Quote of the Day
January 17, 2012A Few Other Charter School Grades
January 18, 2012NJ’s Flunks Charter School Test
The new report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “Measuring Up to the Model: A Tool for Comparing State Charter School Laws,” drew this response from Julia Sass Rubin, head of the anti-suburban-charter organization Save Our Schools-NJ:
New Jersey’s charter school law is better than those in places like Florida which allow for-profit charter school management companies – which has lead to significant abuse and corruption. But we’re right up there with the worst in the country in terms of how undemocratic our approval process is.
Really? Let’s take a closer look.
The NAPCS report has 20 categories, with different points eligible for each field. The top 10 states are (in order) Maine, Minnesota, Florida, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Indiana, Colorado, New York, California, and Michigan. Out of the 42 states with charter school laws, New Jersey ranked 32nd, garnering 92 points out of 208.
We did well in a few categories: we have no caps on the number of charter schools allowed within the state, we allow charter school conversions, and “the state law includes some of the model law’s provisions for transparent charter application, review, and decision-making.”
But Ms. Sass Rubin’s criticism – that “we’re right up there with the worst in the country in how undemocratic our approval process is” – is, well, not true.
But she has an agenda, and that’s the passage of Assembly Bill 3582, a piece of legislation that would require all aspiring charters to submit themselves to a public vote. It’s a bad idea – I’ve written of it elsewhere (here and here). Senator Sweeney says he won’t bring it to the floor and Gov. Christie says he won’t sign it. Nevertheless, SOS-NJ has made this bill its rallying cry in its crusade to halt the incursion of charter schools into wealthy communities. The fact that the bill would also halt development of charters into districts with terrible schools is not a problem for SOS-NJ. Their constituents don’t live there anyway.
But enough carping. Ms. Sass Rubin’s comments refer to a field of the survey called “Multiple Authorizers Available.” In other words, the best charter school laws give aspiring charters a variety of possible agencies to give the go-ahead: state boards of education, local school boards, colleges, universities, independent charter school boards. For example, the #1 rated state, Maine, does this:
Maine law provides that any local school board (or a collaborative of local school boards) may become an authorizer by issuing a request for proposals. In addition, the law allows charter school applicants to apply directly to the State Charter Schools Commission. The law provides that only the Commission can approve virtual schools.
That was worth 6 points out of a possible 12. New York got the full 12. Here’s its rules:
Under New York law, applicants can apply directly to a district board of education, SUNY, or the State Board of Regents. SUNY and the State Board of Regents have statewide chartering authority.
Three states do give local boards a lot of authority in the charter approval process (and I’m assuming that SOS-NJ would settle for this, given that a school board functions as a representational democracy). Those states get low marks from NAPCS.
- In Kansas, the local school board has to approve a charter and then it goes to the state board of education. (3 points out of 12.)
- In Maryland, local school boards are the only authorizers, but the state DOE can authorize the restructuring of a non-charter as a charter. (3 points.)
- In Virginia, local school boards are the only authorizers “and there is almost no authorizing activity in the state.” (0 points.)
Illinois is interesting. School boards can serve as authorizers, but there’s an appeals process that goes to the State Charter School Commission. Plus, if 5% of voters petition a school board because they’re unhappy that the local board denied a charter application then the board must submit the question to the voters. It’s the inversion of SOS-NJ’s idea: in Illinois, the voters get to overturn a “no” from a local board. (6 points.)
For the record, NJ got 3 points because we only allow charter schools to be authorized by the Ed. Commissioner (although there’s a proposed bill – with good prospects – that would increase authorizers to colleges and universities).
SOS-NJ can spin the NAPCS report all they want, but the bill they are supporting has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with the desire for representatives of suburban school boards to create laws designed to protect them from costs associated with sending kids to charters.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that; after all, boards need to protect revenue. But the charter wars in NJ have devolved into a zero-sum game. Either you’re a winner (if, as a local school board, you stymy the establishment of a charter in your neighborhood) or you’re a loser. Right now, the politics of this skirmish widen the gulf between our impoverished districts and our wealthier ones. The provincial nature of our school system — 591 districts wildly fighting to protect their turf — and our funding mechanism only exacerbate the division. This dynamic makes it all about the adults and leaves the quality of the education — whoever the provider — out of the equation. In this zero-sum game, the kids lose.
8 Comments
Why the constant disingenuous critique of Save Our Schools NJ? You are well aware that SOSnj is not the “anti-suburban-charter organization” you claim it to be. For starters, SOSnj has always lobbied for democracy in the charter approval process for all communities, not just suburbs. You are outright distorting the mission of the organization. Fighting for transparency and accountability in charter schools, and a democratic system for determining which ones will be most beneficial is a far cry from opposing them. In fact, any charter school proponent should want a transparent and accountable system of charter schools if he or she wants them to succeed and grow.
You’ve disagreed with Dr. Sass Rubin’s statement, “we're right up there with the worst in the country in terms of how undemocratic our approval process is,” but your blog offers no evidence to support your claim. Saying, “the state law includes some of the model law’s provisions for transparent charter application, review, and decision-making,” is hardly an argument to the contrary. For starters, “some” means there are still areas lacking transparency. Also, the quality of the model law they reference is debatable.
Your words, “The fact that the bill would also halt development of charters into districts with terrible schools is not a problem for SOS-NJ. Their constituents don’t live there anyway,” is an outright LIE. SOSnj has members in every legislative district, and in suburbs as well a suburban communities and school districts previously classified as Abbott districts. SOSnj representatives have publicly stated repeatedly that “democracy is not just for the wealthy.” Parents in every district deserve to be represented in the decisions affecting their children’s schools.
Furthermore, your constant personal attacks on Dr. Sass Rubin are completely unwarranted. Do you really think that she gave her entire day away from her family and her profession to spend countless hours in Trenton, selflessly fighting against language in the Urban Hope Act, out of what you call her “anti-suburban-charter” agenda? Really? Dr. Sass Rubin has a child enrolled in a Suburban charter school, in a town with one of our state’s high-achieving public school systems.
Not only are your personal attacks petty, they make no sense.
I’ve read enough of your writing to see that you support the idea of a public watchdog; I don’t understand why you don’t think children in charter schools deserve the same scrutiny and oversight of their schools. One thing that has become clear to me, though, is that when you don’t have facts to back up your opinion, you personally attack particular people, schools, and organizations, many times distorting the facts. I don’t think that is productive for any of us, including you.
Christine, I mean no ill will towards Ms. Rubin. I admire her commitment and eloquence. There's no “personal attacks” towards anyone in the post. I was merely pointing out a misrepresentation of NAPCS's assessment of NJ's charter school laws.
The quote in your second graf comes from the report, by the way, not me.
I'm all for oversight and accountability. But I'm also for choice.
The only reason this has become a zero sum game is because of comments such as these – creating an opposition where there need not be one. Working for accountable and transparent charter schools should be the job of all people who believe in quality education. We can debate the specifics of a bill, or the best method of implementation but certainly it is in the best interest of all – in particular the children – that we do not let quasi-public schools run amuck with no one watching them.
Whether or not your comments were meant as personal or not, you certainly go out of your way (or perhaps it comes easily to you? I should not assume) to mischaracterize Save Our Schools NJ and paint it in the least favorable light. You seem determined not to take SOSnj at our word – or actions for that matter. It might be a more honest discussion if you just admitted you disagree with our goals – which we are fighting with and for members from all over the state regardless of zip code.
As to the content of your post, I am fairly sure that we are the only state in the nation that allows the DoE complete authority over approving charter schools while forcing the bills on the local district. The pretense of community input has come under great scrutiny and protest and perhaps is forcing the DoE to pay attention. But communities should not have to rise up in protest every 6 months when a new application arrives at the DoE doorstep (many of which have been applying repeatedly and coached to improve their application) that may drain money from dwindling local school budgets.
To fix this problem is not to be anti-charter, and certainly not disregarding of the urban areas which should have the same democratic right to vote as every area of the state. It is to say we have a system that needs improvement, and here are some ideas of how to do it.
Working to fix a problem is not a zero sum game. It is making reasonable arguments, listening to other opinions and moving towards a solution. It just does not seem that you are interested in participating in that discourse by your tone and snide remarks.
Hi, Deb. Please look at the links I refer to. You'll see that, indeed, other states also have the DOE as the sole authority in approving charters. And this is regarded in a dim light. According to this (well-regarded) organization, the best process is one with multiple authorizers, including boards of ed, colleges, universities, etc., with an appeals process built in. That's what I think we should have in NJ.
You've painted Julia, and more broadly the entire SOSnj membership, as caring only about kids in wealthier suburban districts. I think most people would consider that a personal attack. You have the right to disagree with us about who should decide how to educate our kids (a lone activist commissioner in Trenton, vs. a democratic process that includes parents and taxpayers). However, I do not accept you misrepresenting the mission of our organization.
I understand the quote in my second paragraph is from the study and not your own. My point was that the quote you pulled from the study offers no evidence contrary to Julia's point regarding “how undemocratic our approval process is.”
I hope, in the future, you can be a little more honest in your commentary about SOSnj's positions.
In those other states I do not know if the bill is paid by the district – or for that matter how their school funding works overall. But it was my understanding that NJ has the unique combination of decisions at the state level and the bill at the local level. Multiple authorizers are an option for discussion given that the DoE seems determined to do a poor job at vetting applications and monitoring schools once opened. But those authorizers have to be monitored as well since they may have a financial incentive to approve schools. Regardless, these authorizers should have no more right than the DoE to force a charter school to open in a community and be paid for by that community without the community getting a vote first. This is not mutually exclusive with the idea of multiple authorizers.
Ms. Waters' antipathy toward SOSNJ is rivaled only by her aversion toward voting as a means of public expression.
Those of us not on the Trenton-Knows-Best bandwagon or—heaven forbid—doubters as to the wisdom of Public-Spirited Hedge-Fund Moguls Now Dabbling in Public Education should beware.
Wonderful blog & good post.Its really helpful for me, awaiting for more new post. Keep Blogging!
Special Needs Care in New Jersey NJ