Fund shift to charter schools nixed, while charter oversight would change after NC committee appproval

A panel of North Carolina lawmakers approved a bill that would shift oversight of public charter schools Tuesday.

The House of Representatives Education Committee passed House Bill 219, Charter School Omnibus, and another bill that would change who ultimately approves charter schools.

But they made big changes to the omnibus bill, which was controversial upon filing for a provision that would require traditional public schools to transfer once-restricted funding to charter schools. Critics called it “double-dipping” for charter schools.

The changes to House BIll 219 nixed those transfers and cut a provision that would allow charter schools to establish micro schools. It added a provision that would allow charter schools to enroll out-of-state or foreign exchange students and a provision that changes how charter schools and nonpublic schools compete in athletics.

Charter schools are public schools that operate a bit differently: They are not managed by government entities, they do not receive funding for buildings or capital improvements, and they have significant regulatory flexibility to operate differently from traditional public schools.

It was part of a busy agenda in the committee, which passed a number of education-related bills, including one that would expand private school vouchers and remove any cap on income eligibility.

Changes to charter school rules

The House Education Committee amended House Bill 219 Tuesday to eliminate the most controversial provision.

Several Republicans sponsored House Bill 219, which had been characterized by supporters as making sure charter schools get as much money as traditional public schools.

Critics argued House Bill 219 would allow charter schools to “double-dip” by keeping revenues from their own revenue streams and taking a portion of the revenues from traditional public schools’ revenue streams.

Currently, traditional public schools already share a portion of its state, federal and local funding with charter schools, based on enrollment. That amount is supposed to be equal to what the school system receives itself per-student. But certain funds are off-limits for sharing.

For instance, proceeds from sales tax refunds are not shared, as every school, including charter schools, already receives sales tax refunds. But the bill, as originally filed, would have required the traditional public schools to begin sharing their sales tax refunds with charter schools, while charter schools would keep their sales tax refunds.

That’s gone now, along with a provision that allowed charter schools to established micro schools. Micro schools are basically one-room schoolhouses with children of all ages.

The bill, if signed into law, would now:

• Allow counties to raise funds for charter school capital projects, including by raising taxes. It does not require counties to raise the funds.
• Keep the State Board of Education from considering a current or proposed charter school’s impact on other schools or its community when deciding whether to issue, renew or revoke the charter
• Allow charter schools to increase their enrollment without approval, so long as they aren’t low-performing. Currently, charter schools are approved to open incrementally, expanding to new grade levels or more classes over time. Often, Charter School Advisory Board members vet applications based on financial wherewithal and planning. This change would allow the schools to accelerate their pace to their target enrollment outlined in their charter, without seeking board approval.
• Permit charter schools to give admission preference to children of active military members, so long as they don’t comprise more than 10% of the school’s total enrollment.
• Prohibit traditional public schools from counting the fact that a student attends a charter school against the student when the student applies to a school or special program operated by the traditional public school. That means the traditional public school could not give preference to its own students for those programs.
• Allow charter schools to enroll out-of-state students and foreign-exchange students and require them to charge at least 50% tuition. Foreign-exchange students would not count toward enrollment caps. Schools could enroll no more than 10% of their students from out-of-state and could enroll no more tan two foreign-exchange students.

• Charter school review shift

House Bill 618, filed by state Rep. Tricia Cotham, R-Mecklenberg, would remove the State Board of Education from the process for deciding whether to approve a charter school application to open or renew or revoke a charter.

The board currently has the final say, while receiving recommendations from its Charter School Advisory Board and the state Department of Public Instruction’s Office of Charter Schools.

House Bill 618 would turn the Charter School Advisory Board into the Charter Schools Review Board and given that board the final say. The State Board of Education would only be able to consider appeals of the charter board’s decisions.

Cotham’s bill was amended Tuesday to allow schools whose applications have been rejected since July 1 to apply to the new review board for reconsideration.

The current State Board of Education approves most charter school applications and renewals and largely goes along with state Office of Charter Schools and the Charter School Advisory Board recommendations. Occasionally, the board rejects charter school applications that had been recommended, such as one submitted last year by American Leadership Academy, operated by a national charter school chain with for-profit owner. But the state board sometimes conducts reviews the charter school board does not.

In February, the state board rejected Heritage Collegiate Leadership Academy of Wake County’s application to open, despite the charter board’s recommendation. At the time, the board cited the serious issues at the founder’s previous charter school that nearly forced its closure. The Office of Charter Schools and the Charter School Advisory Board had not looked into school leadership’s background and, as a standard practice, review only the application at hand.