Budget Shortages Lead to Focus on Charter School Treatment of Special-education Students

A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (May 27, 2012) provides a good summary of the claims being made against charter schools in their efforts to educate students with special needs:

1.  Charters haven't drawn their fair share of special-needs students, especially those with more challenging disabilities to educate.  Consequently, public school boards fear they are being "left with the most challenging students, but with dwindling resources to educate them."

2.  Charters often identify students who have previously received regular education as being more suited to receive special education.

3.  Charters do not spend much of the increased tuition received to educate a special-needs student.  This allegation is made frequently against cyber charters.

4.  Charters re-classify special-needs students at PSSA test time to avoid triggering state reporting requirements and the opportunity to achieve AYP.

5.  Charters can't deny a student admission on the basis of a disability but they often subtly dissuade a student from applying for admission to the school.

6.  Charters do not spend resources on creating special classrooms for severely disabled students, instead favoring educating such students with all other students.

For Trustees and Administrators:  Given the budget deficits facing many school districts and the fact that tuition for special-needs students is nearly double the tuition charter receive for providing regular education, you should be aware that these arguments are likely to continue to be made by traditional public school officials.  It is essential to keep accurate records to support the basis for a special-needs designation and to support any change of that classification.  If, for example, a special-needs student's progress is not captured on state testing, you should be sure that other records evidence the decision to re-classify a student.  Administrators should also carefully identify the disability forming the basis for a student to receive special education.  Some students may have more than one disability and all should be captured in the students' files.      



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.

School Districts Competing with Charters -- Phoenixville Targets Cybers

Losing students and associated funding to charter schools, some local school districts are fighting to win back  students that left to attend charter schools.  A May 14, 2012 article in The Times Herald profiled responses by the Phoenixville Area School District and other nearby school districts to win back students.  The schools are focusing on establishing their own cyber-schools to compete with cyber-charter models and adding activities that may not available through cyber-charters.  Aside from saving funds by not addressing what may be an outmoded school infrastructure, cyber education may also be less expensive for the school to provide-- in 2009-2010, cyber-charters spent an average of $3,000 less to educate students than their bricks-and-mortar counterparts.

For Trustees and Administrators:  Clearly cyber-charter leaders should be aware of the encroaching competition from school districts and continue to improve and keep investing in order to keep their curriculum and technology current.  More generally, we should anticipate that school districts will work to win back students enrolled in charters, whether via cyber school programs or more traditional schools.  As such, notwithstanding the success of charters and enrollment wait lists, trustees and administrators should remain inventive and enthusiastic in their efforts to educate students.



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.  

Philadelphia School Reform Commission Seeking to Reform Charter Renewal Process

The Phliadelphia School Reform Commission (SRC) is playing hardball with the 20 charter schools whose charters are up for renewal within the next few months.  In light of on-going budget difficulties within the Phladelphia School District and a recent charter school court decision costing the District an additional $1,300,000, the SRC is using the significant leverage that comes with being the arbiter of charter renewal to hold the charters seeking renewal captive unless they agree to various conditions.  In the process, the SRC is seemingly trying to re-write the charter school law. 

The SRC will consider issuing charter renewals if the operators of the schools argree to negotiated enrollment caps and other conditions such as requiring charters to recruit from specific District schools and underserved neighborhoods.  Also, charters should use existing District faciliities where practical.  None of these conditions are specified in the charter renewal provisions of the existing charter law.  Moreovoer, Pennsylvania legislation has expressly outlawed enrollment caps absent charter agreement and the recent Palmer charter school decision upheld that law.

The SRC's actions shows how strong of an impact charter schools are having in Philadelphia.  As a consequence of their success, they are being put in the untenable position of agreeing to capping enrollment under duress-- put simply: "No cap, no charter renewal." 

Trustees and administrators of more than a few of the 20 charters up for renewal will likely voice their disapproval of the SRC's efforts and there may be some compromise by both sides.  That may be why the SRC imposed other conditions on charter renewals in addition to the enrollment caps.  For example, the requirement that charters to recruit from specific Districts with poor academic performance is likely a recipe for the charters to not achieve AYP and many of them may object to this condition.  In addition, charters looking to move or expand may push for the independence of locating where they believe is most attractive and not necessarily in existing District facilities.

Trustee and Administrator Action Items:  The charter renewal process within Philadelphia is fluid.  Continue to watch the SRC's renewal procees unfold in Philadelphia and be aware that similar actions may be sought by school districts throughout the Commonwealth.  It may be an opportune time to meet with other charter trustees to develop a plan of action to address these changes collectively as a group.  Speaking with a united voice may be critical for charters to prevent the SRC and perhaps other school districts from re-writing the charter laws.     

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.    

Charter Schools Must Comply with Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law

The press, public school districts have shown considerable interest in wanting to review what may appear to be confidential charter school records concerning enrollment, performance, financial and other matters.  These   third parties have ample latitude to request such documents given the rights provided to document requesters in Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law, 65 P.S.  67.101, et. seq., applicable to charter schools (“RTK Law”).  

The RTK Law requires, among other things, that a requestor denied by a public party (e.g. a charter school) the opportunity to review certain records has a right to appeal to the Office of Open Records (“Office”).  The Office reviews the records requested to be provided by the charter school and determines whether or not they are public records subject to disclosure within the ambit of the RTK Law.  The charter school has the right to provide timely its reasons for objecting to the records' request along with the specific reference to legal authority supporting its decision, and the Office has 30 days from receipt of the request for records to issue its decision, unless the requestor agrees to extend the date of the Office’s decision.

Records are deemed public records and required to be disclosed by the charter school so long as they directly relate to the school’s governmental function.  As governmental function has been interpreted, the scope of the RTK Law is very broad.  In addition, any decision to deny a requesting party the right to access certain records must be based on a preponderance of the evidence that the records are exempt from public access.  The broad scope of documents that fall within the ambit of the RTK Law coupled with the high burden on the Office to deny access to documents makes it not surprising that most records’ requests are upheld by the Office.  Even public records held in the custody of a private entity such as a party retained by a charter to provide management or education services on behalf of the school are subject to disclosure under the RTK Law.  See Chester Community Charter School v. Hardy, No. 1427 C.D. 2010, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (filed February 29, 2012). 

Tips for Trustees and Administrators:  It is imperative that any charter school objection to the disclosure of information sought by a third party be provided promptly to the Office of Open Records and that the objection specifies the legal basis for withholding the records.  In addition, charter school trustees and administrators should presume that all or nearly all of the records requested will be subject to disclosure and, consequently, should have clear procedures in place for recordkeeping and records retention. 

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.    

Harrisburg School for the Arts Seeking Charter School Status

Capital Area School for the Arts ("CASA") will seek charter school status beginning with the 2013-14 school year, a move allegedly resulting from the breakdown of the financial model that the school has used since its founding 11 years ago.  If CASA's charter application is  granted, the school would no longer need to rely on voluntary tuition funding from school districts and private donors that send students to the magnet arts school in downtown Harrisburg. 

CASA draws gifted students interested in pursuing the arts from 24 school districts.  Many of those districts are not in good financial shape and have reduced or eliminated payment of CASA's $5,500 annual per student fee, leaving students to rely on tuition help from CASA, outside donors or their parents.  CASA enrollment has dropped to 83 this year, down nearly 50% from a few years ago. 

The 24 school districts have tried to come up with a funding plan to continue sending students to CASA but, with only three of the 24 school districts eligible to send students to CASA willing to cover the $5,500 tuition, no solutions seemed satisfactory and the school, through the board of directors for the Capital Area Intermediate Unit, CASA's operator, voted unanimously to seek charter school status in the Harrisburg School District beginning next school year. 

If the charter is granted, the curriculum at CASA will change markedly since CASA would be required to provide a full academic program in addition to the half-day training in art, music, dance, theater and film that the school currently offers.  

*************************************

What does it mean for Charter Boards and Administrators: The financial allure of converting to charter status may embolden other magnet schools to become charters.  If charters are granted, the PA DOE will consequently be paying more of the cost to operate these new charters than it had previously when they were magnet schools and existing charter budgets will be squeezed further.   

One other important lesson:  Continue to nurture private donors.  With charter budgets being impacted by the budget deficit in the Commonwealth and further eroded by moves by CASA and other magnets, it is critical to maintain excellent relations with donors and potential donors as the financial climate will inevitably lead school officials to ask supporters to contribute funds to help  charters meet their various missions.   

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.    

Pennsylvania Charter Law Analyzed by National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

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.

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.    

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.    

Will Pennsylvania Charter Schools Be Ranked Like D.C. Charters?

On December 6th, the D.C. Public Charter School Board (PCSB), the agency overseeing D.C. charter schools, introduced a rating system that ranks charter schools along three tiers of quality, and offers parents a more thorough assessment of school progress than annual performance reports.  The system, known as the "Performance Management Framework," will allow for charter schools to be assessed against a series of "leading" indicators that the PCSB considers to be predictors of future educational success.  Early childhood programs are largely exempt from the rankings.  In addition, as the focus is on educational achievement, the rankings will not address school governance or financial management.

The assessments will result in D.C.'s 53 charter schools to be divided into three tiers of performance-- based on student achievement, student progress over time, gateway measures for career planning and indicators of educational success such as attendance and numbers of 9th graders on track to graduate. According to the PCSB, the system was established to provide a "fair, complete picture of a school's overall performance using common indicators."  PCSB will use the performance data in considering whether to grant, deny or revoke a charter seeking renewal.  Schools in the first two tiers will be exempt from the on-site program development review conducted during the charter renewal process.    

The assessment tool is highly quantitative and awards the most points for schools showing overall student improvement.  Here is a link to the excel-based program for inputting the requested data: http://pcsb-pmf.wikispaces.com/file/detail/PMF+Calculator+%28School+Version%29+-Oct15.xlsx.

Pennsylvania charter schools should anticipate that school authorizers will begin to craft similar systems to quantify academic success and achievement.   Consequently, trustees and administrators would be wise to review the D.C. PCSB questions and become familiar with the scoring weights given by the PCSB.

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.    

PA SUPREME COURT: SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO FUND CHARTER SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM

CHARTER SCHOOL ALERT

On November 23, 2011, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled that, while a charter school has authority to set its own entrance age for kindergarten, a school district does not have the duty to fund the charter school’s kindergarten program if the charter school’s policy is not consistent with the school district’s.  Slippery Rock Area Sch. Dist. V. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter Sch., J-22-2011 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Nov, 23, 2011).

The court considered an appeal by the Slippery Rock Area School District (School District) in connection with the determination by the Department of Education to withhold $1,716.63 from the School District’s state subsidy because the School District failed to pay the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School (Charter School) for a four year-old student enrolled in the Charter School’s kindergarten program.  The School District’s kindergarten policy allowed for the education of five year-old children and, consequently, the School District asserted that it had no obligation to fund the Charter School for the schooling of the four year-old child.  Both an administrative ruling by the Department of Education and a lower court decision held that the Charter School was entitled to payment from the School District.   The Supreme Court reversed those decisions.

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the interplay between Pennsylvania’s Public School Code of 1949 (PSC) and the Charter School Law of 1997 (CSL).  The PSC requires school districts to “educate every person, residing in the district, between the ages of six and twenty-one years.”[1]   Further, the PSC states that: “The board of school directors may establish and maintain kindergartens for children between the ages of four and six years.”[2] As such, the Supreme Court noted at the outset that the School District’s policy of educating five year-olds was discretionary and not required by law.  Reviewing the CSL, the Supreme Court found that “cyber charter schools have the ability to set the grade or age level served by the school, while the school and its board of trustees have the authority to implement and enforce the specified policy.”[3]  The Charter School acted within its authority to set its kindergarten enrollment age at four years.

The Supreme Court then reviewed a provision of the Pennsylvania Administrative Code that addressed the offering of kindergarten programs in Pennsylvania and interpreted the provision to provide school districts with the exclusive authority to set the minimum entry age for kindergarten for the entire school district.[4] 

Finding that the “plain meaning of the applicable statutes and regulations reveals that the General Assembly granted both Cyber School and Slippery Rock the ability to set the enrollment age for a kindergarten program,” the Supreme Court then addressed the General Assembly’s “gap when it failed to articulate whether it is a cyber charter school’s or a school district’s policy that prevails in the event of a conflict regarding funding.  When faced with such a conflict, we hold that the cyber charter school is bound by the policy of the school district in which the student resides.”  In the case under review, since a four year-old resident of the School District may not attend public school, the School District does not have to pay for the child’s enrollment in the Charter School’s kindergarten program.

The Supreme Court was careful to note that its decision “does not limit the autonomy of the Charter School or contradict the intent behind the CSL.”  The Charter School may still set the age of its students and allow four year-old children to attend kindergarten, “but it does so at its own cost if the student’s home district has set a different entrance age.”  The reality, of course, is that by withholding funding to charter schools where the charter embraces innovative teaching and expanded educational opportunities by allowing for the education of children that are under-served by the school district—in this case four year-olds, that the court’s ruling will choke such innovation unless the charter secures funding from other sources.   

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.    

---

[1] Public School Code Section 5-501.

[2] Public School Code Section 5-503.

[3] Charter School Law Section 17-1719-A(3), (6)

[4] Pennsylvania Administrative Code Section 11.14.

CSO OUTLINES CHARTER RENEWAL PROCESS FOR PHILADELPHIA CHARTER SCHOOLS

                                                             CHARTER SCHOOL ALERT

The Office of Charter, Partnership and New Schools of The School District of Philadelphia (CSO) recently provided a Charter School Renewal Orientation for charter schools whose charters are up for renewal in 2012.  As the review protocol is not likely to be materially modified during the next few years, charter schools with renewals in 2013 and beyond should also be aware of this information and consider taking various actions now to ensure a smooth renewal process.

Complying with the Charter School Law’s mandate for local school boards to conduct a “comprehensive review” prior to granting a five year charter renewal[1], the CSO staff used the Orientation to outline the materials to be collected by the renewal evaluation team, address site visits to be conducted by SchoolWorks, an outside education consultant, and provide the timeline for the renewal application process. 

The CSO’s review of a charter school seeking renewal will be organized into four “domains:”

1.       Academic Performance – Analysis of the charter school’s academic performance including, among other areas, review of PSSAs, AYP performance, Special Education compliance, ELL compliance and review of existing improvement  plans.

2.      Financial Health – Assessment of the school’s financial stability by review of financial health ratios[2], independent audits, IRS Form 990s, and internal controls.

3.      Governance and Compliance – Review of the school’s compliance with statutory requirements and board governance in the areas of admissions, financial management, school policies and procedures and academic services.

4.      Customer Satisfaction – Analysis of the school’s survey results, parent complaint logs, student retention rates and school safety.

Renewal Site Visits

The CSO will supplement its review of documents relevant to each of the four domains with information obtained from the renewal site visits by SchoolWorks.  Prior to their visit, SchoolWorks consultants will be sent a variety of information from the school to prepare for the visits.  The specific information to be provided is shown on Appendix A of the CSO’s Fall 2011 Renewal Site Visit Protocol and includes a school staff roster, a description of the school’s special education program and ELL services, a current budget analysis report, cash flow projections for the year, and copies of board minutes.  Recommendation: Charters should be sure that they are currently maintaining the information sought by SchoolWorks and, if not, be able to articulate a compelling reason for not having it available when requested.  

Appendix B of the Renewal Site Visit Protocol contains general descriptions of the interview topics with the school’s various stakeholders as well as interview worksheets with specific questions.  For example, below is a sample of questions for discussions with the Board:

·         Describe the Board’s structure.  Describe the primary roles and responsibilities of members, committees.

·         How does the Board make decisions and establish policies?  Provide an example of a decision that is made by the Board vs. made by the school without Board input.

·         How does the Board define and measure the school’s performance?

·         How does the Board recruit new members?

·         How does the Board ensure the safety – both physical and emotional—of all students and staff?

·         What are the Board’s greatest strengths and areas for improvement?

Similar questions are also provided for interviews with school leadership, special education staff, ELL staff, teachers, parents and students.  Recommendation:  Charters should closely review the Interview Questions and Guidance contained on Appendix B of the Renewal Site Visit Protocol.  Copies are available from the CSO.

Timeline

Schools seeking to have charters renewed were required to file their renewal applications by November 15^th.  Renewal site visits were scheduled for October and November.  All additional materials requested by the CSO are due by December 30^th.  The CSO will provide reports to the School Reform Commission (SRC) in time for the SRC’s March 7, 2012 meeting to discuss and receive public comment on charter’s up for renewal.  The SRC is expected to render renewal decisions on March 14, 2012.

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 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 & Elinski 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 follow charter school news of interest on my blog, “PA Charter School Law Forum” at pacharterlawforum.blogspot.com.  Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

---

[1] See Section 1728-A of the Charter School Law.

[2] The Charter School Office published a “Charter School Financial Health Metrics: Reference Sheet,” dated January 6, 2011.  

SB 1 Passes Senate; Potential Impact on Trustees and Administrators

CHARTER SCHOOL ALERT

  PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL 1

Members of the Pennsylvania Senate passed Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) on October 26, 2011.  If adopted by the House of Representatives and signed into law by Governor Corbett, this legislation will create a program for taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers, expand the Education Improvement Tax Credit Program, and amend the Commonwealth’s Charter School Law of 1997.  The vote, 27-22, was largely on party lines, with 24 republicans and 3 democrats supporting SB 1. 

Many of the provisions found in SB 904, the Charter School Reform bill introduced earlier this year by Senator Piccola, Chair of the Education Committee (R-15^th District), were subsumed within SB 1.  Unfortunately, Senate debate of the bill and press coverage of SB 1 following its passage focused largely on the topic of school vouchers, with little attention placed on the possibility of significant changes to the Charter School Law. 

This Charter School Alert summarizes what we believe are the key provisions of SB 1 that will, if SB 1 becomes law, fundamentally impact charter boards of trustees and administrators: 

• Ethics Act applies to charter school board trustees and administrators; requires annual ethics filings; prohibits conflicts of interest; allows parents to petition for trustee removal.

SB 1 mandates that all members of a charter school’s board of trustees and school administrators will be subject to the requirements of the State Ethics Act (65 Pa.C.S. Ch. 11).  Specifically, trustees must file a statement of financial interest annually with the State Ethics Commission and administrators must annually file a statement of financial interest for the preceding calendar year with the charter’s board of trustees no later than May 1^st. 

SB 1 prohibits trustees and administrators from engaging in conflicts of interest and at all times act in the best interests of the school.  For example, an administrator may not receive compensation from another charter school or from an education management service provider unless the administrator submits a sworn statement to the trustees detailing the work for the other entity and the anticipated hours and pay, and the board of trustees adopts a resolution granting permission to the administrator.  Further, a trustee must abstain from voting on a contractual matter if such vote would result in a conflict of interest in the administration of the contract.  Any such contract may be voided by a court if it’s later determined that the trustee voted on a matter that, in light of a conflict of interest, the trustee should have recused himself. 

Consistent with the Charter School Law’s focus on increasing community involvement in education, SB 1 allows for a minimum of 25 parents or guardians of students enrolled in the charter to petition the Court of Common Pleas to remove a trustee that neglects the performance of his or her duties.  If removed by the Court, the trustee may not serve on another charter board for at least five years.

Recommendation:  Whether or not SB 1 becomes law, we recommend that charter boards and administrators review the Ethics Act and become familiar with the form of disclosure of financial interests.  Boards may want to require trustees and administrators to prepare financial interest statements at the beginning of each fiscal year for distribution to trustees. Also, trustees and administrators should become familiar with their schools’ conflict of interest policy or, if the charter does not have a policy in place, adopt a conflict of interest policy as soon as possible.

• Potential Modifications to Compositon of Board of Trustees.

SB 1 requires a board of trustees to have at least five non-related voting members and requires each board to have as a member at least one parent or guardian of a student enrolled in the school. 

Recommendation:  Reach into the local community for Board members.  Adding a parent or guardian of a student enrolled at a charter seems prudent practice.  

• Annual independent audits of charter schools and cyber charter schools and public disclosure of financial records.

SB 1 requires that an audit of the school’s operations is to be conducted annually and the audit findings are to be reviewed by an independent audit committee of the board of trustees.  In addition to looking into the charter’s financial records (e.g., tax filings and financial statements), the audit, conducted by a qualified certified public accountant, will examine Board policies and procedures regarding internal controls, code of ethics, conflicts of interest, whistle-blower protections, complaints from parents or the community, open meetings and public bidding.  

In addition, charter schools must provide copies of their annual budgets to the School District and the Department of Education.  The budget information must identify the source of funding for expenditures and the salary of all administrators.  Copies of all federal and state tax filings, including Form 990, are to be made available on request or be posted on each charter school’s or charter school foundation’s website.

Recommendation:  Maintain a manual of your school’s policies and procedures.  Consider adopting policies relating to the tracking of receipts and expenses, code of ethics, conflicts of interest, whistle-blower protections, handling complaints from parents or the community and public bidding.  Confirm board compliance with the State’s Open Meeting and Right to Know Laws.  Be transparent with financial information by making financial statements and tax filings available on the charter’s website.    

Aside from fostering greater transparency of management and greater disclosure of charter schools’ financial information, SB 1, if enacted into law, will offer charters significant benefits:  

• Direct Pay. The bill requires payments from the Department of Education to flow directly to the charter school. The school district will no longer serve as a pass-through for funding to charters.

• Increases Length of Charter Renewal.  Charter renewals may be granted for ten year periods (now five).  The increase in renewal term may yield significant funding advantages to charters as lenders are likely to be more comfortable lending knowing that, so long as the school operates successfully, the school’s charter will remain in effect for 10 years. 

• Standardizes the charter school application.  Charter school applicants and school board trustees will no longer need to “reinvent the wheel” during the charter application and review process.

• Allows for charter schools to file for amendments to their charters. Current charter law does not specify a process for amendments to charters. SB 1provides charter schools to apply for amendments to their charters during the course of their charter. The bill outlines the procedures charters and school board directors are to follow during the amendment process.

We will continue to issue Charter School Alerts as SB 1 is considered by the House of Representatives. 

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 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 & Elinski 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 follow charter school news of interest on my blog, “PA Charter School Law Forum” at pacharterlawforum.blogspot.com.  Your comments and suggestions are welcome.