Governor, General Assembly Should Carefully Weigh Concerns With Charter School Expansion

The expansion of the state’s law governing charter schools is expected to be a key issue for the General Assembly as part of Gov. Corbett’s education agenda.  If the governor and General Assembly believe that the expansion of charter schools will benefit our local communities, extensive reforms will be needed to adequately address critical issues. As established under current law, charter schools are unaffordable, underperforming and unaccountable.  

Charter schools are independent public schools established and operated by individuals, corporations, business investors and others.  These schools are authorized under charters granted by the local school board following an extensive application process. Cyber charter schools, which use technology to deliver curriculum and instruction to students, receive their charters directly from the state Department of Education.  Both types of charter schools are not subject to many of the mandates that apply to traditional public schools. Under the education agenda sought by Gov. Corbett, a new statewide entity would authorize the creation of charter schools without any direct connection or responsibility to the local communities who will pay the bills.

Charter school expansion is unaffordable.  Currently, almost all funding for charter schools is provided by local school districts, which places a significant financial burden on districts’ resources. Districts devote large portions of their budgets to supporting these schools, because payment is calculated under a formula based on the expenses of the districts, not the actual instructional costs incurred by the charter school to educate the child.  This can result in school districts overpaying charter schools, particularly cyber schools.  In fact, charter schools have cost school districts over $875 million over the last two years.  Locally some charter schools are carrying a fund balance in excess of 15% while the supporting districts cut programs, positions, and raise taxes.  If legislation is enacted to allow the unfettered expansion of charter schools, this critical financial burden will continue to escalate and take more money away from local taxpayers.  

Charter school performance is a mixed record and many are underperforming. While there are examples of highly effective charter schools, such examples are not representative of charters as a whole. A report released by the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University in April 2011 showed that students in Pennsylvania charter schools on average make smaller learning gains compared to the educational gains those students would have had in their traditional public schools.

A look at the 2011 PSSA scores of Pennsylvania’s charter schools confirms that study.  Based on the Department of Education’s own numbers, just 56% of charter schools reached targets for Adequate Yearly Progress as required under federal law, while 94% of school districts reached targets for AYP. 

Locally in March 2011 the superintendents of school districts in Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, and Northampton counties convened to discuss the extensive impact of Governor Corbett’s proposed budget cuts to Pennsylvania public education.  According to an extensive report from that meeting, “a decision was rendered to sharpen public awareness of funding for charter and cyber charter schools for regular education students and special education students.

It was further decided to conduct a comparative snapshot of student achievement data as measured by the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA).” (Rationale to Course Correct the Funding of Charter and Cyber Charter Schools 2011)  The report clearly documents that the majority of the time the local districts outperformed the charter schools, most notably the cyber charters.  Lastly in 2010 the Bethlehem Area School District approved a charter for a new school and in turn budgeted $1.6 million to fund it.  In its first year of PSSA testing less than 44% of 3rd graders and 29% of 4th graders scored proficient or better in math and reading.  Until we can ensure that these alternatives to traditional public schools are performing well academically, we should not expand the role of charter schools.

Finally, charter schools should be held to the same accountability requirements as their traditional public school counterparts. Appropriate mechanisms for authorization, oversight, and intervention of charter schools are needed.  One major area of concern is the proposed expansion of charter schools by allowing multiple entities to authorize the creation of new charters. The key problem with multiple authorizers is that they would have no direct connection or responsibility to the local communities and taxpayers that they will directly affect.  

Additionally, charter schools should be required to conduct a certified financial audit performed by an independent CPA and be available as a public document.  They also should be subject to the same caps on unreserved, undesignated fund balances as school districts, ensuring that they are good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Education should not be considered a business for investment and profit. Charter schools consume taxpayer dollars that should not remain hidden from the public.

Pennsylvania’s school districts are facing unprecedented economic challenges as a result of $900 million in cuts to state education funding. The cost benefit of investing millions of dollars into expanding charter schools rather than into programs within traditional public schools is not justifiable.