LOS ANGELES _ The superintendent's plan was born of necessity.
In the aftermath of the Great Recession, as tax revenue plummeted, small school districts across California quickly felt the pain. Many were already lean, where administrators did the work of two or three, and students were counted in tens, not thousands. The economic collapse threatened their very existence.
In Superintendent Brent Woodard's rural district, which covered the towns of Acton and Agua Dulce about 45 miles north of Los Angeles, enrollment in 2013 had fallen by more than a quarter over five years. The area's population had aged, the birthrate declined and some students were choosing to attend schools outside the district. Without increasing revenue or making harmful cuts, the district was facing insolvency and the threat of a state takeover.
In California's charter school law, Woodard saw financial salvation.
In the years to come, some would praise his creativity. Others would accuse him of embarrassing the district. Everyone agreed that his strategy was entrepreneurial, though not everyone meant it as a compliment.
Court records detail how _ methodically and rapidly _ the Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District began approving new charter schools. The first year, there were two. The next: 11. By 2017, the district, which operates only three schools of its own, had authorized 17 charter schools.
Some were outside the district's geographical boundaries, in places such as L.A., Santa Clarita and Pasadena. Some were based entirely online.
Each charter brought the district something it badly needed: money.
"It was common knowledge ... just go to (Acton-Agua Dulce), they'll sponsor anyone," said Ken Pfalzgraf, who won a seat on the district's board in 2016.
Woodard did not respond to several requests for comment.
Across California, other small districts hatched similar plans as word spread that they could fix their financial problems by approving certain types of charters and then charging them for a range of services.
State law allows school districts to charge charters fees that are meant to cover the cost of monitoring the schools, but it does not restrict how districts use the money. As a result, districts have spent charter oversight fees on sports coaches, textbooks and computers for their own schools.
When the California Legislature passed the Charter Schools Act in 1992, it was intended to introduce competition into public education as well as an incentive for districts to experiment. There was supposed to be a marketplace of ideas about new ways of teaching and learning. But what has evolved in some parts of the state resembles an actual marketplace in which charter schools can shop for lenient authorizers and school districts can rake in much-needed cash.
Before he was elected to the school board for Acton-Agua Dulce, Pfalzgraf recalls attending meetings and watching with growing concern as a line of charter operators sought approval to open new schools. He remembers those meetings as breezy, friendly affairs in which the answer was nearly always yes and district officials asked few questions, even of schools known to have been rejected previously by other districts.
"You're telling people they're supposed to vet charters. But they also know that if there's no charter revenue, they don't have a job," Pfalzgraf said. "I think staff was looking at this and going, 'If I recommend no, what's going to happen to me?'"
The district's income from charter fees has more than doubled in the last five years, surpassing $3 million last school year. Roughly 25% of its operating budget now comes from those fees, according to its current superintendent.
Students attending the out-of-town charter schools have not always benefited. Last school year, most of the charters Acton-Agua Dulce oversaw posted lower passing rates on state exams than its own district schools. In four of the charters, more than 95% of students failed the math test.
California has more than 1,000 school districts, and most do not rely on charter school fees to keep the lights on. In fact, charter supporters often complain, correctly, that districts have a strong financial incentive not to approve charters within their boundaries because the new schools may lure away students and the funding that goes with them.
But a Los Angeles Times analysis of enrollment data found more than 60 California school districts in which more than half of the students enrolled are attending charter schools.
Some run only a few neighborhood schools but have authorized as many as 10 charters. In Acton-Agua Dulce, about 1,000 children were enrolled in district-run schools last year; nearly 14,000, many of them from outside the area, were in district-authorized charters.
Many of the charters approved by small districts are classified as non-classroom-based, meaning their students receive much of their instruction off campus. Schools in that category typically aren't a threat to district enrollment numbers because they draw from different markets _ home-schooled children, students who work full time and others who have dropped out.
In Shasta County, for example, a one-school district with 35 students and one part-time administrator has approved three non-classroom-based charters.
In Kern County, a district with about 300 students has authorized five charters _ all but one conduct most of their classes online.
In one small San Diego County district, charter oversight fees made up nearly a third of its operating budget last school year.
