The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, a leading proponent of the charter sector, recently released its annual review of charter laws in the 42 states that provide for the creation of charter schools. The Alliance rated each state's charter laws based on 20 "essential components" found in the Alliance's model law such as: no caps on the number of charters, authorizer accountability, transparent charter application, review and decision-making processes, clear student recruitment procedures, clear special education responsibilities and equitable access to capital funding and facilities.
The good news is that Pennsylvania's laws ranked 16th of the 42 states' laws reviewed. Last year, however, the Alliance rated Pennsyvania 12th. The Commonwealth dropped in the rankings because its laws remained unchanged while other states amended their charter laws and moved ahead. According to the Alliance, Pennsylvania fared best on having a transparent charter application, review and decision-making process, having fiscally and legally autonomous schools with independent public charter school boards, and providing for an exemption from collective bargaining. Our feeling is that the decision-making process is not tranparent since the authorizers are largely local school boards with agendas that may be at odds with furthering the innivative spirit of charters. Moreover, funding to charters needs to pass through the local school district before reaching the charter.
Pennsylvania, according to the Alliance, needs to improve on allowing multi-school charter contracts, having authorizer and overall program accountability and adequate authorizer funding. The Alliance gave the Comonwealth no points on each of these essential components. Indeed, the current charter law prohibits multi-charter contracts and there is no additional funding for authorizers.
The bottom line is that Pennsylvania's 1997 charter law is becoming outdated and in need of reform. The legislature's failure to move forward with significant improvements to the law is unfortunate and the entrepreneurial educators looking to start charters may look outside Pennsylvania and to other states that foster a more attractive climate to develop charter schools.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Mifflinburg School Board Stacks the Deck Against Charter Approval
CHARTER SCHOOL ALERT
The proposed New Berlin Charter School in Pennsylvania's Union County is facing roadblocks in its efforts to gain a charter to operate from the Mifflinburg Area School District. New Berlin filed its charter application by the Commonwealth's November 15, 2011 deadline. The founders envision 100 students in kindergarten through fourth grade and 40 students have pre-enrolled in the charter school.
The Mifflinburg Area School Superintendent, Dan Lichtel, is not impressed with the school's application. Lichtel has been quoted as saying that New Berlin lacks a curriculum, has not identified staff, has no collateral,and no plans for special-needs students or for student achievement. To be sure, this is the first charter application in the Mifflinburg area and Lichtel may not appreciate that New Berlin is not able to hire teachers or enroll children until the charter is granted by the School District. Or perhaps he is aware of the proposed school's limited ability to provide information during the application process and instead is focused on cutting the School District $1.3 million deficit. The timing is seemingly not right for, as Lichtel put it, New Berlin Charter School's "experiment."
Lesson for Trustees: Trustees need to be mindful of the application process and provide as much information as possible when making the initial filing with the charter authorizer. In this time of budget uncertainty and fiscal austerity, however, that may not be enough. Authorizers also need to know that the proposed charter has the support of a large portion of the community. The loud voice of the community seems to be the real check on the power of the school district authorizers to do their job of evaluating charter school applications fairly. Charter trustees would be wise to do what they can to develop public support in advance of filing a charter application or for seeking charter renewal.
This Charter School Alert was authored by Eric L. Silberstein, an attorney with Salvo Rogers & Elinski in Blue Bell, PA. Mr. Silberstein, a member of Salvo Rogers & Elinski's Corporate and Real Estate Groups, has practiced law for 20 years and works closely with charter boards and administrators on governance, financing, special education, real estate, charter renewals and other charter matters. Mr. Silberstein is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut. He can be reached at (215) 653-0110 or esilberstein@salvorogers.com. Salvo Rogers is a boutique law firm started in 1988 that is committed to providing high quality, personal service and cost effectiveness to clients pursuing business transactions, commercial real estate matters, and trusts and estates planning.
Please continue to follow other Pennsylvania charter school news of interest posted on my blog, "PA Charter School Law Forum:" pacharterlawforum.blogspot.com. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
The proposed New Berlin Charter School in Pennsylvania's Union County is facing roadblocks in its efforts to gain a charter to operate from the Mifflinburg Area School District. New Berlin filed its charter application by the Commonwealth's November 15, 2011 deadline. The founders envision 100 students in kindergarten through fourth grade and 40 students have pre-enrolled in the charter school.
The Mifflinburg Area School Superintendent, Dan Lichtel, is not impressed with the school's application. Lichtel has been quoted as saying that New Berlin lacks a curriculum, has not identified staff, has no collateral,and no plans for special-needs students or for student achievement. To be sure, this is the first charter application in the Mifflinburg area and Lichtel may not appreciate that New Berlin is not able to hire teachers or enroll children until the charter is granted by the School District. Or perhaps he is aware of the proposed school's limited ability to provide information during the application process and instead is focused on cutting the School District $1.3 million deficit. The timing is seemingly not right for, as Lichtel put it, New Berlin Charter School's "experiment."
Lesson for Trustees: Trustees need to be mindful of the application process and provide as much information as possible when making the initial filing with the charter authorizer. In this time of budget uncertainty and fiscal austerity, however, that may not be enough. Authorizers also need to know that the proposed charter has the support of a large portion of the community. The loud voice of the community seems to be the real check on the power of the school district authorizers to do their job of evaluating charter school applications fairly. Charter trustees would be wise to do what they can to develop public support in advance of filing a charter application or for seeking charter renewal.
This Charter School Alert was authored by Eric L. Silberstein, an attorney with Salvo Rogers & Elinski in Blue Bell, PA. Mr. Silberstein, a member of Salvo Rogers & Elinski's Corporate and Real Estate Groups, has practiced law for 20 years and works closely with charter boards and administrators on governance, financing, special education, real estate, charter renewals and other charter matters. Mr. Silberstein is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut. He can be reached at (215) 653-0110 or esilberstein@salvorogers.com. Salvo Rogers is a boutique law firm started in 1988 that is committed to providing high quality, personal service and cost effectiveness to clients pursuing business transactions, commercial real estate matters, and trusts and estates planning.
Please continue to follow other Pennsylvania charter school news of interest posted on my blog, "PA Charter School Law Forum:" pacharterlawforum.blogspot.com. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Vouchers Stymie Passage of Amendments to Charter Legislation in PA House
CHARTER SCHOOL ALERT
With the fate of amendments to the Charter School Law of 1997 held hostage by the heated debate over whether the Commonwealth should be in the business of providing school vouchers, proponents of reform of the Charter School Law were left with little cheer about after the House of Representatives voted 90-105 on December 14, 2011 to defeat Amendment A07732 to SB 560.
Even with the enthusiastic support by Governor Corbett of a school voucher program sponsored by the Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives was gridlocked when it came time to consider the House's companion version of the bill approved by the Senate on October 26, 2011. House Republicans tried hard to preserve some elements of a voucher plan but, absent sufficient votes, turned instead to a bill that would have authorized the establishment of a State Commission on Charter Schools to authorize charter schools and charter renewals and would have also expanded the earned income tax credit. The bill that was ultimately considered at 10:50 P.M.-- just in time to allow for the minimum 10 minutes for voting and still abide by the prohibition on sessions continuing past 11:00 P.M.-- was put forth by House Majority Leader Mike Turazi (R-Allegheny) and Tom Killion (R-Chester and Delaware).
With the passage of SB1 and the defeat of Amendment A07732 to SB 560, where does that leave school administrators and trustees? We are essentially in the same position as if neither the Senate bill nor the House amendment were considered. There is no law for Governor Corbett to sign at this time and, as best as we can tell from public sources, the House is not likely to take up charter school law revisions in 2012. So, the Charter School Law continues in full force and effect and administrators and trustees can focus on continued compliance with the law as they have known it for nearly 15 years.
This Charter School Alert was authored by Eric L. Silberstein, an attorney with Salvo Rogers & Elinski in Blue Bell, PA. Mr. Silberstein, a member of Salvo Rogers & Elinski's Corporate and Real Estate Groups, has practiced law for 20 years and works closely with charter boards and administrators on governance, financing, special education, real estate, charter renewals and other charter matters. Mr. Silberstein is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut. He can be reached at (215) 653-0110 or esilberstein@salvorogers.com. Salvo Rogers is a boutique law firm started in 1988 that is committed to providing high quality, personal service and cost effectiveness to clients pursuing business transactions, commercial real estate matters, and trusts and estates planning.
Please continue to follow other Pennsylvania charter school news of interest posted on my blog, "PA Charter School Law Forum:" pacharterlawforum.blogspot.com. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
With the fate of amendments to the Charter School Law of 1997 held hostage by the heated debate over whether the Commonwealth should be in the business of providing school vouchers, proponents of reform of the Charter School Law were left with little cheer about after the House of Representatives voted 90-105 on December 14, 2011 to defeat Amendment A07732 to SB 560.
Even with the enthusiastic support by Governor Corbett of a school voucher program sponsored by the Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives was gridlocked when it came time to consider the House's companion version of the bill approved by the Senate on October 26, 2011. House Republicans tried hard to preserve some elements of a voucher plan but, absent sufficient votes, turned instead to a bill that would have authorized the establishment of a State Commission on Charter Schools to authorize charter schools and charter renewals and would have also expanded the earned income tax credit. The bill that was ultimately considered at 10:50 P.M.-- just in time to allow for the minimum 10 minutes for voting and still abide by the prohibition on sessions continuing past 11:00 P.M.-- was put forth by House Majority Leader Mike Turazi (R-Allegheny) and Tom Killion (R-Chester and Delaware).
With the passage of SB1 and the defeat of Amendment A07732 to SB 560, where does that leave school administrators and trustees? We are essentially in the same position as if neither the Senate bill nor the House amendment were considered. There is no law for Governor Corbett to sign at this time and, as best as we can tell from public sources, the House is not likely to take up charter school law revisions in 2012. So, the Charter School Law continues in full force and effect and administrators and trustees can focus on continued compliance with the law as they have known it for nearly 15 years.
This Charter School Alert was authored by Eric L. Silberstein, an attorney with Salvo Rogers & Elinski in Blue Bell, PA. Mr. Silberstein, a member of Salvo Rogers & Elinski's Corporate and Real Estate Groups, has practiced law for 20 years and works closely with charter boards and administrators on governance, financing, special education, real estate, charter renewals and other charter matters. Mr. Silberstein is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut. He can be reached at (215) 653-0110 or esilberstein@salvorogers.com. Salvo Rogers is a boutique law firm started in 1988 that is committed to providing high quality, personal service and cost effectiveness to clients pursuing business transactions, commercial real estate matters, and trusts and estates planning.
Please continue to follow other Pennsylvania charter school news of interest posted on my blog, "PA Charter School Law Forum:" pacharterlawforum.blogspot.com. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)