Charter Schools More Regulated Than Traditional Public Schools

Charter schools were originally intended to be public schools that were freed from the excessive regulation and bureaucracy of traditional public schools and could thus serve as independent laboratories for innovative education reform. 

But in reality charter schools are now more regulated than traditional public schools and Senate Bill 4 continues that trend.

I know that the intent of Senate Bill 4 is to close down bad charters and to reward good ones.  Unfortunately without an adequate definition of “good” and “bad” charters I feel that the bill could fail on both accounts.

There are some positive aspects to the bill.  For instance creation of the Blue Ribbon Charter program will allow a few successful charters to replicate more easily. 

The bill would create perpetual charters which would make it easier for charter operators to secure financing and construct long-term plans.

The bill would also free charter operators to establish single-sex classrooms and campuses which research has shown can improve academic outcomes and close the gender gap in fields such as science and technology.

The following are the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s recommendations for improvements to Senate Bill 4.

• The bill should not make it easier to close a charter school than it is to close a traditional public school.  Under Senate Bill 4 a charter could be shut down if it “commits a material violation of the district’s charter”; this could be something as simple as the school’s enrollment exceeding the maximum amount allowed by only one student.  But with several traditional public school districts graduating fewer than half of their students in four years I would submit that hundreds of traditional public schools are committing “material violations” of parent and taxpayer trust – yet they are allowed to remain open

• The bill’s move toward perpetual charters is positive but it should not dissolve every existing charter in the process.  These are contracts that the state has made with every charter school and it is bad precedent and bad policy to unilaterally sever these agreements.  Such a move would introduce uncertainty and instability into the charter movement.  While the move towards perpetual charters is a positive one it should be a gradual move based on existing charter timelines.

• The bill should decrease regulations on charter schools rather than further regulating them.  The idea behind charter schools was to create schools that were free of many of the mandates faced by traditional public schools.  But in reality charter schools face more regulations that traditional public schools.  This trend must be reversed.

• The bill should use growth in student achievement to evaluate charter schools. Many charter schools target student populations such as dropouts single parents or the homeless – students who no other schools want. These students may be entering the charter school several grade levels behind in achievement. While a charter school must be held accountable for increasing the achievement of its students it is unreasonable to expect that they will catch up within one year. For this reason it is vital to measure growth in student achievement for charter schools. Further amount of value added should be the preferred method of evaluating all public schools charter or traditional.

• The bill should increase the size of the Blue Ribbon Charter Program. This program is a step in the right direction but by only allowing for the creation of up to 6 new campuses it is too small to make a significant impact.

• The bill should reinstate the possibility of a statewide charter which could greatly ease the spread of successful charter programs. Current law provides for a statewide charter but Senate Bill 4 would strip that away.

• The bill should remove the cap on the number of charters which has been closely approached in the past several years.  This cap limits not only the number of charters but more importantly it limits the percentage of public school students who may enroll in charters.  The charter movement will never reach its full potential without a critical mass of enrolled students.

Members of the 2007 Legislature should ensure that Senate Bill 4 results in positive outcomes for charter schools and their students.