Will charters agree to limit enrollment in return for discounted buildings?
by Benjamin Herold on May 09 2011 Posted in Latest news
The School District of Philadelphia hopes to preserve its declining ability to manage the growth of charter schools by offering a discount on unused school buildings only to charters that agree not to expand their enrollment.
But will charter school operators – who are gaining growing clout under the school-choice-focused Corbett administration – go for it?
A pair of prominent local charter school operators and advocates consulted by the Notebook had differing responses to the District’s proposal, part of a draft “Adaptive Reuse Policy” that is currently under review.
“We need to get smart and start looking at win-win [propositions]. If this doesn’t qualify, it’s a damn good start,” said Lawrence Jones, CEO of the Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School in Southwest Philadelphia and president of the board of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools.
But Jurate Krokys, the CEO of Independence Charter School in Center City and vice president of Philadelphia Charters for Excellence, is far less enthusiastic. She doesn’t think successful charters should be hamstrung in their ability to meet the demand of parents looking for alternatives.
“It’s great that [the District] is finally doing something about the underuse of buildings,” said Krokys. “But I think it’s unfair to limit [access for] charter schools that don’t want to sign on the line.”
At issue is a provision in the proposed Adaptive Reuse Policy that says charter schools can be designated “Tier 1 Educational Users” eligible to purchase available properties at a discounted price of up to 25 percent off fair market value – but only if they “agree not to seek additional charter seats in their proposal.”
“At the end of the day, the key for us in terms of the charters is to make sure that we do…a ‘planned growth method,’” said District Deputy Superintendent Leroy Nunery last month.
Once adopted, the Adaptive Reuse Policy will govern how the District disposes of its surplus property, including unused school buildings. With District officials looking to shed up to 50 buildings and 35,000 “empty seats” as part of its facilities master planning process, the policy is likely to have a far-reaching impact.
An initial draft was first unveiled last month, along with a set of “right-sizing” recommendations that included the sale of seven District-owned properties. Among the properties to be sold are the shuttered Ada Lewis school building in Germantown and the former Childs school building in South Philadelphia.
But before those buildings can be listed and sold, the School Reform Commission must first approve the final Adaptive Reuse Policy. A vote is currently scheduled for May 18.
In the meantime, the District is seeking feedback on the policy at a series of community meetings, including this Tuesday from 6-8 p.m. at Lincoln High School and Thursday from 6-8 p.m. at Temple University.
Deputy for Strategic Initiatives Danielle Floyd said last month the District is also actively seeking feedback from charter operators on the draft policy.
“We want to be good partners to charter schools,” said Floyd.
The District is currently the sole authorizer of charters in Philadelphia, but its right to manage charter school growth is the subject of intense debate. Acting Pennsylvania Secretary of Education Ronald Tomalis sided in March with the Walter D. Palmer Leadership Learning Charter School, which argued that the District had imposed an illegal enrollment cap on the school. District officials, however, argue that their ability to budget and plan effectively is dependent on the ability to manage growth and say they will appeal the decision in Commonwealth Court.
Several local charter operators have related lawsuits pending against the District that challenge charter enrollment caps. Republican Pennsylvania State Senator Jeffrey Piccola has also proposed amending the state’s charter law to allow for charter expansion and the creation of new charters.
The District is facing a $629 million budget shortfall for next year, driven in part by charter school costs that are expected to grow by 23 percent. At the same time, the Corbett administration wants to eliminate charter reimbursements to school districts, which will cost Philadelphia more than $100 million.
So the stakes of the debate are higher than ever.
The provision in the proposed Adaptive Reuse Policy will not resolve these larger tensions, but it does seem to signal the District’s awareness that its control over charters is slipping away and that creative thinking is necessary.
Jones of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools said he didn’t have any problem with the proposal, so long as it’s presented as an incentive and not a mandate.
“The coalition believes that enrollment caps are illegal in Pennsylvania unless there is a mutual agreement between the charter and the school district,” said Jones. “If a charter wants to take advantage of this incentive and is willing to take an enrollment cap, I have no problem with that.”
He speculated that start-up and recently founded charter schools might be particularly willing to take advantage of the District’s offer.
“I think there are schools that would jump on it,” he said.
Independence Charter School is not one of them.
“Facilities are always a challenge,” acknowledged Krokys, who helped spearhead Independence’s purchase of the former Durham School at 16th and Lombard Streets.
“But for me, it’s more of an ethical question,” she added. “Generally speaking, charter operators are reformers. It’s not just that I want to grow because I want a little empire. We’re supposed to serving the children of Philadelphia. That’s why I won’t sign on that line.”
This story is a product of a reporting partnership on the facilities master plan between the Notebook and PlanPhilly.
Comments (28)
Submitted by Timothy Boyle on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 17:02.
Jurate Krokys was someone who I thought had some really great ideas about education. It seems as though Independence has something really special going in both curriculum and climate.
Her stance on education now is quite polarizing as this piece illustrates. Charter operators are reformers. Its unethical to limit the number of seats you put in your school? Really? Statements like this provide no room for discussion. The idea that only one kind of school is right and the rest of the models aren't serving children isn't a worthy one.
I hope the future of the charter movement is led by the Lawrence Jones of the world and not the StudentsFirst/American Federation of Children/privatize schools crowd
Submitted by Philly Parent and Teacher (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 18:08.
For Krokys to claim her stand is "ethical," assumes others are not. All of us what to improve Philadelphia schools - especially those of us who are teachers and parents. AS you wrote, one model - charters - do not work for all children. Independence Charter certainly doesn't work for all children. This is a sly slap at teachers - the MO of the school privatization movement.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 18:58.
Yes, you are correct. The trouble is charters are cheaper and they give kickbacks to the politicians who partnered to start them. Corbett et al couldn't possibly care less about inner city kids and they gladly go with the quid pro quo hookup. People like Ackerman, Archie, Gamble and the rest are killing their own kids and don't care. The whole charter, voucher charade is also designed to destroy the democratic base (Unions) so the democrats never win another election. These Tea Party slithering types like Corbett are bad news and this is Class Warfare--Believe It !!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 19:12.
Good Post----Very True--Charters are NOT SAVIORS which is what they all like to project. They hire a community huckster to scream accolades about their charter and the facts be damned, covered up, or denied. Just a very ugly situation and yes, politicians love it. It's their perfect storm to make easy money while pretending to care about kids. The founders, of course, are carpetbaggers of the first order.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 19:05.
I agree--Be Careful What You Wish for----------All Charters are designed with the quid pro quo hookup so politicians can make money from the charters. There needs to be a MORATORIUM on all charters until they can be monitored appropriately. Even the law protects them against accountability of all things and that's by design too. It's all about money----I call it Education Light on the Cheap.
This is horrible for the kids and the pols don't care, of course. The rich will always be able to educate their kids and while the inner city public schools have enormous and complex problems, CHARTERS ARE NOT THE ANSWER.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 19:46.
Unless people wake up and see the truth, this will be the end of Public Education in Phila. Hopefully, clear thinking people will push for an end to this charter joke and corruption. Yes, those hucksters are like overseers from back in slavery times. Pay them and they'll say anything, just like lawyers.
Submitted by Phantom Poster (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 20:05.
The deck is stacked against traditional public schools. Maybe the charters ought to start paying for their own student's transportation instead of continuing to nickle-and-dime the district to death.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 20:15.
I agree---the only hope is that people of good will, will see the truth and demand a change. I also agree that the whole movement is designed to avoid having to deal with Unions and be able to pay the teachers half as much etc. I also agree that the inner cities who can least afford it, will be hit the hardest as usual. There will be NO middle class just the rich and everybody else. The corporations are, of course, behind all this.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 20:27.
I am caught in the middle as a teacher and building rep in the city, but also a parent of a child at a very successful charter school. To sum up my views.....i believe in limited public school choice. Charters should be another public option. However, in a perfect world, low functioning charters should be discontinued and successful charters should be allowed to grow within reason.
So in this case.....I agree with Mr. Jones......this is absolutely a win - win. As noted by others, Jurate Krokys statements are awful. There is a certain arrogance among leaders of many charter schools that somehow they have discovered the secrets to educating children....when really what they are good at is cherry picking children from highly motivated families. To their credit, one just can't "roll the ball out there" and get great test scores......high acheiving charters have staff and students that work very hard. But I can't help thinking if you put the families and students from my child's charter into a regular district school with competent staff, you would get nearly the same results.
So, Ms. Krokys......i also have heard great things about your charter. But please remember we are all citizens of Philadelphia and we need to find a way for charters and traditional public schools to co-exist........or about another deal for you.......we let you grow as big as you want as long as you let your staff have a vote on whether they want to be unionized, WITHOUT threats or reprisals for those who speak up for unionizing. NOW....that would be ethical..
Submitted by Concerned Philadelphian (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 20:51.
Thank you! Once charters - including Independence, Mastery, KIPP, Universal, ETC. unionize, teachers will be able to bargain collectively and exert their collective power against all powerful Charter CEOs.
Charters don't cherry pick as much as magnet schools but they certainly aren't neighborhood schools.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 20:27.
Ackerman and her cohorts might lose their clout over charters and we can't have that. Clout means control which means money, This is like a runaway train going backward at 200 miles per hour. If it continues, the traditional public schools will have only the behavioral problem kids and very special ed types. Does anybody not on drugs believe the test scores of many of these charter schools??? Worse yet, does anybody really think the folks in Harrisburg believe those scores? But the charade continues because it's much cheaper to run charters and the pols love it because they get paid too.
Submitted by Concerned Philadelphian (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 20:53.
Cheating is happening everywhere - just look at Roosevelt. Roosevelt is an extreme examples but "coaching" and helping students during the PSSA has become "normal." As long as there is excessive weight put on one test, there will be cheating. Just as we are "threatened" to pass everyone via the regional office, we are threatened with getting up test scores.
Submitted by concerned parent and teacher (not verified) on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 00:08.
I have been involved for years with a charter school intended to serve a segment of the student population that has been entirely underserved by public schools. This school has struggled to receive approval to operate with no success although its targeted population and their parents clamor for the school at school board meetings and the proposals outlined in the application seem perfect for its students. As a parent of a child that fits into this student population, as someone interested in enrolling my child in this unique school, and as a founder trying to make this school real for my child, I can speak to the fact that much of what I see on this forum is hyperbolic and very generalized. While there have certainly been cases where money lust and lack of sufficient oversight have together provided an opportunity for fraud, these instances have been the exception rather than the rule for most of the Commonwealth's charter schools. Those operators that have broken the law are rightfully under investigation. (Hopefully) appropriate oversight is being put in place to monitor all charter schools. Still, I think it is abhorrent that the Superintendent of the Philadelphia School District earns more money than the President of the United States while her schools are failing beneath her and she is handing over the keys of so many of them to charter operators. At the same time, I empathize with the concerns many of the previous writers have about charter schools, and also some of the reasons for their concern, the potential endangerment to ones livelihood by way of a potentially successful competitor and the endangerment of unions and the job protection they offer.
I believe the anger is as misplaced as are the claims that the whole charter movement had been designed to end unions and cause the demise of public education. No Child Left Behind was designed to privatize education. For what other intention could a punitive law demanding that 100% of a school’s student population pass a high stakes exam by 2014 be put into place than to ensure the failure of all schools? The authors of that law knew that the specified ratio was an impossible target and punished those schools not making progress towards it by defunding them and making success for those schools even more unlikely.
But, while some of you blame charter schools, please consider the following. By law (Act 22 if 1997), charter schools were mandated to have been “laboratories of innovation” and proposed specifically to help at-risk populations. Under NCLB they have had to do so with the same gun point
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 07:28.
You have a creative view of the facts !! I won't belabor the point further except to once again state that POLITICIANS on the RIGHT want to dismantle any hope that inner city kids can succeed. Furthermore and by natural extension, get rid of those pesky democratic leaning unions and we'll be all set. NCLB is a punitive law and one that needs to be ignored like the joke that it is, When they say, "At risk kids." they mean inner city kids and what better way to get rid of the problem than by defunding Public Education and starting charters that clearly have a quid pro quo arrangement with the pols. Everybody gets paid for killing off the poor kids and any hopes they may have.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 06:06.
President Bush could never pass the PSSA and as a concerned parent, I had a child in Charter School and he was expelled due to talking in class. He went back to the neighborhood school, but the funds that paid the charter did not follow. How will this help? People are afraid to speak, have an opinion, or do what is right. When you follow directives, you are punished, when you do not you are punished.
Cyber school may be the biggest joke of all. No wonder our children have so many problems. The only social outlet they have is a computer.
SOMETHING NEEDS TO CHANGE!!!!!
Submitted by concerned parent and teacher (not verified) on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 00:08.
...continued from previous post) The result is that many charter schools are as traditional in their methodology, if not more so, than district managed public schools.
The fact is that failure is no longer an option for district managed schools or charter schools and success is gauged using a measure as antiquated as the industrialized model that spawned it in time when our nation is making extraordinary technologically driven steps away from industrialization. Except for small pockets of innovation in public and public charter schools like those occasionally made note of in yesterday’s Inquirer (i.e. using exercise balls as seats in a classroom as an answer to youthful fidgetiness and inattentiveness), there has not been much genuine innovation in either.
Sadly, when Act 22 was written, the law did not include a method deemed satisfactory enough by the Unions and their teachers, to protect their illusion that they would all have jobs until they chose to retire (barring a Katrina or prolonged illness or any other sad occurrence). Fear ensued. Self preservation took over. And let’s not kid ourselves, if any of us on the outside were in a similar threatening situation, we would have a similar response. Charter schools became the enemy before ever having the chance to become the laboratory. Everyone lost.
Many Philadelphia parents are happy, though. Their children have been selected to be in schools that, if nothing else, they perceive to be safer. From my experience as one of the founders of a charter school struggling for existence, for many Philadelphia parents that is more than enough. It is likely, however, as Ackerman and her staff continue to hand over more public schools to charter school operators, that the advantages of seeming safe will diminish within them as well.
I believe that the original intentions of the charter school law were good intentions. I believe some of the organizers and founders of charter schools intended and still intend to create innovative schools at a time when our country desperately needs to recreate education in the image of who we are becoming instead of who China is becoming and who we once were.
This is a tough time in our country and bad news is everywhere. Our economy is in the toilet, the rich get richer and teachers (and the rest of us workers) are getting poorer. There is a lot to be afraid of. Hyperbole is everywhere and the 24 hour news cycle is fanning the creation of desperate language rather than providing platforms for more constructive resolve. Clearly, some of those writing above are teachers watching fearfully as Wisconsin happens repeatedly and with much less noise in other states. I propose that instead of pointing fingers, we work together to co-author laws replacing NCLB, that genuinely support all educators in preparing our children for the sure uncertainties of tomorrow. We teachers came to this work with largely pure intentions. It is upon us to take the reigns.
Submitted by concerned parent and teacher (not verified) on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 00:20.
Missing paragraph from the middle of the above two posts
But, while some of you blame charter schools, please consider the following. By law (Act 22 if 1997), charter schools were mandated to have been “laboratories of innovation” and proposed specifically to help at-risk populations. Under NCLB they have had to do so with the same gun pointed at their heads as is pointed at teachers in district managed schools. Imagine if Edison and his researchers were charged (not electrically) each time one of their trials failed on the way to a lightbulb. We would all still be reading by candlelight. (continued in next post…
Submitted by Philly Parent and Teacher (not verified) on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 05:33.
I appreciate the thought and time you put into your post. I agree - charters were intended to be innovative but NCLB (and I assume other factors) have made most charters replications of the SDP (corruption included!) What is on paper and reality may be very different.
Some of us certainly hoped with Obama NCLB would be overturned but, realistically, it was a bi-partisan creation and has bi-partisan support. When Obama picked his basketball buddy - Duncan - rather than someone credible like Linda Darling-Hammond to head the Dept. of Education - the future was signed. Duncan is a product of Vallas - neither educators - but charter and privatization proponents. (I was very dismayed when I read Vallas is going to Chile with US gov't funding to "help" with their education system - I'm sure there are plenty of qualified Chileans.) This neo-liberal model of education is similar to the dictates that institutions like the World Bank place on "less developed countries" to make them slash social programs to pay off debt which was incurred under unethical circumstances. We are told by Duncan and his corporate allies that competition will make schools succeed. The only thing competition has brought is huge profits to McGraw Hill, SRA, Kaplan, etc. (test and testing curriculum producers) and the narrowing of the curriculum to the degree where test preparation is a subject.
So, I'm not sure what we do because the Obama Administration and Congress, along with many governors and state legislators, will benefit from the further privatization of schools. (Meanwhile, how many of them went to public schools or send their children to public schools... How many of them send their children to urban, charter or public schools? We all know where Obama's kids go to school... Governor Corbert and Christie's kids... etc. Duncan's, when they moved to DC, attend in an very affluent suburbs - the equivalent of going to Lower Merion. Michelle Rea's went to the equivalent of Masterman in DC - so, they aren't sending their kids to the local school where they will experience the test prep / scripted curricula praised by Rhee, Ackerman, Duncan, etc.)
That said, we have to find ways to expose NCLB, and now Race for the Top, for what they are - legislation to destroy the institution of public education. Any country that claims to be democratic needs a solid public education system to perpetuate democratic institutions. It also needs public school leaders who, unlike Ackerman, Archie, et al, put the principles of public education before their pocket books and personal gain. I don't think another round of elections - whether local or national - are enough. Ideally, unions would take the lead but, at least in Phila., the PFT is in the pocket of the SDP Administration.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 21:36.
Great Post------------------Especially where Ackerman et al are concerned. I do tend to disagree about the PFT though I 'm not nearly so sure of my position as before. Jordan seems completely incompetent, actually embarrassing. I totally agree that NCLB is a program designed to end democratic bases in unions and inner cities by destroying the infrastructure. I'm also very disappointed with Obama for Race for the Top which is equally disgraceful. Yes, in a democracy, you need to have public schools not corporations etc. calling the shots. This is a very scary time for the good ole USA. I see the whole thing as Class Warfare 101 and I'm totally serious. Obama's stance is disgusting at best, just letting it happen to his base of support. Why????
Submitted by Tara (not verified) on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 17:07.
I have to echo what many posters have said regarding charter school being the solution to educational reform. I worked at a charter school that touted its uniquely innovative curriculum. The website highlighted how this curriculum was "proven" to raise test scores. However, the PSSA scores for the school were not that great, and in fact, were much lower than most public schools. The solution to raise the test scores was to quietly start using Harcourt Trophies. Eventually the charter school started to do more and more things that public schools were doing as far as curriculum.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 18:42.
Tara------------------------------------Good Post--exactly my point too. Charters are NOT saviors for the kids; If anything, they fall far short even with their supported hiding etc. Just a farce masquerading as the magic bullet. Politicians love them for obvious financial reasons and the Providers--what an oxymoron that is, make a killing too. Very sad situation hiding in plain sight.
Submitted by Phantom Poster (not verified) on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 21:28.
The overemphasis on test scores is the distraction here. Charters will continue to test just fine - at least until they're forced to keep the kids they want to dump. True public school staffs are overwhelmed and demoralized, and in too many cases, kids are viewed as the enemy. Top-down curriculum decisions are geared to making schools look good on paper with little concern for the stifling effects of boring curricula. We promote Zero Tolerance and expel kids left and right, but school violence gets worse - after all, there's no time or money for individual preventive interventions because the only thing that matters is test scores. Now the governor has pulled the rug out from under the state's historic commitment to public education. Kid's best interests have to come first, particularly now when public education is under mortal attack. If you're feeling it, channel your anger and frustration into action and make sure YOUR legislators and political leaders know exactly what you think.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 18:30.
Corbett is a Tea Party Republican---not business as usual. They are extremely intolerant and cold blooded slime balls. They will do as the corporate types demand from them and until they are all recalled, we are in for a rough time. Obama has been a huge disappointment but look at the alternative----Newt Gingrich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for crying out loud.
Submitted by Anon and anon (not verified) on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 13:40.
Am I missing something here?
OK, Charters, compete with us. Rent our buildings. But don't compete with us too much, for too many students. And don't pay us too much for our buildings, either.
Charters were supposed to be about innovation and competition for students, but it is more and more clear that everyone is in bed with everyone else here. It seems like the public / charter debate is a one-sided competition where taxpayers, students, and teachers are the losers.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 18:24.
Anon and anon----It is a 1 way street for now but that will change when the folks really see what Charters are all about. But yes, it stinks for the kids especially. By the way, Charter Teachers are ALL going to want to unionize and the stuff will hit the fan. I STILL contend that there is a GRACE in the world and things will work out later rather than sooner.
Submitted by Andrew (not verified) on Sat, 09/03/2011 - 11:43.
> Charters were supposed to be about innovation and competition for students, but it is more and more clear that everyone is in bed with everyone else here. It seems like the public / charter debate is a one-sided competition where taxpayers, students, and teachers are the losers.
I agree with the above comment. I must be missing something, too ... Andrew from his loyal laptop under 300.
Submitted by Todd (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 18:58.
Interesting debate and article. We have a very similar problem in Atlanta, where charters are in demand, and truly sapping the inner city schools. I have no kids in schools, but the whole system is really messing with property values, so it's a big issue, and I'm really interested in any new developments!!!
Submitted by JAMES HEWICK (not verified) on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 09:15.
This a great post – thanks for publishing it. On a side note does anyone know about the Bankers life and casualty company . I heard they have good products for life insurance & annuities and they have local agents who help in retirement planning. Any feedback about them is greatly appreciated.
Post new comment