Translate

Showing posts with label Texas charter schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas charter schools. Show all posts

Sunday, January 24, 2021

Commentary: The steep price of charter schools by Texas State Rep. Mary E. González and Michael Lee

Texas state representative Mary Gonzalez and Michael Lee in this commentary lay out what amounts to a new reason why we should resist funding charter schools as a state, citing of the exportation of our tax dollars to other states as a consequence of approving Learn4Life and Doral charter schools: 

"Exporting your tax dollars to another state removes those funds from the Texas economy, enriching other states at the expense of our own. That’s something we should be reluctant to do at any time, much less in the middle of a global pandemic, historic unemployment and an economic recession. But this is nothing new. These are simply the most recent charter companies with out-of-state ties to be approved to operate in Texas."

A pertinent policy solution that would save at least $882 million that would go to traditional public schools is one where charters receive the same per-student funding as the districts where charters are located (source: Support a legislative agenda for all Texas students in 2019 and level the playing field for public schools). 

-Angela Valenzuela

Commentary: The steep price of charter schools

Charter schools receive an average of $1,150 more per student compared with the traditional school district.
Photo: Tom Reel /Staff photographer

Thursday, July 11, 2019

Support a legislative agenda for all Texas students in 2019 and level the playing field for public schools







Here is my second and  very important post on charter schools this morning.  Quoting from this report, here is why it's important to re-consider charter schools as a matter of public policy.
Why it’s important: 
  • Charter schools receive more per-student funding to maintain and operate schools than schools in districts that enroll 94 percent of all students in Texas. In fact, charter schools receive up to $2,200 more in per-student funding than some district schools, yet charters pay their teachers an average of $5,538 less per year than school districts.
  • Charters enroll just 6 percent of all students, but they receive 1/6 of all state funds for public education.*
  • The state would save $882 million over this biennium if charters received the same per-student funding as the districts where charters have the highest enrollment.
*How is it fair that charter schools receive 1/6th of all state funds despite enrolling only 6 percent of the population?  Does this not at all sound scandalous to you?!

It was super interesting to learn in my recent trip to China that public education at all levels are the very best institutions.  They don't have charter schools, but they do have private ones.  And those are the schools that you have to go to if you don't compete well to make it into the public schools and universities.

Check out all the major signatories to this omnibus report that guided efforts during the 86th 2019 Texas legislative session. 

To all of this, I would add that we need to adhere the Deweyan ideal of classrooms as our nation's laboratories for democracy.  Our children's education is not to be outsourced or reduced to a consumer good—especially when we all pay into this system as taxpayers.

We need  to own public  education and view education budgets as our inheritance or birthright.  After all, a great education should be a right and not a privilege.  Folks need to wise up and not only support our schools and public education, but get actively involved and deeply invested in them.  And what an honor to be able to do so.  Read on.
-Angela Valenzuela
In February 2019, 15 major education groups in Texas released a policy agenda for charter schools in Texas. The groups include:
  • Association of Texas Professional Educators (ATPE)
  • Coalition for Education Funding
  • Fast Growth School Coalition
  • Intercultural Development and Research Association
  • Pastors for Texas Children
  • Raise Your Hand Texas
  • Texas American Federation of Teachers
  • Texas Association of Community Schools
  • Texas Association of Midsize Schools
  • Texas Association of School Administrators
  • Texas Association of School Boards
  • Texas Classroom Teachers Association
  • Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association
  • Texas School Alliance
  • Texas State Teachers Association
Below is the text of the joint policy agenda. See the PDF version: English   Spanish

Teacher groups, school administrators, school board members, and public education advocates have come together to support a legislative agenda that will increase the transparency and efficiency of charter schools in Texas.

  • Recent reports shed light on the unlimited growth of charter schools and raise significant issues about the future and funding of public education. The House Committee on Public Education Interim Report, for example, includes information about charters’ funding advantages over districts; the need for expanded public notice about charter expansion; and charter schools’ ability to exclude certain students. In addition, data from the Legislative Budget Board highlight that charter funding has doubled over five years to about $3 billion. While charters currently enroll 6 percent of students, they receive one-sixth of all state dollars for public education.
  • This legislative agenda provides common sense solutions to level the playing field for public education; ensures that all students have equal access to educational opportunities; provides parents with important information about charter school choices; provides the public with input into decision-making; and closes loopholes to avoid potential misuse of state funds.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

1. Inform the public about charter school expansion and increase opportunities for public input into the charter application and amendment process.

Why it’s important: Over 400 new charter schools have been approved in the last six years through the charter amendment process alone with little review and almost zero public notice or community input. For example, charter amendments are not posted on the Texas Education Agency (TEA) website until after they are approved by the Commissioner, so the public is not informed about new charter schools proposed in their community and has no opportunity to contact the Commissioner.
a) Charter schools will make presentations about expansion amendment requests or new charter school applications at a public meeting of the district School Board where a new charter school will be located and at districts included in the geographic boundary of the new charter within a 10-mile radius of the new school. The charter presentations at the School Board meetings will be conducted before the charter submits its application or amendment to TEA and will allow for public comment.
b) TEA will post all charter amendments on the TEA website within five business days of submission.
c) TEA will post information about public meetings conducted as part of the new charter application process at least ten business days before the hearing is conducted.
d) TEA will standardize the list of individuals and entities that are informed about any charter amendment or new charter application, including: Superintendents and School Board members of districts included in the geographic boundary of the charter; all members of the State Board of Education; and state representatives and state senators that represent any portion of school districts within the charter geographic boundary.
e) The State Board of Education will have authority to veto a charter amendment that has been approved by the Commissioner in the same manner that it exercises veto authority over new charter applications.
f) TEA will provide at least an 18-month advance notice to school districts before new charter schools can open to allow for an efficient transition.
g) Applicants for new charter applications and expansion amendments must indicate the specific school district, geographical area, and zip code within the district where they intend to locate a new charter school, or the specific physical address if it is available, so that both charters and school districts can provide more accurate information to decision-makers about the actual impact of the new charter school on district schools and the need for the specific charter school, before the approval of any new charter.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2. TEA will create and manage a standard application for charter schools and maintain the charter school wait list of students.

Why it’s important: Policy and budget decisions are made by the Texas Legislature based on the existence of a large charter wait list of students. Yet, this list is created and maintained by individual charter schools that each use different protocols to manage their own wait list. As a result, the wait list cannot be verified for accuracy or duplication, and it is not available for public review. Creating a standard charter application managed by TEA would allow the agency to maintain the charter wait list, avoid duplication, and provide more reliable information to decision makers. It would be cost efficient and make enrollment easier for parents.
a) Students will apply for charter schools using a standard application developed and managed by TEA.
b) TEA will manage the charter school wait list of students and develop operational guidelines.
c) Student names will be removed from the charter school wait list at the beginning of the next academic year after applications are submitted.
d) TEA will issue an annual public report by December 31 with verifiable and non-duplicative wait list information for the state, by individual charter school, and for each group of affiliated charter schools that includes: the number of students on the wait list; the number of student applications; enrollment numbers and the demographics of enrollees; current approved charter enrollment capacity, including grade level (if available); and the operational guidelines developed for maintaining the wait list.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

3. Provide all students equal access to enroll in charters.

Why it’s important: Charter schools in Texas are not required by law to accept all students. Charter schools are allowed to exclude any student from enrollment who has any discipline history — even for minor offenses — which effectively discriminates against certain student groups that have a disproportionate percentage of discipline actions. Charters also serve an average of 34 percent fewer students with special needs compared to school districts. These exclusions often result in a disproportionate percentage of students with specific challenges enrolled in local neighborhood schools that accept all students.
a) Delete the discipline exclusion in the law that allows charter schools to exclude students with discipline history from enrollment.
b) Require charters to observe the same rules and limits as school districts to expel or suspend a student.
c) Do not allow charters to include questions on the charter enrollment application about the student’s special education classifications, language proficiency, or discipline or behavior history.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

4. Consider the impact of new charter schools on local school districts and neighborhood schools before any new charter school is approved.

Why it’s important: The unlimited growth of charter schools has a fiscal, academic, and program impact on local neighborhood schools and school districts. Yet, charters often open within only 2-3 miles of existing neighborhood schools that are already meeting state accountability standards and have capacity to serve additional students. Locating new charter schools in close proximity to existing neighborhood schools can be an inefficient use of limited public tax dollars.
The Commissioner will consider the impact of charter schools on neighborhood schools and school districts in the charter approval process for amendments and new applications:
a) Respond in writing to the concerns from districts that have submitted a “statement of impact” form as part of the new charter application or expansion amendment process.
b) Issue a public report at least 15 business days before charter amendments are approved and before new charter applicant interviews are held at TEA that includes a summary of district concerns outlined in the “statement of impact” forms submitted by school districts for each new charter request. The Commissioner will also include a fiscal note in the report with TEA estimates of the total cost of each new charter school to the state and to local districts over five years, including recapture payments. This public report must be posted in a prominent place on the TEA website; sent out as a “To the Administrator Addressed” communication from TEA to all school districts in the state; and provided to every State Board of Education member and state legislator who represents any portion of the attendance boundary for the new charter school.
d) Consider the proximity of proposed new charter schools to existing neighborhood schools and whether local demographics can support an additional new school.
e) The Legislative Budget Board shall prepare an annual report by December 31 that documents the financial impact of charter schools on the state budget, district public schools, and public education, including the effect on district recapture payments.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

5. Disclose charter school financial dealings to the public — leases, mortgages, contracts, and bond debt.

Why it’s important: Charters receive almost $3 billion in state funds annually, yet many charter school financial dealings are not disclosed to the public and not available for public review. Recent disclosures raise serious concerns about how some charters have spent public funds.
a) Charters will report ownership of all facilities annually and make copies of lease and mortgage agreements available as an addendum to their annual financial statement.
b) Close the loophole that allows charters to create an affiliated organization for the purpose of purchasing school facilities that are paid for with public funds. These school facilities should become the property of the state if the charter closes rather than the property of the affiliated organization.
c) If state funds have been used to purchase any charter facility, the charter operator will file an affidavit with the County Clerk in the county where charter facility is located in order to provide notice that the state of Texas has a financial interest in the deed to the charter property should the charter close.
d) Charters will report annually to TEA by December 31 providing information about how the $60 million in facility funding received from the state was expended in the prior year.
e) Charters will disclose all bond debt annually, and all new charter bonds will require approval from the Texas Bond Review Board.
f) Charters will be subject to the same contract procurement rules as school districts to increase competitiveness and avoid conflict of interest.
g) Charters will post information about all contracts on their website.
h) Charter schools can only use state funds for the same lawful purposes as traditional public schools. For example, charters will not be allowed to make political contributions using state funds or to send political emails through the charter network or charter schools.
i) Include charter schools in the state whistleblower statute.
j) Charter schools will conduct the same safety audits required of school districts.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

6. Help parents make an informed enrollment choice.

Why it’s important: It can be difficult for many parents to make an informed choice about charter school enrollment because important information about charters is generally not posted on charter websites and can be difficult to find. Parents may assume that charters offer the same services, programs, and teacher qualifications as school districts, but that is often not the case.
a) Charters will post key information about each charter school in their district on the charter website. Information that should be provided includes, for example: student performance; alternative accountability status; student demographics including the percent of students enrolled with special education needs; student (and parent) codes of conduct; student suspension, expulsion, and attrition rates; graduation requirements; a list of parental rights and parent participation requirements; student transportation availability; availability of extracurricular activities such as music, arts, and sports; and information about teachers, including: percentage of teachers who are uncertified or assigned to teach outside of their certification, years of experience, annual attrition rate, and average salaries.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

7. Pay charters the same per student funding as the districts where they are located.

Why it’s important: 
  • Charter schools receive more per-student funding to maintain and operate schools than schools in districts that enroll 94 percent of all students in Texas. In fact, charter schools receive up to $2,200 more in per-student funding than some district schools, yet charters pay their teachers an average of $5,538 less per year than school districts.
  • Charters enroll just 6 percent of all students, but they receive 1/6 of all state funds for public education.
  • The state would save $882 million over this biennium if charters received the same per-student funding as the districts where charters have the highest enrollment.
a) Change state funding formulas to make per-student funding for charters equal to the statewide average per-student funding that local school districts receive.
b) Require charter schools to pay the same amount to the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) as school districts pay for teacher salaries over the statutory minimum, which would free up $25 million in state funds and help to shore up TRS; or create parity that allows school districts to make the same payments to TRS that charter schools make.

Why Is Charter School Growth Slowing?

Politics are policies are definite factors, as well as the fact that the evidence is getting out that these are, on average, not yielding the results that either match their hype or that actually lead to higher academic achievement and thusly, to graduation rates, relative to the traditional public school system.  

Do read this widely-read post to my blog which is a report on Texas charter schools conducted by the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) out of San Antonio titled, "Texas Charter School System Suffers Low Graduation Rates."  Go to link on my blog to read about this. Also read: "Charters and Consequences" by the Public Education Network and follow them on Twitter at @
Network4pubEd

Parents, don't believe the hype.  And think twice before enrolling your child in a charter schools.  Not that they're all bad, but rather that on average, literally, they are a risky proposition.



As importantly, don't be a "consumer" which is the kind of identity that this industry forces you into becoming, but rather an "owner," meaning a deep sense of ownership regarding our children's future in the public arena where you have a voice through elected school boards and public accountability processes.  You hand over these rights and processes to a corporation when you pursue charter schools.  

And join the movement for public, community schools and grassroots organizing for educational change.  We NEED you at the school board meetings, in the Texas State Legislature, at the State Board of Education where charters are approved, and as advocates for your schools. 

By this, I do not at all mean to accept things as they are, but rather as they should be, including community-oriented, inclusive, equitable, social justice oriented, culturally and linguistically resonant curriculum and pedagogy, Ethnic Studies, university partnerships, homegrown educators and leaders, arts-infused, ecologically literate, and all the wonderful things that we as students, parents, and community can envision for the  future of public education.

Sí se puede!  Yes we can!

-Angela Valenzuela







Why Is Charter School Growth Slowing? New NACSA Research Offers Insights — But No Easy Answers.


 After growing rapidly for the past decade, the pace of charter school growth has slowed in recent years, provoking consternation among some charter school supporters — as well as debate about causes and responses. As my Bellwether colleagues noted in a recent report on the state of the charter sector, there are multiple potential factors influencing this shift, and it can be difficult to know which are at play because recent trends and the different factors influencing them vary considerably across states and geographies.
Ultimately, however, the pace of charter school growth is a function of just a few factors:
  • How many individuals, organizations, and groups apply to establish new schools?
  • What percentage of those applications are approved?
  • Are existing schools growing, and by how much?
  • What percentage of charter schools are closed?
Charter school authorizers (which I was one of when I served on the DC Public Charter School Board) are the entities entrusted in state law to approve and oversee charter schools. These bodies are uniquely positioned to shed light on the first two questions.
Reinvigorating the Pipeline,” a new report from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), explores what authorizer data can tell us. NACSA (on whose board I now serve) reviewed nearly 3,000 charter applications to authorizers in 20 states who oversee more than two-thirds of charter schools nationally. The report surfaces some interesting insights:
  • There is wide variation in the types of schools that charter applicants propose to create, including classical, “no excuses,” inquiry-based or child-centered, vocational, alternative/credit recovery, blended/hybrid, STEM, and arts schools.
  • Applications for some types of schools are much more common than others,and approval rates also vary widely across types of schools created. Schools proposing to implement classical or “no excuses” models are more than twice as likely to be approved than those proposing arts-focused, gifted-education, and single-sex models.
  • The percentage of charter applications for schools using “no excuses” models declined considerably in the past five years, as did the percentage of “no excuses” schools approved.
  • The majority of charter applicants are for stand-alone schools not affiliated with a charter network or management organization. Indeed, despite common perceptions that networks dominate the charter sector, the percentage of applications for free-standing schools is at a five-year high. Schools affiliated with nonprofit charter management organizations (CMOs) are more likely to be approved than free-standing schools, but, because there are more applications from free-standing schools, CMO-run and free-standing schools each account for about 40% of approved applications. Schools run by for-profit education management organizations, which have attracted considerable criticism in recent years, account for only about 20% of approved schools, and applications for EMO-run schools have declined dramatically.
  • The types of schools that applicants propose to create vary widely across states. Applications for blended or hybrid models, for example, account for more than a quarter of proposals in Arizona, D.C., and Illinois, while authorizers in Connecticut and Minnesota received no applications for this type of model. Conversely, proposals for child-centered models such as Waldorf or Montessori accounted for a much larger share of applications in some states (e.g., Minnesota and Georgia) than others. And groups associated with EMOs accounted for a meaningful percentage of applicants in only a few states but were a big percentage in Florida, Ohio, and Arizona. All of this suggests that what the “charter sector” looks like varies widely across states and communities, a factor that bears remembering in national dialogue about charters.
In some ways, the report raises more questions than it answers. It can’t tell us, for example, why some types of charter applications are much more common than others, or why authorizers are more likely to approve certain types of schools. Further, it’s not easy to tell whether trends in the number of applications for different types of schools reflect intrinsic demand and interest of prospective founders and their communities, or whether perceptions of political and other barriers (such as lack of access to facilities), authorizers’ openness to certain types of models or to approving new charter applications at all, and other political and policy factors are influencing the pipeline of applications that authorizers receive.
These are questions that deserve further inquiry. And given the high level of state and local variation in charter growth and pipelines, many of these questions need to be explored at the state and local level, not just nationally.
But by bringing this data to bear, NACSA is helping to shed empirical light on key questions facing the charter movement — and also countering some common misperceptions about the charter sector. I hope that this work provokes further dialogue and inquiry for the field.