Statement of Education Voters: Comment on proposed School Code language

As adopted by the Senate on December 10^th, 2015

 

We are troubled that during this protracted budget stalemate the Senate has chosen to pass a bill that contains what is essentially a state takeover and charter school conversion model that is only for Philadelphia, and that provides language that could limit any community’s ability to place reasonable enrollment limits in their contracts with charter vendors. Communities must retain authority over the contracts they are obligated to pay for.  We support the establishment of a commission to study the issue of charter school funding but believe that the charter sector should be limited to informing the process rather than being provided with seats on the voting body.

The “Opportunity Schools” provision.

First, this portion of legislation is specific to Philadelphia. We’d like to point out the irony of the state “taking over” schools it already runs. If the problem is one of management and oversight, it seems reasonable that the first step might be to return the district to local control. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have a great track record for running schools and school districts and simply changing the management of a school has not been proven to improve student outcomes.  There is no provision for community engagement and public input either, which is of deep concern.

Furthermore, there are no additional resources dedicated to this process provided to facilitate these proposed changes in the short run or the long term, placing the school district and the city in financial jeopardy, and most importantly, jeopardizing the quality of education for all the other children in the district. Given that a portion of any funding must be set aside for the charter payout in the subsequent years, the funding for all of this is very complicated and provides ongoing instability for the School District.

More specifically, we have concerns about the requirement to convert at least 6 and up to 15 schools to charters in 3 years, which will have a significant harmful fiscal impact, both immediately and in the long run. This is a dramatic level of interference.  

A good alternative would be to require the School District of Philadelphia to conduct the detailed audits provided for in the legislation and to require the district to file a detailed 24-month school improvement plan with specific action steps and interventions that are supported by research. PDE should provide an oversight liaison responsible for both working with the SDP to ensure that the plan is being implemented and responsible for reporting to the Secretary and the School Reform Commission on a bi-monthly basis regarding progress.

Enrollment limits for charter schools. This legislation creates troubling loopholes through language pertaining to enrollment and expansion. This appears to be a back door approach that will potentially limit the ability of every community in the Commonwealth to provide reasonable enrollment limits in the charter agreements.

 Waivers: We are additionally concerned by the proposed language offering extraordinary latitude to the Secretary to provide waivers to requirements. Arguably, requirements and statutes were adopted by the legislature for a reason and the review of requirements should be subject to a review and input process so that appropriate consideration of the consequences on students, learning conditions and the community can occur.

Building Provision.  The provision in the legislation giving charter organizations the right of first refusal on buildings is also of significant concern. Districts should be free to market and sell their building as they see fit, to get the best price. Furthermore, when charters fail or close, any property obtained with funds provided by the taxpayers should be returned to the taxpayers.

The Commission on Charter School Funding. This commission should be a legislative commission. It is reasonable that the commission would take testimony and be advised by members of the sector, but the charter schools should not have any vote(s) on the proposed commission.

Changing the makeup of the charter school appeal board to allow the sector to have voting seats is problematic. Again, it is reasonable for the board to take testimony, to consult with and be advised by representatives, but providing charter school representatives with any dedicated seat or vote(s) is not appropriate.

On the positive, it is our position that a commission to study the issue of charter funding is a good step. We need to understand the impact the additional sector has had on the system.

Ultimately, we need the legislature to create a system of funding for public education that matches the means of delivery: we have to be prepared to pay what it costs for each child to meet state standards in the public schools we authorize.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact our office for addition information or clarification or for any additional public comment.

Contact Susan Gobreski, Executive Director, at susan@educationvoterspa.org or at 267-972-8066.

 

Education Voters of PA is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to supporting great public schools in every community and an opportunity to learn for all children.