Win the (court) battle; lose the war?

The fight ain't over



This AP report on Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy's legal victory over Rutherford County Schools is good news, of course, but it also touches upon a troubling reality--under current law school districts are now free to 'hide' more money from charter schools. 

"The General Assembly clarified the school funding law last year to expand the types of money that can be placed in segregated funds. It's a decision that gives districts more ways to prevent them from giving more money to charter schools, said Richard Vinroot, a Charlotte lawyer representing Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy."

When North Carolina's original charter school law was passed in 1997, the funding formula seemed clear enough: all public funds allocated for education were to be equally divided on a per-pupil basis between district and charter schools.  School districts were given the responsibility to calculate the per-pupil amount specific to their districts and pay their local charter schools accordingly. 

But from the very beginning some districts played games with the numbers, and the most popular of these games was to hide certain funds so they wouldn't have to be divided with charters.  When some charter schools caught on to what their districts were doing (the districts were not required to 'show their work' when calculating the per-pupil amount, and many still go to great lengths to hide their calculations from the public), lawsuits were initiated.  Charter schools won every single one of those suits, because the law was clearly on their side.

Fast forward to the closing hours of the 2010 General Assembly, when the then-Democratic controlled legislature was putting the finishing touches on that year's budget bill.  When the final version of that bill was presented for a vote it had somehow acquired overnight a new section 'legalizing' what the school districts had been doing all along, and giving those districts which had already been caught hiding money from charter schools up to three years to pay any court-ordered settlement.  This new section had been inserted into the bill (literally overnight!) at a point in the process where it could not be amended except by the bill sponsors themselves.  It was a coup of lobbying legerdemain by the North Carolina School Boards Association, completely bypassing the normal legislative process to get a special favor for its client, the state's school boards, and it worked.

As a result, school districts are now free to create 'special' accounts into which they may deposit whatever funds they so choose to pay for their 'special' programs.  School districts don't have to share funds in these special accounts with charters, and there is no language in the law defining what constitutes a special program these accounts are supposed to pay for.  Thus, an enterprising district chief financial officer could conceivably move significant sums of money from the 'local current expense account,' the account that all monies are normally put into, and which is divided evenly with charters on a per-pupil basis, and into one or more 'special' accounts, which are not shared. 

And thanks to last year's midnight skulduggery by lobbyists for the NC School Boards Association, it's all perfectly legal. 

Now, one might think that the more charter-friendly Republican controlled legislature would be inclined to fix that problem, and one would be right--to a point.  An effort was made to include language in Senate Bill 8, the bill that lifted the charter cap, to curb the use of special accounts and make districts more accountable for how they calculated and shared per-pupil expenses with charters, but that language was stripped out as part of the compromise that made the bill veto-proof. 

Of course, there's nothing that says the charter community cannot demand a fix to the problem in next year's budget bill.  Perhaps a section inserted into the bill the night before the final vote, returning the law to its original condition, and setting out financial penalties for districts that try to evade its provisions, hide their calculations, or drag their feet when it comes time to write the check...
   

.

Finally, some love (well, some 'like' anyway) from the press

Kudos to the Winston-Salem Journal for its editorial on Wednesday recognizing that allowing well-prepared charter applicants to open new schools as early as next August is a good thing.  The editors praise the State Board of Education for its decision earlier this month to allow a 'Fast Track' approval process for charter applicants who were turned down in the last round only because of the now-defunct cap.

"The state board has shown common sense here, cautiously deciding that charters must not be rushed into operation but also recognizing that, in some cases, an opening date of next August is reasonable."

The W-S Journal has been one of the few mainstream media outlets in the state to show even a qualified understanding of, or support for, charter schools.  Back in June the paper editorialized in support of the stripped down version of Senate Bill 8 that removed the cap in this year's session, but demonstrated a poor grasp of the details, calling many of the bill's original provisions "misguided." 

"Some legislators even proposed reducing standards for charters so low that they would, in effect, become subsidized home schools." 

...sigh....

Well, newspaper editors can't always know what they're talking about.  But still it's good to see that there is at least one paper that doesn't always spout the anti-charter talking points of the public education cartel's praetorian guard.

NC charters dodge a bullet

No news is good news

The September 'mini-session' of the General Assembly has come and gone, and the Honorables have taken no action on the two issues of interest to the charter community.  For that remarkable show of restraint, they are to be congratulated.  It's not often that an elected body at any level comes face to face with a golden opportunity to do something stupid, and doesn't do it.

The first opportunity involved approval of governor Perdue's long-overdue appointees to the State Board of Education.  Recall that at present there are three seats on the SBE that are being filled by 'holdovers,' members whose terms of office expired back in March but are allowed to stay on until their successors are approved. 

After months of delay, the governor finally submitted the names of three individuals (two incumbents, chairman Dr. Bill Harrison and NCAE shill Jean Wooland, and one newbie, a Mr. William Woltz) to fill the seats.  Had the legislature approved the appointments, those three persons would have had seats on the board until March of 2019.  But some clever person figured out that if the General Assembly simply declined to approve the appointments, a new (and potentially pro-charter) governor taking office in January of 2013 would then be able to nominate his own appointees, giving him a running start towards overhauling the current anti-charter board. 

The second opportunity had to do with the proposed constitutional amendment on governance of public education.  While there are a lot of good ideas in the proposal (like shortening the terms of office for SBE members from the current eight years to a more reasonable six), it would also strip from the legislature the power to approve or disapprove of the governor's appointees to the SBE.  The trade off there is that the leaders of the two legislative chambers would get to make a few appointments on their own, but the governor's eight appointees would still constitute a majority of the fifteen member board.  That provision needs some work.  We've seen what kind of damage an anti-charter governor can do, working through a compliant SBE, and we don't like it.

Wilmington Star-News Stuck on Stupid

All children can learn, but can all newspaper editors?

Remember that old saying about how it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people suspect that you're stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt?

The editors of the Wilmington Star-News apparently never heard that one.  How else to explain this embarrassing fiasco masquerading as an editorial in Tuesday's on-line edition?  Here's a specimen:

"It is encouraging that the council includes educators from both the public and charter school worlds. The emphasis must be to ensure that charter schools are accountable to the public and that they be judged as harshly when they fail as the public schools their advocates deride."

and...

"It is equally important that the state not be an excuse to dismantle the public schools, which have made steady progress over the past three decades, by depriving them of funding that is shifted to charter schools."

aaaaaand...

"Unlike the state board, which oversees all public schools, the advisory council will be charged only with scrutinizing charter-school performance."

and if you can stand one more...

"Markley [that's superintendent of New Hanover County Public Schools Tim Markley] is open to new ideas and is interested in finding out whether the charter school concept can work within the public schools."

There are only two possible reasons why anyone in North Carolina who's able to read and write (Charter Guy assumes that description includes the editors of the Wilmington Star-News) would continue to refer to "public schools" and "charter schools" as if they were two separate entities.  The first, and most charitable explanation, is that the persons in question are just plain stupid.  It can't be simple ignorance mind you; the editors make their living in the information business, so we have to conclude that they have the facts regarding the public status of charter schools at hand.  So either the editors are too stupid to understand that charter schools are public schools, or...

...they are deliberately trying to mislead their readers. 

Naw, couldn't be that.  But just in case, Charter Guy is going to place the Wilmington Star-News on the watch list for the prestigious Muhammed Saeed al-Sahhaf Award for Excellence in Counter-Factual Reporting.

Fast Track a Narrow Lane



Small is the gate and narrow the road...and only a few shall find it



As expected the State Board of Education approved the new "fast track" charter approval policy at its September 1st meeting.  The Raleigh News & Observer reported on that development here.   While the new policy is fine as far as it goes, don't expect to see new charter schools popping up like Starbucks in the nineties.  The new policy may create a straight and narrow path, but few will be able to follow it. 

According to the N&O report the office of charter schools is saying that there are six charter applications from last year that are eligible for fast track consideration.  That's not a lot of schools, but it's apparently too many for board member Jean Woolard, who was quoted by the N&O as saying "I'm a little bit wary about proceeding so rapidly."

Ms. Woolard is one of the board members governor Perdue would like to re-appoint to the board, and the General Assembly is scheduled to consider her nomination in its 'appointments bill' next week.  Perhaps our legislative leadership should be "a little bit wary about proceeding so rapidly" with Ms. Woolard's nomination.  After all, why should they rush to appoint to an eight-year term on the state board of education an NCAE activist who sees a problem with allowing the board to merely consider adding six charter schools a year?

Also on Charter Guy's radar are the comments towards the end of the article about buses and bus safety.  The article points out that buses used by charter schools are not subject to the same safety regulations as buses at district schools,clearly implying that charter school buses are less safe.  It quotes Derek Graham, section chief of transportation services for DPI, as saying the 183 buses and 24 vans now being used by charter schools makes him "cringe."  The article goes on to say that the new North Carolina public charter school advisory council will be asked (by the board, presumably) to "review the issue." 

Of course any bus or van used by a charter school to transport students must be in good condition and operated in a safe manner.  But readers will recall that transportation, or lack of it, was one of the phony issues crafted by the guardians of the failing status quo to derail the charter school bill in the last session of the General Assembly.  Don't be surprised if certain members of the council push for a recommendation to the board that all charter-owned vehicles used to transport students be required to meet costly new requirements.  And if they are successful in that effort, to follow up with a recommendation that all charter schools purchase vehicles to provide comprehensive student transportation.