Transcript Slide 1
School Choice in Minnesota League of Women Voters National Convention June 2014 The Opening Act – few schools 1991 – only authorizers are school districts with approval by state department of education ◦ Teachers must be a majority of the board ◦ No screening allowed for admission ◦ Annual report required – not submitted at first Degenerates to just finances and test scores ◦ Goal is creative laboratory school environment – the possible sharing is never required or facilitated ◦ Teachers’ unions insist on two provisions and get them All must be public schools All teachers must be MN licensed The Evolution Legislation has been tweaked almost every legislative session! Major changes are: ◦ Disallow the use of a closing school district site as a charter school ◦ 2012 – new statute allows a “collaborative” charter which can access district transport and other help in return for sharing successful practices. Touted at the time, but haven’t seen this! ◦ Teachers do not need to be majority of the board (They wanted off!) ◦ Expansion of authorizers – all of whom now must be approved by state department of education Institutions of higher ed, non-profit corporations but must be incorporated in MN 2009 a thorough application process developed ◦ Allow a school with 3 years operation to form a partner building corporation which can finance and own a building which is leased to the school Sell bonds just like any corporation but need approval of authorizer and MDE What makes MN different Constitutional clause (from 1857!) that forbids funding for sectarian schools. Started with other options – PSEO and Open Enrollment –added self-directed schools within school districts Now more options to start public schools than any other state Strength and cooperation between two teachers’ unions – now merged into Education Minnesota MN Evaluation – Report from the Office of the Legislative Auditor 2008 – after accounting for demographics and student mobility, differences in student performance were minimal. Charter school board members not required to take the same training as public school board members – especially critical in finance. ◦ Most charters that have been closed are due to financial mismanagement. Conflict of interest laws too weak Continuing issues Lack of levy authority ◦ Articles cite this as the charter’s getting less money per student than district public schools ◦ BUT, their boards are not elected and have no community to levy! Critics see this as a possible area where charter schools will lobby the state for extra money. New laws include charter schools which means they are no longer as flexible ◦ An interesting note – charter proponents call a charter law “strong” if it means that charters are excused from more state regulations, so when a state is cited by them as having “weak” charter laws it means we probably like the law! Resegregation ◦ number of predominantly white charters in the Twin Cities metro area has risen from 11 in 2000 to 37 in 2010 . (Report from the Institute on Race and Poverty) Influence of special interest groups with money (i.e. Walmart) More Continuing Issues Charter accountability ◦ MN proposal to force authorizers to either close low performers (about 17 out of 150) or defend their continued existence. Charter proponents oppose this law For profit management companies ◦ “Because of the way Minnesota law is written, charter management organizations (CMO's) do not see Minnesota as a good fit because while they might spend considerable amounts of money to start a school, the board of that school can decide not to renew their contract...and no contract can be for longer than five years. “ Bob Wedl ◦ Edison Project has been successful in Duluth Aid to non-public schools (presently includes transportation, counseling, instructional materials, nursing) ◦ Because of this aid, the fight for vouchers has gone away for now at least. Consulted… Mary Cecconi – Executive Director of Parents United MN Joe Nathan – Director for the Center for School Change Bob Wedl – senior associate at Education Evolving – a policy study group and an authorizer Garnet Franklin – Educational Issues Specialist at Education Minnesota (merged teachers’ union) John Schultz, PhD – superintendent of Hopkins Public Schools, MN – district sponsored two charter schools Resources and works cited Charter Schools by Joe Nathan (c. 1996) Zero Chance of Passage by Ember Reichgott Junge (c. 2012) Rhetoric versus Reality by Gill et. Al (c. 2001) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/us/awalmart-fortune-spreading-charterschools.html?_r=0 http://hechingerreport.org/content/ascharter-schools-come-of-age-measuringtheir-success-is-tricky_12647/