By Charley Falkenburg, Staff Writer
Two controversial charter school reform bills are working their way to the full Assembly after the Assembly Education Committee approved them at a Feb. 2 hearing.
The first bill would require a public referendum before the establishment or expansion of new charter schools.
The other would increase charter school educational and financial accountability. It would address the fact that New Jersey charter school students do not represent the demographics of their sending districts and would include a provision that would sign up all district students in a charter school’s admission lottery.
Many public school districts support these bills, particularly the law requiring local approval for a new charter school. Under the current law, local communities have no say in the charter school approval process even though the schools are funded from public school budgets.
Princeton schools spend almost $5 million annually on the Princeton Charter School. They would have to pay an additional $250,000 if a proposed Princeton International Academy Charter School, a Mandarin immersion school, is permitted to open in South Brunswick.
Princeton Board of Education president Rebecca Cox disagreed with making Princeton taxpayers fund these schools and said such schools should need the approval of the public they are affecting.
”I represent taxpayers and students, and I don’t think it’s fair for either students or taxpayers to create charter schools without the input of people paying for them,” said Ms. Cox. “It is part of the democratic process that people are able to vote on things involving their own money.”
Montgomery Board of Education president Christine Ross and West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education president Hemant Marathe also would like a local say in the creation of such schools.
Larry Patton, head of Princeton Charter School, thinks a public referendum would present challenges for future charter schools.
”Voter referendum is a real issue that would stop the development of new schools and may threaten our existence later on down the road,” said Mr. Patton. He added that a referendum would primarily result in a campaign that would cost additional unnecessary money.
”Any dollar spent on some kind of public relations campaign to convince people is a waste of taxpayer money — it’s a distraction from education,” he said. “If we didn’t do a good job, parents would drop us — but we’re not being dropped so we’re serving a need.”
Montgomery Superintendent Earl Kim, who recently resigned from the Foundation Academy board of trustees in Trenton, said the idea that taxpayers should have a say makes sense since they have to pay more — but it would bring about the demise of any new charter schools.
”It is a problem, but I don’t think the solution is a local referendum,” said Mr. Kim. “A source of state innovation funding is the solution.”
He added that charter schools are experimental and have a high failure rate —often wasting taxpayer money.
Under current charter school laws, the school determines how many students it will get from a public school district. The state Department of Education makes the district fund that amount regardless of how many students end up attending.
Princeton experienced this when Mercer County Performing Arts High School closed after four months. Ms. Cox estimated the district lost almost $150,000, even though only a handful of students attended.
If the new bills are passed, every student in the district will be entered in a lottery so charter schools will better represent the demographic of the sending districts — something Mr. Kim opposes.
”That would run contrary to the purpose of charter schools, which is to give choice to the parents. A critical aspect of charter schools are the abilities to narrow the missions,” said Mr. Kim. “Those who are not even interested that are getting thrown into the lottery run counter to the policy of choice that is in the 1996 charter legislation.”
He criticized the lack of consistent policy direction from the state level.
Mr. Patton said he was frustrated with the lottery but the proposed lottery didn’t seem practical.
”I wish we could become more popular so people did apply more from different demographics,” he added.
Mr. Marathe commended the second bill saying it would put everyone at the same level of footing. He was particularly concerned about the difference in the percentage of special needs students in public and charter schools.
Mr. Kim acknowledged the number of special needs children and students who struggle tend to be lower or not as highly represented in charter schools.
”As much as they try to be fair, there’s a natural creaming process — it’s not a purposeful thing,” he said.
The second bill also calls for greater transparency —which confused Mr. Patton. He said the school’s entire curriculum is online, they have public board meetings, their annual reports are available and their financial statements are on the same website as the public schools.
”We have a budget they feel is not inside of the process, but the point is we don’t set our funding formula,” said Mr. Patton. “It’s set as a complex equation that operates from the local school budget.”
Mr. Kim said that most charter schools are already transparent, but some violate regulations and ruin it for all of the other schools trying to do the right thing.
Ms. Cox commended the proposed bill for requiring charter schools to have more financial accountability. She emphasized that charter schools are separate districts — requiring its own administration, staffing, heads of schools, principals, teachers and supplies. The more kids who attend leave fewer resources for the public schools.
”People don’t realize that the state calculations of per pupil funding include all of the high school expenses plus special education and ESL,” said Ms. Cox. “When you have a student leave with all the extra money, it deprives all of the remaining students in the district.”
She added that this might result in cutting maintenance or programs.
Mr. Patton disagreed with the idea that the existence of charter schools takes away clubs and programs from public schools.
”This is a legal entity and there’s a level of rancor and lack of civility in discourse,” he said. “That’s really a shame because the children are the ones who suffer.”
The full Assembly could take these reform bills up within the month. As the bills are reviewed, both charter and public schools are unsure if they will be passed.
However, Mr. Kim said that as a charter school person, he knows charter school advocates are concerned. He added they should be worried with all the failed schools and criticism.
”But they’ve done a lot of good by students,” he said. “I sure would hate to see the babies being thrown out with the bath water.”
Mr. Patton said Princeton Charter School has tried to inform parents about what is happening.
”We have encouraged parents to voice their positive feelings about the school so there is a balance, but we’re not diverting any resources to it — that’s not our mission.”
Mr. Marathe was hopeful about the bills and said this was the first step
”This is just making a statement, but I feel the state is going in the right direction,” he said.

