| ||||||||||||
On the agenda: S2198 re: Expanding Charter Schools, including multiple authorization process. Click on More here for Princeton Regional points of concern about current and future proposed charter school processes.
Senate Committee Hearing
S2198 Ruiz/Cunnigham
Authorization of charter schools
September 23, 2010
Judith Wilson
Superintendent, Princeton Regional Schools
Officer,
Overarching concerns regarding charter school legislation in
- There is a pressing need to set terms and criteria to determine the level of need for charter schools in resident districts. Where schools are failing, charters should be created. Where schools are serving children and communities well, public funding should not be diverted to the creation of charter schools.
- Taxpayers are being taxed for charter schools without representation, voice or the election of board members to charter boards. If charters are to continue to be funded not by the state but by the local taxpayers, then the local taxpayers should vote on appropriation of tax dollars as they do on the resident districts’ budgets.
- In a time of great fiscal morass, when state aid to public schools has been slashed, services cut and programs discontinued, it is contrary to the efficiency standards and expectations of our public and our legislature to create higher costs by adding transportation routes, facilities, administration, etc., to the public tax burden. All of this is occurring as districts are fighting to share services, consolidate programs, and reduce energy and transportation costs.
- Successful programs should not have to be cut in a resident district in order to allocate funds for a start-up charter school.
- CAUTION: Charters are being used as a route to create “private” schools at public expense. Monitoring where students were enrolled the previous year before starting in a charter will yield critical information. There is also great potential for the intentional as well as the unintentional segregation of schools by race and class. When a resident district is serving a highly diverse population well, charters that create less diverse student bodies should not be supported.
Points particular to proposed bill #2198:
2. (1) the applicant’s strategic vision for chartering: MUST IDENTIFY THE NEED IN THE LOCAL RESIDENT DISTRICT.
2. (5) applicant will ensure public accountability: TAXPAYERS must be able to hold the charters accountable via votes on budgets
3. b. operating high-quality charter schools: NEEDS DEFINITION THAT INCLUDES OUT-PERFORMING THE RESIDENT DISTRICT AND PRODUCING INNOVATIVE PRACTICES TO REPLICATE
3. e. merit-based renewal decisions: CRITERIA NEEDED THAT EXCEEDS BASICS AND WARRANTS THE EXPENDITURES AS WELL AS THE DRAIN ON RESIDENT DISTRICTS’ SCHOOLS
4. c operating costs and expenses detailed: MUST REQUIRE A CERTIFIED BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR
6. authorizer cannot provide substantive assistance in the development of the charter school application: MAY ONLY INTERPRET THE STATUTES, NOT CRAFT THE APPLICATION
7. ALL COSTS OF OPERATING CHARTERS MUST BE MADE PUBLIC; AS STATE AID TO DISTRICTS SHRINKS, CHARTER PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE DOLLARS ARE INCREASING
8.a LOCAL RESIDENT BOARDS SHOULD REVIEW AND APPROVE; TAXPAYERS SHOULD VOTE; TRUSTEES SHOULD BE ELECTED BY THE COMMUNITY
8b. commissioner shall actively encourage the establishment of charter schools in urban districts…. AGAIN, CRITERIA TO OPEN CHARTERS WHEN AND WHERE LOCAL RESIDENT DISTRICTS ARE FAILING.
9a. a private of parochial school shall not be eligible for charter school status; THERE EXISTS THE NEED TO MONITOR THE NAMES OF THE CHILDREN WHO ARE REGISTERED, WHERE THEY LAST ATTENDED SCHOOL AND IF A LOCAL PRIVATE SCHOOL CLOSES AS THE NEW CHARTER OPENS; ALSO TO BE MONITORED IN THESE CASES IS THE DIRECT OVERLAP OF TRUSTEES MIGRATING FROM A PRIVATE TO THE CHARTER.
9d. authorizer shall make a decision on an application within 150 days of receipt of the application: LOCAL RESIDENT BOARDS AND COMMUNITIES MUST HAVE AT LEAST 60 DAYS FOR COMMENT.
9e. enrollment not in excess of 500 students or greater than 25% of the student body of the resident public district: 25% OF THE TOTAL DISTRICT ENROLLMENTT OR OF THE ENROLLMENT FOR THE SPECIFIC GRADE LEVELS OF THE CHARTER? IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. SHOULD BE THE LATTER.
10 c. proposed governance structure: SHOULD BE ELECTED BY THE CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE PAYING FOR THE SCHOOL.
10k. how community groups will be involved in the charter school planning process…..WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT? IS PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED?
11. A charter school may establish reasonable criteria to evaluate prospective students which shall be outlined in the school’s charter. PUBLIC SCHOOLS SERVE THE PUBLIC AND ALL CHILDREN, NOT A SELECTED FEW.
12c. A charter school may give enrollment priority to a sibling: AGAIN LIMITS DIVERSITY AND ACCESS.
12d. may enroll non-resident students: LOCAL DISTRICTS MUST KNOW THIS AT THE TIME OF BUDGET DEVELOPMENT.
12e. seek the enrollment of a cross section of the community’s school age population including racial and academic factors: SEEK is a weak term and does not hold the charter schools to a standard of serving all children.
16e. The evaluation shall include the elements 1-12. THESE ELEMENTS ARE CRITICAL AND MUST BE DOCUMENTED ANNUALLY, especially the impact on the resident district’s finances, programs and ability to maintain a high level of services for all children.
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Nicole D. Cole
REGARDING: Senate Education Committee
DATE: September 23, 2010
The Senate Education Committee met today and unanimously released S-2066 (Allen) and released the Senate Committee Substitute to S-2198 (Ruiz/Cunningham) as amended by a vote of 4-1 with Senator Turner voting no.
S-2198 was released as a Senate Committee Substitute and further amended to delete language stating that the Commissioner shall allocate such funds as may be necessary for the support of charter school authorizers. S-2198 provides for the designation of new charter school authorizers and assigns responsibility for the monitoring of the charter schools that it authorizes.
Chairwoman Ruiz stated that the intent of the bill is to create an authorizer component that would institute and ensure much needed accountability for charter schools. She cited to the Department of Education’s lack of department staffing and the difficulty with such in ensuring the necessary accountability.
Chris Emigholz from the Department of Education testified in support of the bill and multiple authorizers. The DOE requested a second amendment to delete language stating that the DOE is responsible for the authorizers receiving funding. Senator Turner responded that she is concerned with the DOE taking on additional responsibility without having the proper resources to pay the authorizers. Senator Turner was also interested in a fiscal estimate of the cost of multiple authorizers, which OLS did not provide. Senate Ruiz responded that this bill gives DOE an opportunity to manage and seek authorizers that will have greater accountability for the organizations that put forth applications.
The NJEA spoke in favor of the bill and expressed their concerns over ensuring sufficient budget transparency, that charters serve all student populations, the need for greater collaboration with public schools and local charter schools in the district.
Jeannine LaRue of Rutgers University testified in support of the committee substitute. Ms. LaRue cited her concern over the lack of funding but stated that Rutgers will apply to be an authorizer regardless of the funding.
The Policy Director of the Statewide Parent Advocacy Network (“SPAN”) supported the committee substitute, yet voiced concerns for students with disabilities not being served in charter schools and parents being told that their charter school does not have the resources to serve a child with special needs.
Senator Allen posed the question of why it would be a problem if a parent decided the best place for their child was a specialized school for children with disabilities. Senator Riuz responded that a dialogue needs to be had on special education in New Jersey and committed to holding such a hearing.
The Arc of NJ supported the bill but expressed concerns with building additional segregated settings for children with disabilities. The Arc of NJ testified that building more segregated settings would mean there is less incentive in the public schools for them to educate and integrate children with special education needs.
Sue Gottesman of the NJ Council on Developmental Disabilities testified in support of the committee substitute and shared the concern that NJ segregates children at a higher average than the rest of the country. Ms. Gottesman encouraged specialized settings in a general education classroom and less segregation.
Citizens with Save our Schools and concerned residents of NJ testified in opposition of the bill citing their concerns that NJ should not be expanding charter schools without the proper funding. The group opposed the lack of voter approval in the decision of authorizing new charter schools and cited to the negative consequences of charter schools in areas with high performing public schools, namely Princeton.
The Princeton Regional Schools’ Superintendent, Judy Wilson, cited her concerns with how the money is spent on charter schools, taxation without representation, and the issue of segregation with race, class, ability and disability. She spoke of a local experience where a charter school opened and closed within four months and lost money for the local schools. Superintendent Wilson urged the committee to consider the fact that there are places where charters are needed and not needed and local voter approval needs to be considered before authorizing charter schools.
Superintendent of the West Windsor-Plainsboro School District urged the committee to think about the determined needs in a specific district when considering the charter school application for that district. The President of Princeton Regional Schools opposed the bill as local taxpayers have no voice on whether there is a need for a local charter school. She cited local per pupil figures stating it costs three times the amount to send a child to a charter school over Princeton Regional public school.
Carlos Perez, CEO of the NJ Charter Schools Association, explained the role of charter school authorizers as holding charter schools accountable and stressed the importance of authorizers’ responsibility to oversee charter schools during the term of the charter school contract. The Charter Schools Association suggested a clarification to clearly identify that there is a contractual agreement between the charter school board of trustees and the authorizer for a charter school. Further, Mr. Perez agreed with the concern of the lack of funding for the authorizer and would like to see a guaranteed stream of funding for effective oversight and the authorization process. The Charter Schools Association applauded the transparency of authorizers and their responsibility to report publicly on their activities.
The NJ Business and Industry Association and Democrats for Education Reform further supported the bill.
