As a longtime supporter of charter schools, I am relieved to watch bi-partisan legislators as they assist this popular and proven system for school improvement and further enhance it as a force for strengthening public education for all children in North Carolina.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Charter schools are free schools of choice that are required by law to accept every North Carolina child who applies.\u00a0 Current and proposed legislation clearly states the requirement: \u201cA charter school shall not discriminate against any student on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability.\u201d [1]<\/a><\/p>\n I have helped start two rural K-8 charter schools in North Carolina that began with 53 students in 2000 and now exceed 1,800 students with several hundreds more on waiting lists.\u00a0 Both are Schools of Distinction and serve many low-income and minority families from five surrounding counties who could not otherwise afford to choose an alternative to their district schools.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, there are many citizens who have numerous misunderstandings about charter schools regarding their history, their statutory duties, and their role under the North Carolina Constitution.<\/p>\n Mr. Edward Fiske illustrates some of these misunderstandings in his recent opinion piece in the NewsObserver, \u201cThe hijacking of charter schools.\u201d [2]<\/a><\/p>\n For example, he erroneously states that from their 1990\u2019s beginnings \u201cproponents recognized that they are integral parts of established public school systems.\u201d \u00a0Mr. Fiske goes on to assert \u201cthat [in North Carolina] charters are part of our constitutionally mandated \u2018general and uniform system of free public schools.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 He further opines that legislation currently proposed in the house[3]<\/a> and senate[4]<\/a> would \u201chijack\u201d this \u201cintegral part\u201d of our traditional education system.<\/p>\n Charter schools are creations of state law, and today 41 states have laws permitting charter schools, of which there are nearly 6,000 charters nation-wide serving over 2,300,000 children.[5]<\/a>\u00a0 However, they are not considered to be \u201cintegral parts of established public school systems\u201d by most of their proponents, as Mr. Fiske claims.\u00a0 In eleven states, the charter schools are totally independent of, and separate from, the traditional system, and they exist apart to a greater or lesser degree in the other states \u2013 depending on the compromises necessary to get a charter law passed in that particular state.<\/p>\n The very motive that proponents had for creating charter laws was not to make them integral but rather to make them independent.\u00a0 If we look at North Carolina\u2019s test scores on page 3 of the 1996-97 State Report Card<\/i> we see that the percentage of students passing the reading tests were 69% for White males and 43% for Black males. [6]<\/a><\/p>\n Why would anyone want to be \u201can integral part\u201d of a system producing such dubious results?\u00a0 The very motive for our creating charters in 1996 was to free schools from the ponderous regulatory burdens that were partially responsible for dragging down the traditional schools.<\/p>\n For that reason, North Carolina\u2019s charter statute begins, \u201cThe purpose of this Part is to authorize a system of charter schools<\/i><\/b> to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently of existing schools.\u201d [7]<\/b><\/a><\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Mr. Fiske\u2019s assertion that they are \u201cpart of our constitutionally mandate system\u201d ignores a 2011 Court of Appeals ruling that states, after a nine-page analysis of this constitutional question, that the General Assembly is free to make charters \u201cas an optional educational program created outside of and in addition to<\/i><\/b> the uniform system of public schools.\u201d [8]<\/a><\/p>\n The legislated purpose since 1996 has been to establish a \u201csystem of charter schools\u201d to \u201coperate independently of existing schools\u201d and that purpose has been affirmed by our judicial system.<\/p>\n Mr. Fiske further asserts that the State Charter Board created by this legislation will \u201cmake a mockery of the notion that charters are part of a coherent statewide education system with an obligation to serve all students.\u201d<\/p>\n First, Mr. Fiske must be reminded once again that the charter law obligates every charter to serve all students: \u201cA charter school shall not discriminate against any student on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0Parents applying to charters are keenly aware of this obligation and do not hesitate to make their voices heard if they feel a charter school has discriminated against their child.<\/p>\n Second and very importantly, just because a system of charter schools may have some degree of independent \u00a0or self-rule from other systems that does not mean that there are no common elements shared by the two systems. \u00a0In fact in both pending charter bills, the ultimate controlling authority is given to the State Board of Education.\u00a0 Under the proposed legislation, it has veto power over any decision made by the State Charter Board.\u00a0 Thus, North Carolina will not be joining one of the nearly dozen states which have completely independent systems, but one of the remaining states whereby charters are not independent of the traditional system \u2013 in spite of the clear judicial ruling that such independence is permissible should the General Assembly so desire.<\/p>\n In another stunning proclamation, Mr. Fiske blithely states in bold font that the new Charter Board \u201cwould not be bound by conflict of interest laws<\/b>.\u201d\u00a0 [Mr. Fiske\u2019s emphasis]<\/p>\n This claim is puzzling in the face of GS 138A The State Government Ethics Act[10]<\/a> that applies to all members of \u201cAny State board, commission, council, committee, task force, authority, or similar public body, however denominated, created by statute or executive order.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0Not only does GS 138A apply to the Board\u2019s members, it also applies to the members\u2019 extended families and business interests.\u00a0 Additionally, the Department of Public Schools Policies TCS-C-004 and TCS-C-026 also address conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n If Mr. Fiske is privy to facts that exempt Charter Board members from the Ethics Act, then he should immediately contact the bills\u2019 sponsors and inform them of his discovery<\/b>.\u00a0 [author\u2019s emphasis] \u00a0Surely, they would immediately amend their bills appropriately.<\/p>\n Conflicts will inevitably abound.\u00a0 Doctors serve on medical boards; lawyers serve in the legislature; accountants serve on boards overseeing state fiscal matters.\u00a0 Contractors serve on commissions setting building code standards.\u00a0 Service by those knowledgeable in the topics will lead to conflicts of interest, but that is why all meetings are public and all records are subject to the Open Records Act. That is why COI laws apply to all.<\/p>\n Mr. Fiske states that the bills are \u201cscoffing at the concept of teacher professionalism,\u201d and then takes umbrage at the bills\u2019 allowing charter to hire teachers who do not hold a current NC certificate. \u00a0Is this a bad thing?\u00a0 We all know many excellent, hard-working teachers, but we must acknowledge that many of them became excellent only through OJT and self-motivation. The National Council on Teacher Quality consistently grades North Carolina\u2019s teacher preparation programs as a \u201cD-,\u201d and their 2012 report on North Carolina is appalling.[11]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0Charter schools are about giving parents a choice, but \u00a0the current law forces charters to draw from the same D- pool of teachers as traditional schools, making it to some degree a Hobson\u2019s choice. The pending bills finally allow a choice in the critical realm of teacher qualifications.<\/p>\n Has Mr. Fiske actually read the charter legislation \u2013 either current or proposed?\u00a0 He claims the \u201cagenda thumbs its nose at the implicit bargain of the charter movement \u2013 flexibility in return for accountability \u2013 by eliminating the second half of the equation.\u201d<\/p>\n In fact, Mr. Fiske decries the new legislative enhancements that actually toughen the application requirements and strengthen the oversight of charter schools.\u00a0 The existing 1996 statute allows an applicant to meet either the statutory requirements\u00a0or<\/i><\/b>\u00a0the requirements imposed by the Board.\u00a0 The pending bills change the \u201cor\u201d to an \u201cand,\u201d thereby they force the applicant to meet the total collection of requirements from both the statute and the Board.<\/p>\n The pending bills also retain the academic requirements that charter schools must take all the same state end-of-grade tests administered to traditional schools; \u00a0furthermore, charter schools are subject to closure if their students do not pass at least 60% of these tests .\u00a0 No traditional district school faces such a threat of closure.\u00a0 Should this criteria be applied to district schools there were 155 traditional schools that would have closed in 2009 but are, nevertheless, allowed to remain open and are open today.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n Additionally, every charter applicant must state their measurable academic goals; and if they do not meet these contracted-for goals, they are subject to closure.<\/p>\n Finally, the statute requires that every charter school be audited every year for both financial and legal compliance.\u00a0 These audits are conducted by especially certified accounting firms, and their audits are actually audited in turn by a state-wide oversight group of CPAs.<\/p>\n Since passage of the charter law in 1996, there have been 150 charters granted with 100 open as of 2011.\u00a0 Fifty charters opened and closed for one reason or another.\u00a0 Remember, if a parent withdraws their child, the money stops flowing to that school, and if enough parents leave, then the school will be forced to close\u00a0 – that is real accountability directly in the hands of the parents. The charter concept of letting parental choice and competition weed out the poorly performing schools is working very well.<\/p>\n The pending bills, about which Mr. Fiske complains, also make it clear that the State Charter Board will be subject to Section 150B of the General Statutes which ensures that all rules and policies that are adopted by the Board are in compliance with state law.\u00a0 GS 150B thus protects the public from any board, commission, or agency which might be attempting to overstep its authority.\u00a0 (In a January 30, 2013 report, the State Board of Education claimed that it was not subject to any such rule-making oversight, and that controversy is continuing, thus the new bills make this issue explicit.)<\/p>\n Eliminating accountability? \u00a0The new bills actually increase accountability.\u00a0 Remember the \u201cand\u201d instead of \u201cor\u201d for application requirements cited above.\u00a0 Remember the closure if the applicant\u2019s academic goals are not met.\u00a0 Remember the closure if 60% of the mandated tests are not passed.\u00a0 Remember the annual audits of finances and legal compliance that get published and reported.\u00a0 Remember the audits for Exceptional Children under Federal Title I requirements. Remember the explicit coverage of charters by GS 150B rule-making review. Remember the county health inspectors, the county fire marshals, OSHA, EEOC, and the multitude of other regulatory agencies that drop in unannounced for a check. <\/span>Remember that a parent may pull their child out of a charter school at any time, and then the money stops.<\/b>\u00a0\u00a0 [author\u2019s emphasis]<\/span><\/p>\n Contrary to another of his assertions that \u201cThe pending charter school legislation does not reflect any clamor from North Carolina residents\u201d we should recall the overwhelming victory at the polls in 2011 by candidates promising education and charter reform.\u00a0 If the citizens were not clamoring for charter reform, they chose a strange way of showing it by electing veto-proof majorities in the House and the Senate, and installing a pro-reform Governor.<\/p>\n One must conclude that Mr. Fiske did not bother to read the law or the new bills.\u00a0 Else he would not make the blatantly false claim that \u201cleaders have essentially downloaded model legislation formulated by the American Legislative Exchange Council\u201d (ALEC). Indeed, ALEC has two versions of their model charter legislation: a version totally under the state education board with no independent ability, and a version that is a totally independent charter body with no control whatever by the state board.<\/p>\n To the contrary, the proposed legislation rejects both extremes and sets a middle-ground. The new bills merely modify the current law and establish the Charter Board with oversight over the same processes that have been in place since 1996 excepting some increases<\/i> in accountability.\u00a0 However, the state board still has veto power over the charter board.\u00a0 The 18-page charter act of 1996 cites state board oversight in 92 instances.\u00a0 These remain in the new bills, but now refer to the Charter Board in better fulfillment of the original purpose for \u201ca system of charter schools<\/i><\/b> to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently of existing schools.\u201d <\/i><\/b><\/p>\n All North Carolinians who believe in the importance of quality public education for all children should support these Republican proposals. \u00a0At the front of the barricades should be advocates who see the proven successes of charter schools and want to see a good idea made even better.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> http:\/\/www.ncga.state.nc.us\/EnactedLegislation\/Statutes\/HTML\/BySection\/Chapter_115C\/GS_115C-238.29F.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a> http:\/\/www.newsobserver.com\/2013\/04\/27\/2852853\/the-hijacking-of-charter-schools.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a> http:\/\/www.ncleg.net\/Sessions\/2013\/Bills\/House\/PDF\/H443v1.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a> http:\/\/www.ncga.state.nc.us\/Sessions\/2013\/Bills\/Senate\/PDF\/S337v2.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [5]<\/a> http:\/\/www.publiccharters.org\/law\/<\/a><\/p>\n [6]<\/a>\u00a0htp:\/\/www.ncpublicschools.org\/docs\/accountability\/reporting\/reportcard\/1997\/section2.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [7]<\/a>http:\/\/www.ncga.state.nc.us\/EnactedLegislation\/Statutes\/HTML\/BySection\/Chapter_115C\/GS_115C-238.29A.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [8]<\/a>http:\/\/davidsonnews.net\/documents\/2011\/080211AppealsCourtCharterSchools.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [9]<\/a> http:\/\/www.johnlocke.org\/acrobat\/spotlights\/spotlight-382_zerochartertolerance.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n [10]<\/a> http:\/\/www.ncga.state.nc.us\/EnactedLegislation\/Statutes\/HTML\/ByChapter\/Chapter_138A.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [11]<\/a> http:\/\/www.nctq.org\/stpy11\/reports\/stpy12_northcarolina_report.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As a longtime supporter of charter schools, I am relieved to watch bi-partisan legislators as they assist this popular and proven system for school improvement and further enhance it as a force for strengthening public education for all children in North Carolina.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,5,8,9,1],"tags":[23,24,38],"class_list":["post-577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-education-k-12","category-learning-and-education","category-politics-nc","category-politics-us","category-uncategorized","tag-charter-legislation","tag-charter-schools","tag-fiske"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Integral? No. Independent!<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
A Constitutional Part? No. An Optional Program.<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
Serving All: Mockery? No. Mandated!<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
No COI? No. COI!<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
Scoffing? Yes. At a Myth!<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
No\u00a0Accountability? No. Accountability Galore!<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
No Citizen Clamor? No. Citizen Clamor!<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
\n