Despite sponsor, Sen. Lloyd Smucker’s insistence that the amendment “provides assurance…that we are committed to seeing Pennsylvania students receive a top-notch education regardless of the venue,” many groups, including The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, have spoken out against it. Opponents have rallied around a particular provision allowing charter schools to be authorized and renewed by independent entities, such as universities. At present, only the state and school district are authorized to oversee charters.

According to Susan Spicka, co-founder of the public school advocacy group Education Matters, the bill would also allow students from all over the state to enroll in any charter of their choice, even those several districts away. This would require the local school district and taxpayers to bus students to and from the charter school, on top of paying for tuition. She added that the bill would create taxation without representation, and a mandate that taxpayers pay for a system of privately operated charter schools in addition to the traditional public schools they already fund.

On Oct. 29, the Education Law Center also released a report agreeing that the bill “would ultimately gut local control over charter school authorization and growth, encourage unfettered expansion of even poorly operated charter schools, take already underfunded school districts to the brink of financial collapse and remove important accountability tools that school districts can use to ensure charter schools are performing well and equitably serving all kinds of students.”

In response, a group including StudentsFirst, The Black Alliance for Education Options and Philadelphia Charters for Excellence, published a position paper outlining their support for SB 1085. The group admitted the bill needs refining, but stated that it conceptually supports the proposed university authorizers, educator evaluations, removal of enrollment barriers and caps and other provisions. The group calls SB 1085 “a thoughtful and comprehensive step in the right direction.”

Proponents also point to a provision that could save the state roughly $30 million through the prevention of “double dipping” in pension funds and reimbursements, and requires charter schools to return all excess tuition funds to their districts. Together with other funding changes, SB 1085 could save Pennsylvania school districts roughly $150 million over the next two years.

Pennsylvania is currently home to 174 physical charter schools, and an additional 16 based online. More than 40,000 students statewide are currently on charter school waiting lists.

The post Pennsylvania Bill Could Mean Big Changes for Charter Schools appeared first on School Construction News.

Senate Bill 2, sponsored by Senate Education Committee Chairman Senator Dan Patrick, R-Houston, will boost the Texas charter school cap from its current 215 to 305 schools by fall 2019. Patrick had initially campaigned to eliminate the charter school cap entirely but later opted for a gradual increase of about 15 charters per year. The Senate approved the bill in a 28-3 vote, and was approved by the House with a 105-41 vote.

While proponents laud the bill’s strengthening support and increased flexibility, some organizations are concerned with the lax language of the bill.

"SB 2 is a critical and needed update to the Texas charter law and will allow effective charters to grow and serve more students,” said David Dunn, executive director of the Texas Charter Schools Association, in a statement.

The cap had been in place for years due to the amount of charter schools in the state that had performed below expectations or have incurred financial difficulties. But the new bill allows the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to take on a renewed authority in order for the department to regulate low-performing charters and streamline granting new charters.

"We believe this is the most significant strengthening of the charter law since 1995," Dunn said. "The lifting of the cap and streamlined renewal and replication will continue to allow public charters to grow to meet the demand, and to improve the education of students in Texas.”

Under the proposed law, the TEA will also be required to provide an annual performance report of the authorized charter schools and close schools that have a three consecutive years of low performance.

Organizations such as the Association of Texas Professional Educators, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, Texas State Teachers Association and the Texas American Federation of Teachers have spoken out against the bill.

Among their concerns include the provision that would allow school boards to convert traditional campuses into charter schools. This change would eliminate state protections such as teacher contracts, legal rights, certification requirements, class-size caps and minimum salaries, according to the Texas Classroom Teachers Association.
Statewide, Texas currently hosts more than 445 charter schools with more than 135,000 students. Waiting lists for open enrollment charter schools jumped from about 56,000 in 2011 to more than 101,000 in 2013, according to the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“There is no one answer to transforming schools, but lifting the cap to add high quality public charters will give Texas parents, including the nearly 100,000 currently on a charter school waiting list, more choices to find the best education for their child,” Patrick said in a statement.

The post Charter School Cap Lifted in Texas appeared first on School Construction News.

Fortunately, there was renewed interest in urban school facilities in the late 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century. However, monetary resources are not keeping up, so facilities have suffered again. A lack of cohesive federal and state policies to address schools and cities adds to the problem. This has resulted in less than desirable results compared to other cities in developed counties.

Today there is a potpourri of “public” schools operating within urban school districts, including typical PK-12 neighborhood schools; magnet, thematic and choice schools; and a wide variety of charter schools that are operated by the school district or independently. This fragmented scenario creates new challenges and opportunities for facility planners and the facilities divisions in urban public school systems.

Fifteen years ago, while teaching in Harvard’s Executive Education Program, I shared with participants that I felt urban school districts would eventually become a loose-knit confederation of independent schools. This arrangement would significantly change the approach to public education and decrease the bureaucracy in school districts because each school would implement its own school board and decision-making process.

Today, evidence suggests we are definitely moving in this direction. New Orleans, post Katrina, is a great example as the school system is building schools and leasing them to charter organizations. This is a new way of delivering educational services, and it’s working because academic achievement is rising.

However, in cities nationwide, it is not uncommon to find:

• Public school districts that build a replacement school or renovate an existing school but suffer enrollment loss when a charter school opens across the street.
• Charter schools that scramble to find facilities and can’t open on time.
• Charter schools that operate in inadequate facilities — sometimes in buildings that were discarded by the public school system.
• Large public school facilities that previously served 2,000 or more students and now operate at 50 percent capacity.
• Urban schools that continue to be plagued by deferred maintenance issues.
• Large numbers of closed school buildings that are unoccupied.

The time has come to rethink how we address urban school facilities. Historically, they have been operated and managed by school districts; however, times are changing. The typical public neighborhood school is no longer the only game in town. In fact, as already pointed out, it is not the only game within the public school system itself.

An alternative approach would be to create a non-profit real-estate organization that manages all educational facility assets in a city. This organization would assume responsibility for developing new facilities, renovating existing buildings, and maintaining buildings. It would also be responsible for creating more efficient use of assets by leasing facilities to educational organizations, including the public school system, and disposing of excess assets.

This new, non-profit real-estate venture would be set up independently from the local school district. It would work with the local school district as well as other public schools, such as charter schools, and possibly other non-public institutions. It would have the expertise to facilitate and broker arrangements.

This might be similar to a leaseback program. Schools would decide how much space they need and lease only what is necessary. For example, it would be inefficient for a school to serve 500 students in 200,000 square feet of space because that equates to 400 square feet per student. If the school chose to lease 100,000 square feet of space, the non-profit real-estate organization would find compatible tenants and make building modifications to utilize the facility more efficiently.

There are already situations in which more than one school shares the same building. But schools aren’t the only compatible tenants. Colleges and universities, social services organizations, non-profit community organizations, and even private companies are symbiotic possibilities.

New construction also presents opportunities to develop shared sites and shared buildings. For instance, a building could house a hospital and include a floor for a thematic health magnet school. A university campus could include a high school, an IT center could include a technology charter school, and an art museum or performing arts center could include a school for the performing arts. There are many possibilities.

Urban school district facility departments are not equipped to effectively dispose of excess property. In fact, traditional real-estate organizations and private developers are not equipped either. Closing a school is a dramatic community event, but what is worse is when school buildings sit idle or decay. Furthermore, too many school districts are paying upkeep and utilities on closed schools.

Closed school buildings are often looked at as a problem, but they also provide new opportunities. If the right type of organization collaborates with the community, governmental organizations, financial institutions and private developers, many of these eyesores and discounted assets can be turned into something that has positive economic and social impacts. In some cases, closed urban schools are sitting on prime redevelopment sites for hospitals or office buildings. In other cases it may make more sense to raze a building and use the grounds for a park or community garden. This requires proactive approaches that the current system is not equipped to handle.

The urban educational landscape is changing. As facility experts, we should get out in front of this and figure out a better way to deliver and manage these assets.

William S. DeJong, Ph.D., REFP, is senior advisor at DeJong-Richter and DeJong-Healy. DeJong co-founded Schools for the Children of the World.

www.dejonginc.com

The post Urban Schools: What’s Next appeared first on School Construction News.