Budget pressure heightens South Bay charter-school district disputes

[alp227]

by Sharon Noguchi
San Jose Mercury News
June 1, 2010

With enrollment growing annually, Discovery Charter School in San Jose hoped to add two classrooms at its West San Jose campus this fall. Instead, the 4-year-old charter school has received a letter from the Moreland School District's attorney declaring that nearly one-third of the school's portable classrooms would be removed by the end of June.

"We've reached an all-time low in communication," said Barb Eagle, Discovery's board president.

Discovery isn't alone in its sometime fractious relationship with elected trustees. The financial vise squeezing California schools has intensified friction between charter schools and nearby school districts. In the South Bay, a dispute over parcel tax revenues in Alum Rock and ongoing lawsuits in Los Altos have roots in the pressing search for dollars and in the vague rules governing charters, which are public schools allowed to operate independently of local school boards and California's education code.

State law unintentionally pits charters as financial adversaries to school districts, which lose per-pupil funding for each of their students who attend a charter. Additionally, a district granting a charter is usually obligated to provide the school a campus free of charge. In some cases, even a district denying a charter application may end up on the hook for providing facilities if the charter is granted on appeal.

As Sacramento has cut back school funding and delayed paying what it owes schools, districts are searching for cuts. Charter supporters say they are feeling the pinch.

Parents in the Moreland elementary district, which runs six schools in San Jose, have grown resentful of Discovery Charter, Superintendent Glen Ishiwata said. The animosity precedes the school's founding in 2006, when the Santa Clara County Board of Education overrode Moreland trustees and granted the charter.

--snip--

Now, as Moreland faces cutting nearly $3 million of its $36 million budget for 2010-11, and as parents are desperately raising funds to salvage programs, "Parents are saying the district should not be subsiding out-of-district students," Ishiwata said. State law requires a district to provide a charter school with facilities sufficient enough to educate those students residing within the district's boundaries. Because only 52 percent of Discovery students come from the Moreland area, the district is providing below-market-rate space for nondistrict students, he said.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15203508

[donco6]

1. They have a point.

Local property taxes should not be subsidizing students from other districts. They would certainly be raising hell here if 50% of our kids were from another district.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Why are kids from out of district alllowed to enroll?

That doesn't make good sense.

[donco6]

3. It depends on state law.

Here in Colorado, we have open enrollment across boundaries until October 1 of each year. If you have space, you MUST enroll the student. You don't have to provide transportation, but they have to be enrolled.

Charters sometimes don't pay any attention to boundaries, and just enroll any kind who is breathing. Every kid means another per-pupil-revenue amount. So they recruit heavily all over the place with no concern about in-district or out-of-district. But then they start making capital expenditures to provide seats for these kids. Capital expenditures are usually borne by the actual district taxpayers, so naturally, they are going to start asking questions about who these kids are. Logical. Why should they pay for a classroom for a kid whose parents should be footing that bill?

[mzteris]

4. "admit anykid who is breathing" . . .

which is it - they don't take everyone or they'll take anyone?



Our charter takes any who apply - except those who live "indistrict" get priority. Unfortunately, we have a HUGE WAITING LIST for kids even IN-DISTRICT - so out-of-district kids are pretty much SOL. (and - there are "set-asides" to ensure appropriate percentages - we strive for 50/50 native and non-native spanish speakers. We also strive for 50/50 male/female. )

The good news, the school board recognized the merit of our CHarter school and is now implementing what was basically OUR program in the traditional schools.

While I'm (very) unhappy they decided to not give the charter for a middle school program, they do seem to be working very hard to institute a DLI program in the middle school - and working very closely with the teachers and parents from our charter. They will be using OUR kids as guinea pigs (and the standard!) of course. The plan is that they will work out the kinks using our Charter kids and then begin implementing the DLI program for every middle school in the city in three years.

By that time of course, - OUR kids will be starting a high-school dual language program, so they will still be the city's trailblazers - again. We're already working with the planning committee on what that program will "look like".

[donco6]

7. They'll take the ones who don't cost them money.

Yeah, our charters here have waiting lists, too. And if you're high need special ed you'll be waiting till hell freezes over. They don't take them, and make no bones about it.

[noamnety]

5. It makes sense to me.

I maintain that it's discriminatory to exclude students from a particular public education choice because they can't afford to live near that particular school.

The shame is not that a school has equal and nondiscriminatory enrollment; the shame is the way that schools are funded through local (I-got-mine) taxes. By design, such a system ensures that the children of the rich have access to the best education. Privilege reinforces structures which maintain their privilege.

The civil rights position should allow equal access to public resources to all children.

[donco6]

6. I agree.

We have this hybrid system now, where operating expenses are "equalized" (sorta), and capital expenditures are not. So wealthy districts can ALWAYS pass a bond election and build new schools, pools, libraries, whatever, while poor areas can never have those things. We've run a bond 3 times in a row and lost every year.

Further, wealthy areas can charge all sorts of fees, thus taking pressure off the regular funding. My district is 80% free lunch. I can charge all the fees I want, but I'll never collect them. So I get screwed again. The district just to the north of me charges $10 per month/kid for bus transp. That's an additional $1 million in revenue for them to run their buses. I could never collect that. I have to pay for my buses out of my general fund. Screwed again.