Dunce Cap On Charter Schools

MAY 23, 2011

Most parents of school-aged children who are familiar with charter schools clamor to get their kids into one. In some cities, the waiting list for charters is impossibly long, as demand is far greater than the availability of the alternative schools.

But this doesn’t rest well with the California Teachers Association or the California Federation of Teachers, the state’s two teachers unions. And the issue is not about educating kids. It always surrounds controlling the flow of money from state coffers.

Sponsored by the California Teachers Federation, as well as exposing the strong arm of the teachers unions, AB 401, authored by Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, would put a cap on the number of charter schools that can operate in California.

AB 401 is supported by both teachers unions, which argue that charter schools are not accountable to the same rules as other public schools in the state.

California was  the second state in the country to enact charter school legislation, with the Charter Schools Act of 1992. The intent was to allow groups of educators, the community and parents to create an alternative type of public school.

Explains Ed Source, an independent, nonpartisan, not-for-profit education organization:

Charters were to operate outside the regular school district governance structure and be free from most regulations that apply to other public schools. In return, these schools were supposed to be more accountable for student achievement than traditional public schools. This combination of freedom and accountability was meant to spur innovation and instill choice and competition in the public school system.

Since 1992, the state has significantly amended and expanded its policies related to charter schools, but the premise has remained largely intact. Another constant has been interest in how the academic performance of charter schools compares with that of traditional public schools.

Who could quibble about that?

Limiting Choice

But the teachers union activists have fought tooth and nail to keep the number of charter schools to a minimum, and parents’ choice limited.

Ed Source has grappled with some of the most complex issues facing education, including school finance, middle school and high school education issues, student issues beyond high school, student achievement and standards-based education.

And Democratic legislators have not been shy about helping the teachers unions in their fight against the charters.

The “accountability issues” appear to be mostly union entitlement issues: Workers’ rights, transparency, academic financial accountability, employment laws and “rules of student access.”

Charter schools just don’t cater to the liberal notion that “everyone is a winner,” and “everyone deserves to receive the same rewards as the hardest workers.”

But the California Charter Schools Association reports that charter schools are four times as likely as non-charter schools to be among the top performing public schools in the state. And Ed Source researched and reports that charter middle schools out-score non-charter middle schools.

Why would anyone want to put a cap on something as good as charter schools’ winning results?

“We are not anti-charter schools,” said Ammiano’s comunications director, Quintin Mecke. “The purpose of the bill is not to end charter school education, but they are not the answer to everything.”

Mecke told about teachers at the Edison Charter Academy School in San Francisco, who actually had to revolt in order to pull away from the national corporation which operated the school. “The guidelines did not meet the San Francisco Unified School district standards,” said Mecke.

Anti-Business

But Ammiano’s bill has a nasty anti-business component buried deep inside: AB 401 also prohibits personnel at a charter school that is operated by a private entity from employing, promoting or advancing any individual who is a relative. The bill’s analysis states, “this bill establishes anti-nepotism employment standards for charter schools operated by private entities.”

Meike explained that the provisions in Ammiano’s bill models existing charter school law in Florida, requiring an initial petition for a charter school to include full disclosure of any relatives that have been hired by the decision makers at the school, and prohibiting decision makers at operational charter schools from hiring relatives.

According to the California Department of Education, there have been 86 charter schools approved each year for the last 10 years, which means that the cap of 1,450 will be reached by the 2016-17 school year.

The bill also adds a 10 percent cap on the number of charter schools operating in an individual school district.

Ed Source reports that, in the 1980s and 1990s, California’s  school population was the fastest growing in the country. But the state’s school population started to decline in 2005–06, with nearly two-thirds of all counties facing declining enrollment.

Declining enrollments often create fiscal problems for districts because funding is based on student attendance regardless of the district’s ability to reduce expenses. For example, fixed expenses, such as facilities maintenance or utilities, do not necessarily go down just because there are fewer students in a school.

Many question the veracity of Ammiano’s bill reference to Florida’s nepotism model; especially because  the Florida Consortium of Public Charter Schools was created to improve “all aspects of quality in public charter schools and ensuring educational excellence,” according to its website. The consortium’s quality standards are applicable to any type of charter school and support the independence of each charter school community. They are aligned with the quality standards of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS CASI),

The attack on charter schools is undeniable. But the larger problem is the devastation on the education of California’s children. California public schools are declining so rapidly. And it is happening at the hands of the highly politicized teachers unions. Now we have the Legislature to thank for assisting with California’s demise.

– Katy Grimes