President Obama: Capping Charter Schools Contrary to Improving Education

"...That leads me to the fourth part of America’s education strategy – promoting innovation and excellence in America’s schools. One of the places where much of that innovation occurs is in our most effective charter schools... Right now, there are caps on how many charter schools are allowed in some states, no matter how well they are preparing our students. That isn’t good for our children, our economy, or our country. Of course, any expansion of charter schools must not result in the spread of mediocrity, but in the advancement of excellence. That will require states adopting both a rigorous selection and review process to ensure that a charter school’s autonomy is coupled with greater accountability – as well as a strategy, like the one in Chicago, to close charter schools that are not working. Provided this greater accountability, I call on states to reform their charter rules, and lift caps on the number of allowable charter schools, wherever such caps are in place."

President Barack Obama
March 10, 2009

---

Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have some type of limit, or cap, on charter school growth. Most caps restrict the number of charter schools allowed, while others restrict the number of students that a single school can serve.

Caps on charter schools are often the consequence of political trade-offs, and not the result of agreement on sound education policy. For example, frequently policy-makers, concerned about how charter schools may affect an established school district, will mandate restrictions on the number of public charter schools in that specific district.

But the demand for charter schools shows no signs of letting up. An estimated 365,000 students are on charter school wait lists. This is enough to fill over 1,100 new average-sized charter schools. More than half of all charter schools across the country report they have a wait list, with the problem particularly acute in Pennsylvania (27,000), Colorado (25,000), Massachusetts (16,000), New York (12,000), New Mexico (10,000), and Illinois (10,000).  If this demand is to be met, states must reform or eliminate their caps on charter schools, while continuing to utilize appropriate measures ensuring that new charter schools are of high quality.

Unfortunately, New Mexico has chosen to go a different direction.  On Friday, January 21, 2011, Representative Mimi Stewart introduced House Bill 120.  This bill specifically reads, “a chartering authority shall not accept an application for a new charter school or approve a new charter school between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2017.”

If enacted, this bill will eliminate school choice in New Mexico.  The bill has been supported by the New Mexico School Boards Association, New Mexico Administrators Association, the Legislative Education Study Committee (co-chaired by Representative Rick Miera and Senator Cynthia Nava), and the Board of Education for the Albuquerque Public Schools.

LFC Downplaying Disaster

The following section was taken from the Legislative Finance Committee report Program Evaluation of New Mexico Charter Schools dated 7/23/10, Report # 10-09.

Despite charter schools’ position that they are dependent on the small school size adjustment, it is not clear that the purpose of size adjustments in the funding formula is to act as a subsidy for the diseconomies of scale that the small school site charter school education programs produce. There has been tacit recognition of these diseconomies; three out of the 16 charter schools LFC staff visited (La Luz Del Monte, La Resolana and Ralph J. Bunche Academy) are sharing facilities with one or more other charter schools that also receive small school size adjustment. Charter schools are envisioned as smaller school sites by choice, and are often located in urban areas where traditional public schools have available space. The purpose of the Charter Schools Act (Section 22-8B-1 NMSA 1978) is “to enable individual schools to structure their educational curriculum to encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods that are based on reliable research and effective practices or have been replicated successfully in schools with diverse characteristics,” which to a reasonable person could be interpreted as a special program.

It is clear that the Legislative Finance Committee fashioned the language in their report with the intent to eliminate only those small schools that have the leadership and common sense to share facilities in order to achieve a small economy of scale that reduces the building lease costs and serves to increase the operational fund for students. The report cites the Public School Finance Act (Section 22-8-23 (A) NMSA 1978) cites “separate schools established to provide special programs, including but not limited to vocational and alternative education, shall not be classified as public schools for purposes of generating size adjustment program units” as the rationale for deciding that charter schools sharing facilities should be considered as less than public schools, rather they choose to view them as mere special programs.  The concept is laughable if it weren’t being used as a reason for cutting the heart of the funding for charter and other small schools. No reasonable or rational person could conclude that the rigor of beginning and sustaining successful charter schools is a program level endeavor.  The accountability and responsibilities for charter schools is grounded in statute and delineated by the state PEC (Public Education Commission) advised by the PED (Public Education Department) or a local school district as an authorizer.  The Charter School statues clearly identify charter schools as public schools and as such they should be treated like all other public schools in New Mexico.

By carving charters out in carefully worded statutory language, the charters join a number of small schools in tiny districts who will lose growth units or small district support.  The Legislative Finance Committee claims that innovative charters and districts do not deserve small school funding because they choose to share viable  facilities with gymnasiums, libraries, and handicapped accessible bathrooms. 

Instead, they continue to view schools in through an old, outdated paradigm and would opt instead (during a budget crisis) to require taxpayers to incur the costs of separate facilities.  As a comical counterpoint to this rationale, there is also recommended legislation to consolidate small school districts in order to save money (see SB 90). That is exactly what these schools and districts have done …consolidate, following the successful models used by the Albuquerque Academy, Bosque Prep, and the New Mexico Military Institute.

Further, the LFC admitted that, “Exempting charter schools from small school size adjustments will make it more difficult for small charter schools to generate enough money to be self-sufficient and provide educational services to students.”  Here the LFC report is accurate.  The reality is grim because a 30% reduction in a small school budget for these schools and they will be unable to support the legislatively-mandated highly qualified teachers and the program and facility requirements. If legislation is crafted to eliminate the small school adjustment, these exemplary schools will be destroyed and the small school funding will continue to be provided to other small schools that are carved out because they are in separate buildings. A true travesty to taxpayers: lose the highest performing schools and in their place incur additional high cost schools.

New Mexico Charter Schools are underfunded when compared to traditional district public schools.  In an analysis of  charter school funding completed in 2010 by Ball State University, (Titled: CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING: Inequity Persists) it was found that charter schools in New Mexico receive nine percent less per pupil than do school districts. This is prior to factoring in facility funds which districts have access to and charters do not.  These conclusions are based on a methodology that accurately reflects the true disparity that exists between charter school funding and traditional school funding.  The current funding formula adjustments exist based on the Legislature’s recognition of the unique needs of charter schools and small districts. Further, growth factors for charter schools are limited based on the enrollment cap for the charter school while districts have no such cap on enrollment and can receive the benefit of growth calculations ad infinitum. In smaller schools, fixed operational costs like curriculum development and administration must be distributed among fewer students.  See Lewis D. Solomon, Edison Schools and the Privatization of K-12 Public Education:  A Legal and Policy Analysis, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1281, 1299 (2003) (describing economies of scale in school operation).  Because the cost differential factor used to calculate basic program units is based on estimated operational costs per student, the size adjustment factor addresses the issue that it is essentially more expensive to educate a child in a small school than in a larger one.  It does so by giving additional program units to "approved public school[s]" with small student bodies.  Section22-8-23.  For elementary and junior high schools, a school must have fewer than 200 total enrolled, qualified students to be eligible.  Id.; ' 22-8-2 (definitions).  “Public school” is defined in the "General Provisions" section of the Public School Code as:

“that part of a school district that is a single attendance center in which instruction is offered by one or more teachers and is discernible as a building or group of buildings generally recognized as either an elementary, middle, junior high or high school or any combination of those and includes a charter school.”

While this explanation is long and really difficult to understand, we must remain steadfast in our desire to change legislative minds and have a positive outcome that keeps our kids and our schools safe from seemingly small legislative tweaks that erase us from the educational horizon.