Main Provisions

Section 1 Intent is to provide more high-quality school choices. “High-quality public schools” provide learning environments for improved student performance.

Section 2 “Charter” is contract between applicant (non-profit, non-sectarian public benefit corporation) and sponsor (the local school district or state/regional university).

Section 3 Charter Public Schools (charter schools) may rent, lease or own property. They may accept gifts and donations (except from sectarian/religious organizations). They may not charge tuition, levy taxes, or issue tax-backed bonds.

Section 4 Charter schools include one or more K-12 grades, and operate according to renewable 5-year contract with sponsor.

Section 5 Charter schools have own boards and operate independently from any school district board. They must meet health, safety and civil rights laws, participate in national standardized achievement tests and assessment examinations, employ certified instructional staff, meet the same financial and audit requirements as school districts, and report annually to the State, sponsor, and parents.

Section 6 Charter schools must enroll all who submit timely application. Discrimination not allowed (race, religion, gender, income level, intellect, disability status, athletic ability…) except for age or grade level. Priority system is specified if applications exceed space available.

Sections 7, 8 & 9 Charter school application to include mission statement, plan for evaluating student performance, 5-year financial plan (including proposed equipment, services, and insurance contracts). Sponsor evaluation process spelled out, including public hearings, written response, etc. Evaluation criteria to be used by sponsor listed.

Sections 10 & 11 Processes for amending, renewal or revocation of charter.

Section 12 Charter schools receive the $/student FTE state funding that would have gone to the school district. They are to be included in local levy planning and funding (unless the sponsor is not a school district). State and local capital funding is addressed.

Section 13 Limits administration costs.

Sections 14 & 15 Establishes start-up fund ($250/student).

Section 17 Sets up study of the results of this act.

Section 18 Limits the number of charter schools to 20/year for 4 years, exclusive of conversion of conventional public schools).

Sections 16,19-24 Leave of absence, collective bargaining rights, retirement for employees.

Arguments For and Against

• Additional choices for students, parents and teachers.
• Other states have experienced enhanced student achievement with charter schools.
• Charter schools can revitalize interest in public schools and catalyze change.
• Charter schools provide controlled educational laboratories.
• As proposed in I-729, charter schools do not threaten the public school system.
• Additional state expenditure limited to start-up funds ($4-8 million/year)
• Accountability to taxpayers is assured through the sponsor (5 year charter).
• Charter schools have relativity free regulatory environment.

Against

• Low income minority students have the greatest needs and are least likely to benefit.
• The national experience so far fails to show that charter schools meet their objectives.
• Charter schools require great effort from parents who are willing and able to volunteer.
• School districts are already providing innovative programs.
• Monitoring requirements, and diversion of private sector funding and parental energy will strain the system.
• Home and private school children by return and drive up the costs.
• Although spending taxpayer dollars, charter boards not elected by the voters.
• Charter schools exempt from most statutes applying to school districts.

The board was not able to reach the 2/3 majority vote necessary to take a position on this issue.  The League encourages continued discussion and debate on charter schools.

Rationale

Some see charter schools as providing more choice, and as laboratories for change; others see them as draining energy and resources from the public school system. A discussion of these issues is healthy, and this state should at least follow results from charter school experiments elsewhere.