California Educator

April / May 2019

Issue link: http://educator.cta.org/i/1103796

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 41 of 73

2. 3. PROBLEM: There is no local control over privately operated charter schools. Under current law, it can be very difficult and sometimes impossible to prevent a privately managed charter school from opening. Independent charter operators are not required to show there is a need for additional classroom seats in the district — unlike school districts seeking to build new sites. And charter school operators are not required to prove they offer a superior education or target an underserved population. Many districts have denied charters, only to see them approved by the county or the State Board of Education (SBE). And school districts are required by law to provide free space to charters — even when it's a hardship for exist- ing schools. Prop. 39, passed in 2000, requires districts to make "reasonably equivalent" facilities available to charters, which has sparked battles in some communities. Sometimes charters simply move in and "co-locate" on public school campuses for free, with schools forced to share not only classroom space but playgrounds and caf- eteria space. Example: Rocketship launch could not be stopped Rocketship Education, a national charter school operator based in San Jose, first applied to open a school in Concord in 2015. The district denied the application due to local opposi- tion, and the charter's appeal was denied by the Contra Costa County Office of Education. Rocketship appealed to the SBE, which granted authorization, despite a 2014 analysis by the California Department of Edu- cation (CDE) that in the previous five years the number of Rocketship students scoring at the "proficient" level or above on California state tests had fallen by 30 percent- age points in English and 14 percentage points in math. Since then, the CDE has sent numerous letters of con- cern to the school, located in the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, about such issues as the lack of students with disabilities and the achievement gaps among students of different ethnic groups. PROBLEM: Local school districts cannot consider potential negative impacts of a privately managed charter on existing schools when reviewing applications. Does a district have enough space for a privately operated charter school? Enough funds? Is there a real need for a different type of academic program in the district? What kind of impacts will a charter have on the school district and existing schools? These are important questions when it comes to deciding whether a new independent charter should be granted by a school district. However, under current law, none of these important issues can be considered by school districts or other gov- erning bodies when it comes to deciding whether a privately managed charter school should open. Example: Charter school forced on Oakland Unified despite funding crisis Last year, Oakland Unified School District declined to approve a charter for the proposed Latitude 37.8 High School, in part because the district was (and still is) facing a fiscal crisis and could not afford to lose more students to charter schools. With 43 charter schools already operating in the city, the school dis- trict felt it was unneeded and fiscally unsound. The denial was appealed, and the SBE approved the new charter high school anyway, based on the CDE's recommendation, which said it met all legal requirements. The board said state law does not allow it to consider the charter school's financial impact on the local district. Latitude High School opened in Oakland last year. The solution to both Problems 2 and 3 is on the facing page. " School board members know the needs of their schools the best, and should be able to consider the fiscal impact on their students and district when considering whether to approve a new charter school." —Assembly Member Rob Bonta 40 cta.org Advocacy L E G I S L A T I V E U P D A T E

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of California Educator - April / May 2019