Charter school laws have been all over the news lately, with a second national organization releasing their rankings of state charter laws at the same time states are revising their laws in order to be eligible for the Race to the Top (RTTT) Fund’s $4.35 billion. Charter laws vary tremendously state-by-state, but the federal Department of Education has been pushing hard on the charter quantity issue, urging states to give up arbitrary caps in order to apply for the RTTT money.
A lesson from my home state, Iowa, shows this effort is not as meaningful as it might appear.
Iowa has long had one of the weakest charter laws in the country. It technically has one, which is more than can be said for 11 remaining states, but it’s law limits charter authorizers to school districts themselves (often the last place to look for someone interested in starting a charter school) and set an artificial cap on the number of charters that could operate in the state. Perhaps worst of all, the law was scheduled to sunset in 2011.
Iowa Democrats, who currently control the governorship and the Statehouse, are making a bet that adopting superficial changes to this law will help them qualify for $170 million in RTTT funds that they might otherwise be eligible for. The state’s governor, Chet Culver called for changes in his Condition of the State address this week. But if the bill passes the House tomorrow in current form, as expected, the changes are truly superficial.
The bill would remove the cap, sunset the sunset provision, and allow for “innovation zone” schools, but it would leave the districts-as-sole-authorizers provision (an amendment allowing the state’s public universities to authorize charter schools, an effective method in other states, was shot down) and would leave many other restrictions in place:
Like charter schools, an innovation zone school is not required to comply with state statutes, rules, or regulations applicable to a school, a school board, or a school district, except those relating to applicable federal, state, and local health and safety requirements; civil and human rights; financial audit requirements; collective bargaining and practitioner contracts; professional development and practitioner evaluation; special education; transportation of students; comprehensive school improvement plan requirements; and core curriculum and core content standards requirements. Innovation zone schools are subject to the same general operating, contract, renewal and revocation, and report requirements as charter schools.
Hopefully Arne Duncan and his team of RTTT Fund evaluators will be able to spot the difference between real reform and quick, reform-like changes pursued by Iowa. The applications are due next Tuesday, and everything will be available for public scrutiny soon thereafter.
Click Image To Enlarge
5/29/2012 | The New York Times discusses Mary Nguyen's report "Degreeless in Debt: What Happens to Borrowers Who Drop Out."
5/28/2012 | The Washington Post discusses Mary Nguyen's analysis of college dropouts and loan defaults from her Chart You Can Trust, "Degreeless in Debt: What Happens to Borrowers Who Drop Out." 
5/24/2012 | Education Week discusses Anne Hyslop's views on Mitt Romney's education plan.
{ 2 comments }
Ceolaf,
It’s doublespeak to conflate strong charter laws with strong regulations, they are two completely separate things. Moreover, there is a big difference between oversight and regulation. Charter school supporters believe a charter law is strong if it provides for rigorous oversight and holds charter schools accountable for performance. Charter schools are about autonomy and outcomes, so a strong charter school law does not impose regulations on inputs, e.g., curriculum, hours per day, days per year, teacher certification, etc. and leaves charter schools free to prove themselves.
I’m confused about why such a law is called “weak.”
When we talk about strong or weak regulation, we know what that refers to. But many supporters of charter schools labels laws that provide little oversight or regulation “strong” and those that provide strict controls and limits are labeled “weak.”
Isn’t that backwards? Isn’t that the oppesite of how we usually describe regulation?
What could be behind that sort of doublespeak.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }