
personalized educational choices. Nonclass-
room-based programs can take many dif-
ferent forms, including independent study,
home study, work study, distance learning
and computer-based education. Some non-
classroom-based programs are virtual, while
other programs are independent study with
no facilities. Still others provide personal-
ized learning in some combination of inde-
pendent study and traditional classroom-
based instruction.
Personalized learning
Over the last decade, our lives have be-
come increasingly personalized. Eleven
years ago, Time Magazine chose not to put a
famous person on the cover of its 2006 Per-
son of the Year issue. Instead, the cover in-
cluded a reflective mirror and declared that
the person of the year was, “You. Yes, you.
…Welcome to your world.”
The cover marked an era where people
crave individualization and enjoy unprec-
edented control over the nuances of day-to-
day life. From customized coffee and music
to personalized social media and communi-
cations technologies, the focus of life in the
last decade has been up close and personal.
Now, more than 10 years later, person-
alization has come to education. While the
majority of students still benefit from the
traditional seat-based model, families now
expect that schooling options will meet in-
creasingly individualized educational needs.
The variety of nonclassroom-based pro-
grams is limited only by the imagination and
few legal parameters. Nonclassroom-based
models afford school districts and charter
schools opportunities to reinvent student
education within the confines of the law.
This aligns with a basic tenet of the Califor-
nia public school system that school districts
have diverse needs unique to their individual
communities and should have the flexibility
to create correspondingly unique solutions.
The Legislature provides school districts
with the broad authority to carry on activi-
ties and programs that, in the determination
of a governing board, are necessary or desir-
able in meeting their needs. Nonclassroom-
based education models allow educators to
do just that. For some families, the f lex-
ibility of nonclassroom-based instruction
is a necessity. Although California is more
urbanized than the rest of the U.S., more
than 5 million Californians live in rural
and sparsely populated areas, often relying
on nonclassroom-based education to meet
lifestyle needs. For instance, some of these
students may study independently at home,
while meeting with teachers periodically at
resource centers that can offer a surprising
array of options – often boasting science lab-
The school
choice landscape
School choice is the new normal in public
education, empowering families to make
choices regarding the type of education
that best fits the needs of each child.
Although school choice has long existed
in private education sectors, state legisla-
tors and school leaders have increasingly
created opportunities for choice within
the traditional public school model. As
of 2011, at least 46 states had adopted
legislation offering students some form
of public school choice. These schooling
alternatives are varied and include charter
schools, magnet schools, virtual educa-
tion, experience-based learning, home-
schooling and blended learning options.
Research suggests school choice leads
to positive outcomes for certain students.
Empirical evidence shows access to
schooling options may result in higher
academic achievement, graduation rates,
academic attainment, and parental sat-
isfaction. Yet despite the potential ben-
efits of school choice, it remains a hotly
debated issue.
Critics point out school choice options can
sometimes backfire, leading to a host of
unintended consequences. For example,
studies show that parents who exercise
school choice are statistically more likely
to come from educated backgrounds of
above-modest means. This raises con-
cerns that choice systems result in inequity
and socio-economic stratification. Other
evidence suggests charter schools, for
instance, can be plagued by poor-quality
oversight, leading to concerns regarding
accountability. Still other studies conclude
that students in nonclassroom-based pro-
grams, in particular, have lower average
test scores than comparable students in
traditional public schools.
Although evidence may be inconclusive
on the efficacy of school choice, it remains
attractive for many families. School choice
allows public education funds to follow
students to the schools or services families
feel best fit their needs.
Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law
September | October 2017 21
oratories, music rooms, libraries and meet-
ing spaces.
Other students benefit from the more
loosely-regimented version of “seat-time”
inherent to nonclassroom-based instruction.
For example, nonclassroom-based education
may focus on dropout recovery, providing a
second chance to students pursuing a high
school diploma, but who have not been suc-
cessful in other settings. Still other families
opt for nonclassroom-based education to
provide different extracurricular opportuni-
ties for their child to travel, engage in the
arts, or pursue passions such as gymnastics
or music. Nonclassroom-based programs
are rarely cookie-cutter, and offer innovative
options meeting a variety of student needs.
Challenges of the model
Nonclassroom-based education faces
certain challenges – often stemming from
the untethered nature of the nonclass-
room-based model. In September 2016,
one month before the Anderson decision, a
Washington Post article dubbed California’s
nonclassroom-based charter school sector
22 Leadership
“the Wild West.” Underpinning this moni-
ker was a f lurry of lawsuits asserting that
some nonclassroom-based charter schools
operated in violation of the Charter Schools
Act, often without sufficient oversight from
the chartering authority. The article ob-
served that some of these charter schools
lacked accountability from their authorizers,
related to compliance with the law or meet-
ing the instructional standards promised by
their charter petitions.
Whether operated as a charter school or
not, nonclassroom-based programs by their
nature are more challenging to oversee, due
to the extreme flexibility in the attendance
accounting structure, leading to account-
ability concerns. But quality oversight is
achievable and, in spite of these challenges,
nonclassroom-based education seems here
to stay. Given the demand for these pro-
grams, school districts are looking to de-
velop strong nonclassroom-based models to
strengthen student outcomes.
Programs of the future
As public school systems increasingly
compete for student “market share,” school
leaders consider the role that nonclassroom-
based education might play within their
educational portfolio. Some suggest that a
key benefit of nonclassroom-based educa-
tion is its potential to break the public school
“monopoly” and increase competition for
students in the educational marketplace.
Putting aside these realities of the educa-
tion business, nonclassroom-based options
afford school administrators critical tools
to offer choice-based programs that are
both competitive and innovative. The focus,
thus, shifts to how school leaders can create
systems of choice that work for all families
within a district.
By taking the lead in developing non-
classroom-based models, school leaders are
empowered to define educational perfor-
mance, scope of services, and determine how
resources will flow. This allows educators to
adapt to the needs of their students and cre-
ate learning options that best fit community
needs. Although no two nonclassroom-based
options are alike, they generally take the form
of either district schools or charter schools.
Under a nonclassroom-based charter
model, school leaders may authorize a “de-
pendent” charter school within the school
district’s portfolio, or may partner with a
nonprofit organization to authorize an “in-
dependent” charter school. Although not
defined in the Charter Schools Act, these
terms generally define the scope of a rela-
tionship between charter school and autho-
rizer, and provide different mechanisms for
governance. Each model has its own advan-
tages, and schools will need to determine the
choice that best suits their operational goals.
Non-charter programs offer another op-
tion. For decades, the Legislature has enabled
school districts to offer students traditional
independent study alternatives. Although
school districts are not required to offer in-
dependent study, those that do may offer a
variety of formats. Independent study may
be offered in a home-based format, an online
model, as a program or class within a compre-
hensive school, through an alternative school
or program of choice, or as an accommoda-
tion for students who travel, among other
options. As such, non-charter independent
study offers an attractive delivery mechanism
for nonclassroom-based education.
School leaders must weigh the benefits of
charter vs. non-charter nonclassroom-based
options. Non-charter independent study
may provide administrators with more di-
rect, hands-on control over the scope and
structure of a nonclassroom-based program.
California’s independent study statutes per-
mit many iterations of nonclassroom-based
programs, including skills-based learning,
volunteer community service activities,
work-study, and specialized assignments
outside the school’s normal curriculum.
Charter schools further enjoy a “mega-
waiver” from most provisions of the Edu-
cation Code. This means charter schools
are exempt from most aspects of the laws
governing school districts, including those
related to employees, facilities and instruc-
tion. Instead, charter schools are bound
only by the promises made in their charter
petitions, the Charter Schools Act and, for
nonclassroom-based programs, certain as-
pects of the independent study laws. Charter
schools, thus, provide school leaders with
increased autonomy and f lexibility in the
nonclassroom-based arena.
Under either a charter or non-charter
model, nonclassroom programs of the fu-
ture will implement creative educational ap-
proaches. For example, nonclassroom-based
independent study programs are a prime
candidate for project-based education. Re-
cent years have seen steady growth in the
maker movement – and application of this
model to nonclassroom-based programs may
foster creativity and offer students opportu-
nities to grow in key areas of science, tech-
nology, math, art and engineering.
Another innovative model might involve
“f lipping” the traditional classwork and
homework paradigm. Schools have reported
notable successes, where students watch
teachers’ lessons at home, and then come
to the school site to engage in “homework”
and problem solving with teachers and class-
mates. This approach was the subject of a
TEDx talk, and some educators have found
measurable student success in this model,
particularly in schools with high poverty
and below average student achievement.
The possibilities for nonclassroom-based
education are many, and may be customized
to meet a variety of goals. But the flexibility
afforded nonclassroom-based schools should
be paired with quality oversight marked by
clear expectations and systems of support.
Forward-thinking school administrators
are now collaborating with nonclassroom-
based experts to develop partnerships and
establish a “systems” approach to adminis-
tration. Systems can vary, but might focus on
shared central services, resource allocation,
joint advocacy efforts, facilities utilization,
student support and professional develop-
ment. Research suggests that collaborative
partnerships directly benefit students and
families and leverage shared resources for a
greater impact on educational outcomes. At
the same time, strong partnerships attract
students to a district and can positively im-
pact the financial bottom line.
The following practical tips may be con-
sidered by school administrators evaluating
nonclassroom-based options:
• Engage in a stakeholder analysis to de-
termine how nonclassroom-based programs
might target areas of unmet need.
• Perform due diligence to understand the
operational model and background of enti-
ties requesting charter petition approval.
• Develop comprehensive policies for
oversight of charter schools contemplat-
ing the full programmatic scope, including
educational outcomes, employment, admis-
sions, facilities and other relevant areas.
• When operating nonclassroom-based
programs or overseeing a nonclassroom-
based charter school, remember that all spe-
cial education obligations continue to exist.
Following Anderson, the prominent
place of nonclassroom-based education in
the school choice landscape is clear. Public
school administrators will play a key role
in fulfilling the promise of nonclassroom-
based education by developing innova-
tive programs and ensuring accountability
through high-quality oversight.
Resources
• Anderson Union High School District
v. Shasta Secondary Home School, (2016) 4
Cal.App.5th 262.
• Burke, L. and Sheffield, R. (2011).
“School Choice in America 2011: Educa-
tional Opportunity Reaches New Heights.”
The Heritage Foundation.
• Booker, K., Zimmer, R. and Buddin R.
(2005). “The Effect of Charter Schools on
School Peer Composition.” RAND.
• Brame, C. (2013). “Flipping the class-
room.” Vanderbilt University Center for
Teaching, at http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/
guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom.
• California Education Code: The Charter
Schools Act, § 47600, et seq.; Independent
Study Statutes, § 51745, et seq.
• Gallego, J. and Alegria, I. (2016). “New
Report Reveals Illegal Admissions Policies
at Charter Schools.” American Civil Liber-
ties Union of Southern California.
• Goldhaber, D. (2002). “School Choice as
Education Reform: What Do We Know?”
ERIC Digest.
• “Independent Study Operations Man-
ual.” California Department of Education
(2002).
• Lake, R. Yatsko, S. et al. (2017). “Bridg-
ing the District-Charter Divide to Help
More Students Succeed.” Center on Rein-
venting Public Education.
• “Open Enrollment: 50 State Report,”
Education Commission of the States (2011),
at http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.
aspx?id=268 (July 26, 2011).
• Strauss, V. (September 28, 2016). “Why
California’s charter school sector is called
‘the Wild West.’” The Washington Post.
• Williams, Jenn (2013). “Flipping the
classroom – my journey to the other side.”
TEDxRockyViewSchoolsED: www.you-
tube.com/watch?v=Y3b9tCmUmA4.
• Zimmer, R. and Buddin, R. (2006).
“Making Sense of Charter Schools: Evi-
dence from California.” RAND.
Megan Macy is the managing partner of
Lozano Smith’s Sacramento office. She
is an expert in charter school law and a
lead litigator in the Anderson case. Reach
her at mmacy@lozanosmith.com. Erin
Hamor is an associate in Lozano Smith’s
Sacramento office. She is experienced in
all aspects of charter school law. Reach
her at ehamor@lozanosmith.com.
September | October 2017 23
Copyright of Leadership is the property of Association of California School Administrators
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.