Disclaimer: I’m not an expert in education policy. I did take a quick look through the bill, and came to a startling conclusion that I want to get your input on.
The Senate’s Charter School bill states that if a Charter has a worse suspension rate OR attrition rate than the local school district the students are from, they will lose the renewal of their charter, and the charter school would be CLOSED. This includes a subsections of the population based on things like special education, income and race. If they do worse than local schools in just one area, then they could kiss their charter goodbye. I doubt most charters would make the cut, due to studies showing a high suspension and attrition rates
SECTION 87. Said section 89 of said chapter 71, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word “students,” in line 641, the following words:- ; provided, however, that a commonwealth charter school shall not be renewed if: (i) the average 3 year student attrition rate of the charter school is greater than the sending district’s average 3 year student attrition rate in the same grades served by the charter school; (ii) the average 3 year student stability rate of the charter school is less than the sending district’s average 3 year student stability rate in the same grades served by the charter school; (iii) the average 3 year student attrition rate within any particular subgroup identified by the board including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, special education, and English language learner status, is greater than the sending district’s average 3 year student attrition rate within that subgroup or (iv) the average 3 year student stability rate within any particular subgroup identified by the board including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, special education, and English language learner status, is less than the sending district’s average 3 year student stability rate within that subgroup; provided, further, that the board may grant to a charter school otherwise disqualified under clauses (iii) and (iv) a waiver relative to particular subgroup if it certifies that the gap in that subgroup is de minimus and that the charter school has made a rigorous effort to retain all students.
SECTION 88. Subsection (dd) of said section 89 of said chapter 71, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following 2 paragraphs:-
When deciding on a charter renewal, the board shall also consider: (i) a charter school’s discipline policies; (ii) whether the charter school has met its obligations under sections 37H, 37H1/2 and 37H3/4 of this chapter; and (iii) the prevalence of the use of out of school suspensions by the charter school.
A commonwealth charter shall not be renewed if: (i) the average 3 year overall rate of out of school suspensions of the charter school is greater than the sending district’s average 3 year overall rate of out of school suspensions in the same grades served by the charter school; provided; provided further that if the charter school’s average 3 year overall rate is higher than the sending district’s, the board may grant a 2 year probationary period, during which time the department shall oversee and provide technical assistance to the charter school in lowering its out of school suspension rate; provided further that if the average 2 year rate of out of school suspension rate during said probationary period is greater than the sending district, the board shall not renew the charter; or (ii) the average 3 year rate of out of school suspensions within any particular subgroup identified by the board including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, special education status, and English language learner status, is greater than the sending district’s average 3 year rate of out of school suspensions within that subgroup; provided further that the board may grant a charter school a waiver relative to a particular subgroup if it certifies that the gap in that subgroup is de minimus and that the school has made a rigorous effort to avoid out of school suspensions for all students and subgroups; provided further that if the charter school’s average 3 year rate of out of school suspensions is higher than the sending district’s for any particular subgroup whose gap the board has not certified as de minimus, the board may grant a 2 year probationary period, during which time the department shall oversee and provide technical assistance to the charter school in lowering its out of school suspension rate; provided, further that if the average 2 year rate of out of school suspension for any subgroup identified by the board during said probationary period is greater than the sending district’s, the board shall not renew the charter. This paragraph shall not apply to alternative education charters as defined under subsection (iii) of paragraph (5) of subsection (i).
Charter Schools will likely be shuttered under the bill faster than they can be opened with the new cap, meaning we could see less charters under this bill rather than more. Am I wrong in this regard? Comment below.
Smooth move Rosenberg.
Both sides are spoiling for a fight, for better or worse. When everyone wants a fight, one will usually occur.
There’s no way this bill gets made into law, but it makes the deficiencies of charter schools a legislative matter. Because this bill would have to be reconciled with the House version, attrition and suspension rates become an issue that gets reported on in papers and a problem for charters.
This is good stuff.
You’re right that many charters currently wouldn’t survive under this bill. If it becomes law (which it won’t, but let’s pretend), schools like City on a Hill, where one-third of the student body graduates, and where boys make up just 38% of the graduating class (data courtesy edushyster), will have to change the way they do business or close. I’m okay with that.
The charter opposition to this bill is telling. The bill requires charter schools to make their finances public, as regular public schools do; it requires them to fill empty seats, as regular public schools do (what better way to accomodate those poor kids on the waiting list!); and it requires them to take all comers, as regular public schools do.
If they can’t do those things, should they still get public money?