Charter School Bill Passes House

[Double A]

OK-Bill allowing more charter schools narrowly passes House
04/20/2007 by Erin Boeckman
(OPT) A bill that could bring more charter schools to Oklahoma by allowing more entities to sponsor their establishment sparked an extended discussion and debate before ultimately gaining passage during Friday's House session.

SB 661, by Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre and Rep. Jabar Shumate, both D-Tulsa, contains several provisions relating to the sponsorship of charter schools, including removing technology center school districts as a sponsor and adding language to allow institutions of higher education and governing bodies of cities to sponsor charter schools under certain circumstances. The restrictions within the bill with regard to population size would limit the effects of the bill to Tulsa and Oklahoma counties. The House adopted an amendment by Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore, to page 3, line 20, deleting all language from "by" through the word "sponsor," which Jones said would clarify that only four charter schools may be established in one county. [See below for detailed description of the provisions of SB 661.]

Discussion and debate on the bill spanned two hours, with the House breaking at noon and returning in the afternoon to launch into debate on the measure. Issues of concern for some members ranged from the potential detrimental effect the establishment of charter schools could have on public schools, the bill's application to only Oklahoma and Tulsa counties and the rules and policies governing charter schools.

During the public versus charter schools debate, Rep. Neil Brannon, D-Arkoma, said SB 661 is another step in the direction of doing away with public schools by diverting public school dollars to private schools, he said. Brannon asked how many special education students there are in the charter schools. Charter schools adds to the separation of student groups, he said. If there are problems in the public schools, the Legislature should instead be working to fix those problems, Brannon said. "I'm a strong proponent of public schools and public schools is what has made America great," Brannon said.

Also speaking on behalf of public schools, Rep. Jerry McPeak, D-Warner, questioned why proponents of SB 661 were promoting the expansion of charter schools -where more educational leniency is provided - when the Legislature appears to be placing more restrictions on public schools. There is hypocrisy and polarity in asking public schools to be more constrained under increased performance criteria while also promoting charter schools and the freedom they give teachers to use creative teaching methodology, he said. McPeak also expressed concern that the expansion of charter schools would eventually reach the rural areas. "Why do we keep on choking our public schools?" McPeak asked. "We're slowly going to bleed them out. We're going to do what we couldn't do by consolidation."

Rep. Ryan McMullen, D-Burns Flat, focused his comments on the possible effects the bill could have on rural areas in the future. While SB 661 pertains only to Oklahoma and Tulsa counties, McMullen spoke of the possible expansion of charter schools beyond the state's two urban areas. It may be easy for rural representatives to look at the bill on its merits and conclude, "it's not my deal right now," he said; however, it will not be long before the expansion of charter schools reaches those rural areas.

Responding to the public versus charter school argument, Rep. Daniel Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said the need for charter schools is present in specific areas of the state. Specifically in Tulsa, some low income and minority students are not given the opportunity to succeed within public schools, he said. "They need the opportunity to succeed and that opportunity is not always at their local school," Sullivan said, encouraging his colleagues to "put money into the charter schools where students can have the chance to succeed."

House Education Committee Chairman Tad Jones, R-Claremore, also addressed his comments to the public versus charter schools debate, specifically the rules and policies governing each. While a wealthy family can afford to give their children a school choice, there are other opportunities to help kids succeed, and they are in charter schools, he said. With regard to the regulations and policies governing charter versus public schools, Jones said charter schools operate under No Child Left Behind policies and the same special education requirements as public schools. They have fiscal oversight and they have to report Academic Performance Index scores, just as public schools do, he said. Charter schools also operate with less money, which means that their administration costs are more streamlined, he said. With regard to accountability, if charter schools fail, they die, Jones said.

In his concluding comments in defense of his bill, Shumate related the need for the bill in his own district. A public school in his district has an API score of 165 while a charter school has an API of 1500, he said. SB 661 would allow people in poor communities within the Oklahoma City and Tulsa areas to provide opportunities for students to achieve, he said. The major needs for charter schools are within the inner cities where there are clusters of areas needing attention, Shumate said. With regard to the Tulsa area in particular, Shumate said SB 661 would provide a solution. The Tulsa Public School Board took an unusual step in placing a moratorium on the establishment of any more charter schools, Shumate said. If Tulsa schools were doing their job, there would not be a need to talk about charter schools, he said.

As to the concerns over charter school expansion, Shumate said those fears are unfounded. There currently awre only 13 charter schools in the state and, if schools are performing as they ought, there should not be a sudden explosion of charter schools, he said. "When you don't offer communities good schools, you see those communities die," Shumate said. "Education is the greatest civil right we could offer any child in this country."

Once debate concluded, the vote on the bill was a prolonged one. Eight representatives did not register a "yes" or "no" while the vote was open. Seven of those members were not present on the House floor during debate on the bill. Rep. Bill Nations, D-Norman, was on the floor while votes were being cast; however, he did not appear to be on the House floor when the rolls closed on the vote. As the vote count stayed in the high 40s, a couple of members switched votes. Ultimately, Rep. Lisa Joe Billy, R-Purcell, switched her vote from red to green and the clerk declared the bill's passage at 51 to 42. The emergency clause did not pass, however, failing in a 47-to-38 vote with Nations joining the floor to vote in favor of the emergency clause. Shumate then served notice that he may reconsider the votes on the bill and the emergency clause at some future date. He has three legislative days to press his motion.

"Those voting for this bill voted for tightening state-mandated rules on public schools and loosening rules on charter schools," McPeak said in a news release following the bill's passage. With regard to the prolonged vote on the bill, McPeak said the extra time allowed and the switching of votes showed the "heavy-handed political games that the Republican leadership plays."

Speaker Lance Cargill, R-Harrah, called SB 661 one of the pieces of strong education reform currently active within the Legislature. Charter schools present a model of innovation that gives parents another option when searching for the best possible education for their children, thus raising the bar for all schools in the state, he said in a news release.

The substantive portions of the bill are as follows:

--removes technology center school districts as a sponsor for charter schools;

--allows the State Board of Education or a member of the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education to sponsor a charter school only when the school is located in a district that has an average daily membership of 5,000 or more and is located in a county having a population of more than 500,000;

--allows sponsorship by a city governing body that has a population of more than 300,000 when the school district has an average daily membership of 5,000 or more and all or part of the school district is located in that city;

--states that beginning Jan. 1, 2008, no more than four new charter schools can be established each year in each county that has a population of more than 500,000;

--directs the State Board of Education to develop a model charter school application to establish a uniform outline for charter school applications;

--requires charter school applicants to complete at most 10 hours of training from the State Department of Education on the process and requirements for establishing a charter school;

--allows the State Board of Education to designate a public charter school review commission to accept, review and make recommendations for approval of applications for charter schools submitted to the board and oversee any charter school sponsored by the board;

--states that if the State Board of Education, a higher education institution or the governing body of a city sponsors a charter school, the administrative, fiscal and oversight responsibilities of those sponsors must be listed in the contract, and none of the responsibilities can be delegated to a local school district unless the local school district agrees to assume the responsibilities;

--extends from three to five years the length of contracts for charter schools and states that the school is not required to resubmit an application unless the school is requesting an expansion or a material change in the program or in management and administration of the school;

--allows a contract between the sponsor and charter school to be terminated to allow the charter to contract with another sponsor;

--states that for charter schools sponsored by the State Board of Education, a higher education institution or the city governing body, the state aid allocation for the charter school shall be distributed by the State Board of Education, and not more than 5 percent of the total allocation may be charged by the sponsor as a fee for administrative services rendered, and

--repeals 70 O.S. 2001, Section 3-133, which relates to charter school sponsoring restrictions limiting charter sponsorship to local school districts and technology center school districts.

[shadows]

As normal we clipped the wings before it had a chance to fly.   Our problem is that the classrooms are overloaded. It includes many subject that makes a high IQ score but the underlying effect to have excelled in our world of specialist is giving us less returns for the money we spend.    If  we take the sports out of the subjects that are taught then we may open a door to the advanced learners.   So many time a knowable student is looked upon as strange because they have no interest in sports.

Jefferson's school had seven levels.  Time was when students  received a diploma after completing the eight level in school was considered an accomplishment.   Then the four more years were added but the level of learning did not increase.   Then the college years were added as a prestige award.

After watching some of the TV late shows where college students answer Washington was prez during the Civil War between the states, one thinks the public schools are on the down hill skid.

Instead of the bill addressing the issue of learning it dwells on the  administration cost which is a barrier to those who seek to learn but by "follow the money" they are unable to achieve their goal.

I would favor a bill that allowed not more than three districts to consolidate.      

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

After watching some of the TV late shows where college students answer Washington was prez during the Civil War between the states, one thinks the public schools are on the down hill skid.

That's unfair. They purposely show only the people who answer incorrectly.

It would be the same as if I asked 10 people an algebra question. Then, I only showed the response of the person who incorrectly answered and asserted that Americans don't know algebra.

[shadows]

There was no intent for selectivity but only generality.  Having been aware of many with college degrees working for a little more than the minimum wages. I feel those capable of  resuming the course they have chosen should retained it after graduating.  If it is a playhouse for the elite then we should look elsewhere to private schools to upgrade our learning. It is not the building or the overloaded administration but those who seek to learn will learn.

Bill Gates?  Edison? The list is long.