The Syracuse Post-Standard today published my op-ed responding to their June 8th editorial that was critical of the charter school lawsuit to stop audits by the State Comptroller's office.

The op-ed is linked here.

The arguments made in support of this lawsuit should be familiar to Chalkboard readers and charter school operators. Fundamentally, they come down to two points:

1) The state constitution (Art. V) limits the auditing powers of the state Comptroller to political subdivisions of state, which charters are not -- a point since conceded by the state itself.

2) Charter schools have sufficient oversight and monitoring by the Regents and SUNY, and the school district authorizers. Each of these authorizers is subject to Comptroller audits, which can include auditing their role as overseers of charters.

One more point not made in the op-ed, but worth repeating: Charter schools as a whole are not "incidental" expenses of the school districts, which are subject to Comptroller audits -- an argument made by the state to justify full-blown audits of charters. Rather, the Comptroller's "incidental" reach into charters is arguably limited to the extent to which the Comptroller is examining school district payments of charter school invoices based on resident student enrollment. That, in sum, was the argument made by Justice Rose in his dissent to the majority opinion by the Appellate Division last January when it ruled against the charter school position.

We await the Court of Appeals ruling on the appeal by charter schools, which was heard on June 2nd. The final outcome of this case may arrive as early as next week.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard