Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Pennsylvania Legislation Would Allow Charters to Open Without Permission from Hostile School Boards

Bob Kellogg, EAGnews.org

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Charter schools are supposed to be useful tools for families that desire more choices in education.

But in Pennsylvania there aren’t nearly enough charter schools, and approximately 40,000 students have been left languishing on waiting lists.

That’s because current state law gives local school boards the power to determine if new charter schools can open. Sometimes the school boards deny the proposals, because they don’t want competition for students and the state money attached to them.

One state lawmaker, Sen. Warren Smucker, has introduced a bill that would free prospective charter schools from the whims of local school boards.

They would be allowed to open if they could secure a charter through a state university, whether the nearest school board liked it or not.

The proposal would almost certainly lead to the creation of more charter schools in Pennsylvania, and more opportunities for the 40,000 students on the waiting lists.

But teachers’ unions and local school boards are strongly opposing the bill, for obviously selfish reasons.

Senate Bill 1085 would change the way charter schools are authorized, held accountable and funded.

But the most controversial part of the bill is related to authorization. School boards, and their allies in the teachers unions, would no longer have the power to determine whether proposed charter schools get off the ground or not.

According to Kara Kerwin, president of the Center for Education Reform (CER), “… what this bill sought to do initially was to allow universities to become authorizers so that this tension between charters and districts would dissipate and allow really good schools to open and flourish.”

Nathan Benefield, vice president for policy analysis at the Commonwealth Foundation, says the current system of requiring school board approval has not worked well from a school choice perspective.

It’s a lot like a Wendy’s needing permission from a nearby McDonald’s to open, Benefield says.

Universities would demand quality

The unions, school boards and the American Federation of Teachers Pennsylvania Law Center have been very vocal in their opposition to the bill, and have been using phony smoke screens to justify their position.

One of their arguments is that the bill, if passed, would allow the unfettered expansion of charter schools leading to lower performance standards.

But Benefield points out that, “Thirteen other states allow universities to authorize charter schools. And what the evidence has found is that, in many cases, (universities are) actually more selective and reject more applicants than even school districts do.”

One of the big benefits of using university authorizers, according to Benefield, is that they have the ability to study more successful charter schools and demand that applicants replicate proven systems and practices.

Benefield admits, “…that really hasn’t been done as well as we could do in Pennsylvania. But states that have higher ed authorizers, a lot of these universities set up systems to really study the charter schools they authorize and find out what works and stick to that model.”

Under the proposed law, university authorizers would need to be in the same geographical region in which a proposed charter school would operate.

They would be expected to evaluate charter school operators using “objective data” and nationally recognized principles and standards of quality, including those of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA). They would be required to report the effectiveness of the schools they authorize to the state Board of Education.

Benefield says the proposed new system would allow charter schools to secure state funding without having to go through local school districts. In some situations around the nation, local school boards have refused to hand over state money intended for nearby charter schools, claiming they need it to keep their own doors open.

Kerwin says the teachers unions and school boards are attempting to block the bill because they would lose control over the number of charter schools and the number of students that attend them.

That would mean a loss of revenue for traditional schools and their labor unions. The unions couldn’t collect as much dues revenue because there wouldn’t be a need for as many teachers in the traditional schools.

Charter schools rarely hire union teachers.

This is yet another example of public school advocates putting the needs of adults ahead of the needs of students, Kerwin says.

An accusation recently published on the Keystone Politics website, which offers pro-union political news and commentary, says, “In many cases, tuition rates to charter schools are so bloated that charter school operators are able to pocket millions of taxpayer dollars at the same time our local school districts are raising taxes and slashing programs to pay their charter school tuition bills.”

Kerwin flatly denies the allegation. She says the current funding system works a lot like it does in other states, where charter schools get less money per student than traditional schools, and the traditional schools get to keep the difference.

Pennsylvania charter schools receive on average 30 percent less per pupil than traditional public schools, she says.

“The current Pennsylvania charter school law (says) that when a student chooses to leave a traditional public school and go to a public charter school, the district still gets a kickback for a student they’re not educating anymore.

“So with the disparity in funding for charter schools . . . [that] is not a strong argument to say that charters are taking money by profiting on the backs of children.”

Legislation still in the works

Of course charter schools are not perfect.

Nick Trombetta, the former CEO of the Midland-based Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, is currently facing allegations that he conspired to skim millions of dollars of public funds. He faces up to 100 years in prison if convicted.

Benefield notes that there are also many examples of abuse among public school officials.

“So abuses among charter schools shouldn’t be an indictment against the system,” he says.

“…The charter school law from the start has been subject to the whims of politicians and people in power,” Kerwin complains. “Allowing universities to grant authorization for charter schools would help eliminate charters from being subject to the whims of politicians and people in power.”

The bottom line is that the traditional schools and unions are interfering with the desire of many families to find alternative schools for their children. The people clearly want more charter schools, but the education establishment, and its allies in the Democratic Party, don’t want the people to have their way.

For now, SB 1085 is in bipartisan negotiations between the House and the Senate as lawmakers try to iron out differences and clarify the bill. According to a spokesperson from Sen. Smucker’s office, the negotiations are going well but there’s no possibility of a vote on SB 1085 before June.

Kerwin says that is not necessarily a bad thing.

She says the proposal evolved over time and the current bill “brought along a lot of baggage from other legislative cycles that involves a lot of over-regulatory language that is unnecessary. And there are some parts of the bill that could financially hurt charter schools even more so than they already are.”

“If the lawmakers can’t get it together to pass a revised SB 1085, then voters should remember that during the upcoming November elections,” Kerwin says.

In the meantime, the 40,000 students on the waiting list will just have to wait.