Court limits statewide charter schools
A state appeals court has restricted the State Board of Education’s authority to allow charter school organizations to open up multiple sites statewide.
In a decision issued last week, the California 1st Court of Appeals ruled that the State Board improperly granted Aspire Public Schools charters for schools in Stockton and Los Angeles. If the ruling stands, the charters may be revoked for those schools and four more that Aspire granted since the 2007 suit was filed. Aspire also could reapply to local districts for charters where the schools are located.
At issue is the State Board’s power to grant charters of statewide benefit that bypass local districts’ oversight. During the decade that it has had the authority, the State Board has interpreted its power broadly but used it selectively, granting only three established charter organizations – Aspire, High Tech High, based in San Diego, and Magnolia Schools, based in Los Angeles – the right to open schools without geographic restrictions.
State law requires that in granting a statewide charter, the State Board must find that “the proposed state charter school will provide instructional services of statewide benefit that cannot be provided by a charter school operating in only one school district, or only in one county.”
The State Board has used this clause to encourage strong charter organizations to establish a statewide presence and to operate efficiently, avoiding the expense and hassles of local charter applications and idiosyncratic, local requirements. Statewide benefit status would be the gold standard given to a proven few.
But the Ed Coalition – California School Boards Assn., Association of California School Administrators and the California Teachers Assn. – and Stockton Unified sued over the interpretation of the law. They argued that statewide benefit should be viewed narrowly, as a school that provides a unique service, like a military academy or a distinct performing arts charter, that would serve students statewide. They also argued that the state board shouldn’t be granting a charter that a local district could issue. The intent of the charter law was to put local districts in charge.
The appeals court agreed 3-0, and, in overturning the district court’s decision, Judge Maria Rivera wrote that the charter law “reflects an intent to promote district chartered schools and local oversight while allowing for limited exceptions.”
Oakland-based Aspire operates 25 schools in Oakland, Los Angeles and the Central Valley, and plans to open three or four per year. Most of the charters have been issued by local districts – proof, the Ed Coalition argued, that Aspire doesn’t need statewide benefit authority to replicate its model successfully.
The State Board discussed its response to the ruling – whether to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court or take other actions — in closed session this week.
8 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
This is a most unfortunate ruling. If one looks at the record of outstanding success CMOs like Aspire have achieved juxtaposed to the districts from whom they sought charters and were subsequently denied, there is no need for an argument. These Aspire Charter schools provide excellent educational opportunities, and more importantly extraordinary results, compared to the schools run by typical school districts in the same geographic boundaries. I would hope that the SBE would indeed challenge this unfortunate ruling.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Helpful information for readers who are unfamiliar with the nature of the CA board of education is @ http://thebroadreport.blogspot.com/2010/05/getting-to-know-schwarzenegger.html
Helpful information for readers who don’t know about Magnolia School’s connection to the Gulen charter school network @
http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2010/06/magnolia-schools-charter-management.html
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Magnolia Schools are part of the national network of Gulen charter schools that the Perimeter Primate blog has been researching: … “The Gulen (or Hizmet) movement is an international religious and cultural movement being carried through by followers of Fetullah Gulen, a controversial Turkish Islamic leader. One of the primary activities is the establishment of schools which are operated by members of the movement. Evidence points to the likelihood that U.S. dollars for public education are supporting this private ideology by unknowingly sustaining these charter schools.” …
http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/p/gulen-school-characteristics.html
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John, can you help define what you mean by “…the expense and hassles of local charter applications and idiosyncratic, local requirements”? As I’ve looked at policies derived from the Ed. Code sections that apply to Charter schools, it seems that the state impels districts to accept Charter schools, unless the application has certain, defined deficiencies. Dr. Parker seems to imply that the ruling would have a dampening effect on the opportunity for an alternative that’s “outstanding…excellent…extraordinary….” Why is that? Doesn’t the ruling merely tie accountability for the Charter school to the community it serves and resources it shares via the District’s Governance team (i.e., Board plus Superintendent), unless the Charter’s offering truly transcends District/County boundaries? I would expect a great Charter operator to more readily offer complete and responsive applications, no?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Kevin: In a system where all local districts followed the law and didn’t throw up roadblocks in an effort to delay or discourage even excellent charter schools, what you say would be true. But that is not always the case, and the statewide benefit provision would allow a select group of charter providers to replicate without having to win on appeal, either to the county offices of education or the State Board.
Aspire would have one set of accountability requirements that would apply to all of its schools. Certainly that would be more efficient. That assumes that the state does thorough oversight. One part of the suit I didn’t get into involved the State Board’s failure to follow up on conditions that it set in approving the Aspire charters. Judge Rivera found fault with the State Board and sided with the plaintiffs in this aspect as well.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It’s unfair and irresponsible to accuse school districts wholesale of violating the law and “throwing up roadblocks.” The fair viewpoint would be that school district officials are trying to do their job by working to make responsible decisions in approving charters. That accusation is aimed at intimidating school district officials into erring on the side of stifling concerns and voting to approve, which clearly would result in more approvals of shaky proposals. It also conflicts with (and/or exposes as bogus) the current charter industry professions of newfound concern for holding troubled charters accountable. Can you simultaneously profess that troubled charters should be held accountable while also pressuring school district officials to suppress their better judgment and err on the side of approving? Rhetorical question — no, you cannot — not if you want to be consistent.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
…The entire notion of charter advocates’ pronouncing judgment from afar on school districts for supposedly unfairly denying charters — and for exercising their judgment in holding charter schools accountable — is not just a really bad idea; it’s outrageous. Back in 2001, voices from all over the country were denouncing the SFUSD Board of Education for holding now-failed Edison Schools Inc. accountable (for problems that it turned out were shared by Edison’s client districts nationwide, though all those critics “forgot” to look into that point — check it and lose it, after all). It was out of line then for editorial boards in San Jose, New York (the WSJ) and D.C. (USA Today)to pressure our district not to use its judgment in holding a charter school in its district accountable, and similar behavior is still problematic today. Again, what if we just turn the oversight of charter schools — and I guess the approval process too — over to editorial boards and pro-charter bloggers? That would seem to be the logical basis of the thinking that leads editorial boards and pro-charter bloggers to attempt to intimidate elected board of education commissioners into failing to exercise due diligence in making decisions on charter proposals.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
As I posted earlier, one of these charter operators is part of the nationwide Gulen network of charter schools. Here are some fun and games from another school in that network, reported on the This Week in Education blog:
CHICAGO–The Chicago Math and Science Academy (CMSA), a public charter school, fired a highly regarded pregnant teacher who helped organize a union at the school in June. The firing occurred as the school also challenged its teachers’ right to form a union.
The teacher, Rhonda Hartwell, was eight months pregnant at the time of her firing and was forced to move up her scheduled delivery to ensure it occurred before her health insurance was cut off.
http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2010/08/reform-charter-fires-pregnant-teacher-for-organizing.html
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity