School board raises voices against charter school reform plan
HAVERFORD » The board of school directors recently joined Education Voters of Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Education Law Center and other school districts around the state that have voiced opposition to provisions for charter school reform in House Bill 97.
School directors voted 7-1 to adopt a resolution opposing the bill, which they allege “fails to establish meaningful change” from the state’s 20-year-old Charter School Law.
Approved by the state House in April, HB 97 is currently in the Senate Education Committee where amendments are under consideration, said school director and chair of the Delaware County School Boards Legislative Council Larry Feinberg, the resolution’s sponsor.
The resolution states that charter schools that are “publicly funded and privately operated institutions governed by non-elected boards ...not accountable to taxpayers, yet paid for with local school district funds.”
Current Charter School Law exempts charters from “many of the state’s statutory and regulatory requirement and creates an uneven playing field in important areas, including... fiscal management, audits, conflicts of interest, public reporting,” and more, the resolution states.
Also cited are funding formulas for charters that don’t reflect actual costs, especially for special education instruction and services.
Instead of curing problems, HB 97 allegedly contains “troubling provisions” such as creation of a statewide Charter School Funding Commission that’s “too broadly focused,” and a State Charter School Appeals Board that’s “stacked in favor of the charter community,” Feinberg said.
Additional concerns include expanded charter terms and renewals that “further remove authorizer oversight,” as well as “creation of a double standard for teacher evaluation that is less than that of traditional public schools.”
The resolution urges legislators to reject HB 97 in favor of “a different approach that addresses true reform in the core areas of funding, accountability and governance.”
Feinberg said that while Haverford has no brick and mortar charter schools, the district has spent $2.4 million since 2012 on historically underperforming cybercharters, with $90.9 million spent county wide for “something that doesn’t work.”
And, “I have grave concerns about accountability,” Feinberg said, recalling Pennsylvania Cyber Charter founder Nick Trombetta’s diversion of funds to make lavish purchases for himself, his girlfriend and family members.
State Rep. Mike Reese, RWestmoreland, HB 97 sponsor, defended his legislation in a recent column. Among his comments, Reese maintained that the Funding Advisory Commission “would evaluate current funding mechanisms and recommend much-needed overhauls to make certain that education dollars are spent in the most fiscally responsible manner.” Such a commission must have a broad perspective to “be able to evaluate every aspect of charter school spending,” Reese said,
The bill would also provide “increased, ongoing access by school districts to the records and facilities” of charters schools to ensure that they are in compliance with their charters and all legal requirements, and are “engaging in sound financial practices.”
While the bill does allow longer charter renewal terms, “it does so only for high-performing charter schools satisfying an academic quality benchmark… and subject to automatic review if the charter school’s performance falters,” Reese stated.
School director James Goldschmidt said he could not support the resolution because it contained broad language, and seemed “anticharter school in general.”
“I personally support the concept of charter schools,” said Goldschmidt, pointing to successful charters like Mast Community Charter School in Philadelphia.
School director Phil Hopkins said he also supported charters in theory and principle. Hopkins noted however, that the city of Chester pays 30 percent of its budget on charter school fees, with zero reimbursement from the state.
If you wish to encourage charters, the state needs to kick in. They should be the one underwriting this exercise in innovation,” Hopkins said.