Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Mega-Headed Charter Schools?
The New York Sun recently editorialized that charter school operators (like KIPP, Uncommon Schools, Achievement First, etc.) should be able to host multiple schools under a single charter. This would be a way to continue to grow under the NYSUT-imposed cap on the number of new public schools that can be opened under the charter school law, the editorial board suggested.
NYCSA's Peter Murphy disputes that idea in a letter to the Sun:
As supporters of charter schools, we are obviously disappointed the State Assembly failed to pass legislation to raise the cap on public charter schools from 100 to 250 [Editorial, "The Charter Fight Ahead," June 26, 2006]. Governor Pataki proposed this provision last January, and the state Senate, with bipartisan support, approved the measure at the conclusion of the 2006 regular session of the legislature. Assembly Speaker, Sheldon Silver, stated his reason for not raising the cap last week when he said what most everyone already knew: "We have a number of [Assembly] members that are absolutely opposed to any charters … [w]e have a number of members who believe there should be union representation mandated. We have a number of members who think local school districts should make determinations as to locations of charters. That is not what the governor has in mind."
With everything the Assembly (and Senate) delivered this year to the unions and public education establishment, you would think the Assembly could get past this opposition and raise the cap based on the merits, even as the State Education Department documented the success of charter schools with its recent publication of its Annual Report. But that still would not justify an attempt to place similar charter schools under a single charter in order to free up more charters to create new schools, as the Sun argues. The New York Charter School Law simply prohibits such a move. Instead, it would require a legislative change to allow multiple schools under a single charter, which is done in other states and something the New York Charter Schools Association strongly supports in a responsible way for New York.
The Sun editorial board responded:
Our own reading of the New York charter school law is different. It says, "An education corporation operating a charter school shall not be authorized to operate more than one school or house any grade at more than one site, provided that: (A) a charter school may operate in more than one building at a single site; and (B) a charter school which provides instruction to its students at different locations for a portion of their school day shall be deemed to be operating at a single site." Exceptions "A" and "B" strike us as provisions large enough to drive dozens of new charter schools — er, "locations" or "buildings" — through.
And given that courts have already found the state of New York is violating the law by depriving students of a sound, basic education, it seems to us that respect for the rule of law applies to more than the technical restrictions that some see in the charter school law. The legal violation of failing to provide students with a sound basic education is far more grave than some technical restriction regarding sites and buildings and locations. Sadly, even the NY Charter Schools Association, of all groups, seems more hung up on preventing a technical legal violation that we don't see as a violation at all than in redressing the underlying and major legal violation, the failure to provide a sound, basic education.
NYCSA's Peter Murphy disputes that idea in a letter to the Sun:
As supporters of charter schools, we are obviously disappointed the State Assembly failed to pass legislation to raise the cap on public charter schools from 100 to 250 [Editorial, "The Charter Fight Ahead," June 26, 2006]. Governor Pataki proposed this provision last January, and the state Senate, with bipartisan support, approved the measure at the conclusion of the 2006 regular session of the legislature. Assembly Speaker, Sheldon Silver, stated his reason for not raising the cap last week when he said what most everyone already knew: "We have a number of [Assembly] members that are absolutely opposed to any charters … [w]e have a number of members who believe there should be union representation mandated. We have a number of members who think local school districts should make determinations as to locations of charters. That is not what the governor has in mind."
With everything the Assembly (and Senate) delivered this year to the unions and public education establishment, you would think the Assembly could get past this opposition and raise the cap based on the merits, even as the State Education Department documented the success of charter schools with its recent publication of its Annual Report. But that still would not justify an attempt to place similar charter schools under a single charter in order to free up more charters to create new schools, as the Sun argues. The New York Charter School Law simply prohibits such a move. Instead, it would require a legislative change to allow multiple schools under a single charter, which is done in other states and something the New York Charter Schools Association strongly supports in a responsible way for New York.
The Sun editorial board responded:
Our own reading of the New York charter school law is different. It says, "An education corporation operating a charter school shall not be authorized to operate more than one school or house any grade at more than one site, provided that: (A) a charter school may operate in more than one building at a single site; and (B) a charter school which provides instruction to its students at different locations for a portion of their school day shall be deemed to be operating at a single site." Exceptions "A" and "B" strike us as provisions large enough to drive dozens of new charter schools — er, "locations" or "buildings" — through.
And given that courts have already found the state of New York is violating the law by depriving students of a sound, basic education, it seems to us that respect for the rule of law applies to more than the technical restrictions that some see in the charter school law. The legal violation of failing to provide students with a sound basic education is far more grave than some technical restriction regarding sites and buildings and locations. Sadly, even the NY Charter Schools Association, of all groups, seems more hung up on preventing a technical legal violation that we don't see as a violation at all than in redressing the underlying and major legal violation, the failure to provide a sound, basic education.
Most Recent Posts
- Klein's Charter Push
- Viva Cortines!
- Well Past Halfway
- Here's Your Silence, Pal
- Inside Labor Questions Charter Plan
- Teacher Militancy Lives!
- Bloomberg Is Mean
- Boys Choir Charter Plan
- No Contract, No Work
- The Sucking Sound You Hear...
Archives
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
Feeds
Disclaimer: The Chalkboard is hosted by the New York Charter Schools Association (NYCSA) as a place where members, public education advocates and others can view and respond to informed commentary on timely public education and charter school issues. The views expressed here are not necessarily the official views of the NYCSA, its board, or of any of its individual charter school members. Anyone who claims otherwise is violating the spirit and purpose of this blog. To comment on anything you read here, or to offer tips, advice, comments, or complaints. please contact TheChalkboard.