Wendy
Lecker, a civil rights attorney in Stamford, joins the many
others who complain that charter schools have been
allowed to proliferate in an irresponsible manner, with minimal or no
supervision.
She
writes that it is time to reassess the charter movement and to set new
standards for accountability. Across the country, charter school frauds have
been exposed, in which the operators are profiting handsomely while refusing to
accept the same children as the neighboring district.
The
latest example is in North Carolina, where a local businessman
is making millions of dollars by supplying goods and services
to his four publicly-funded charter schools while insisting that he has no
obligation to open the books to public scrutiny. Connecticut has had its own
charter scandal, with the implosion of
Jumoke Academy.
Almost
daily, headlines are filled with stories of charter school fraud or
mismanagement. Recent revelations about possible illegal practices in charter
schools in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have led even charter
supporters to try to distance themselves from the “crony capitalism” fueling
this sector.
It
is cold comfort that Connecticut officials are not alone in allowing
unscrupulous charter operators to bilk taxpayers. It is time to reassess the
entire charter movement in Connecticut.
Recall
the original promises made by charter proponents: that they would benefit all
public schools — showing public schools the way by using “innovative” methods
to deliver a better education to struggling students in an efficient, less
expensive manner.
None
of those promises have been kept. Charters cannot point to any “innovations”
that lead to better achievement. Smaller classes and wraparound services are
not innovations — public schools have been begging for these resources for
years. Charter practices such as failing to serve our neediest children, e.g.,
English Language Learners and students with disabilities, and “counseling out”
children who cannot adhere to overly strict disciplinary policies, are not
“innovations” — and should be prohibited.
Charters
often spend more than public schools. Charters in Bridgeport and Stamford spend
more per pupil than their host districts. And while it appears that charters in
New Haven and Hartford spend comparable amounts, they serve a less needy, and
less expensive, population. Moreover, Connecticut charters need not pay for
special education services, transportation, or, if they serve fewer than 20 ELL
students, ELL services.
While
Connecticut owes billions of dollars to our neediest districts, officials provide
higher per-pupil allocations to charters. For example charter schools receive
$11,500 per pupil from the state, but Bridgeport’s ECS allocation is only
$8,662 per pupil. Bridgeport is owed an additional $5,446 according to the
CCJEF plaintiffs, not including the cost of teacher evaluations, the Common
Core, and other unfunded mandates imposed over the years.
Connecticut
increased charter funding over the past three years by $2,100 per pupil, while
our poorest school districts received an average increase of only $642 per
pupil.
Here
are Lecker’s proposals for reform of privately managed charter schools:
The
Annenberg Institute for School Reform’s “Public Accountability for Charter
Schools,” is a good starting point. The report outlines areas that demand
equity, accountability and transparency: such as enrollment, governance,
contracts, and management.
Connecticut
must require, as a condition of continued authorization, that charters serve
the same demographics as their host districts, through clearly delineated
controlled choice policies.
Charter
schools must maintain transparent and publicly available annual records and
policies regarding enrollment, discipline and attrition. Charters must ensure
that they do not employ subtle barriers to enrollment, such as strict
disciplinary policies or requirements for parent participation as a condition
of attendance. No such barriers exist in public schools.
Charters
must prove that they meet the specific needs of the host community in a way the
public schools do not. Charters must not be imposed over community opposition.
State officials must assess the negative impact of charters on a district,
including segregation and funding effects.
Charters
must post all contracts and fully disclose revenues and expenditures. Charter
officials, board members and employees must undergo background checks and
disclose any relationships with contractors, state officials and others dealing
with their school. Parents in charter schools must be allowed to elect charter
board members.
Charters
must show evidence annually that their unique educational methods improve
achievement.
