On April 1, 2011 I appeared on WBAI's Wake Up Call with Felipe Luciano to discuss the big debate over Public Schools vs. Charter Schools. Radio Rahim of Brooklyn was with me.There is still a lot of confusion out there over charter schools. As I said on the show, I am not anti-charter school by any means. However, I'm not easily hyped up over them either. What I want everyone to know is that charter schools are different enough to qualify them as non-public schools in certain areas.
The law states that a New York City charter school authorized to operate prior to May 28, 2010 shall be deemed a nonpublic school for purposes of local zoning, land use regulations and building code compliance. I won't at this time go into whether the same would apply to charter schools authorized post May 28, 2010. I'll save that for another battle.
Therefore, every charter school in New York City currently in operation is deemed to be a nonpublic school in those mentioned areas. Well, that doesn't sound like a public school to me. And the reason why the legislature distinguishes between the two in those instances is because of the fundamental differences between the two school systems. Oftentimes, if not all the time, a charter school will operate like a private school. And not everyone can get into a private school.
Charter schools are not under the school zoning laws, which means that they can take students from all over, just like a private school. Whereby the local district school can only take students in its zoned catchment area unless it gets a waiver.
As such, the admissions and recruitment policies of the two school systems are different. The attrition process, whether natural or forced, is different too. Jeffrey Canada dismissed an entire grade from his Harlem Children's Zone because they were low performers. A public school could never do that.
So if he can boast great test results, along with Eva Moskowitz and her Harlem Success Academy, that's because they are able to skew their state exam results in a way that a public school cannot. But perception is usually based on facts.
Did you know that when the DOE calculates graduation rates in the public school system, e.g., the class of 2011, they calculate the percentage from when the Class of 2011 first came into high school. That would be 2008 for the Class of 2011. So if you had 100 students in the 9th Grade and by the time they got to the 12th grade you only have 10 and all ten graduate, under the DOE's system the graduation rate for 2011 would be 10%.
On the otherhand, if a charter school has the same scenario it can state that it had a 100% graduation rate in 2011.
Charter schools can also grade their own students' state exams. Public schools cannot do that. If a public school teacher assigned to grade state exams comes across any test that comes from the same school of that teacher, let alone from his/her class, and he/she doesn't report it to the supervisor, that teacher will be in serious trouble.
So when we hear all the fuss and hype, know what the real deal is. And I haven't even touched the surface of special education students not being serviced at many of these charter schools.
No, the problem is that charter schools are getting public school building space. For the reasons that I gave in my testimony before the Education Committee they are not entitled to it. Below is my testimony.
Testimony
Good Afternoon:
The engine that is driving this entire city budget is the education component. It is connected to the housing market, private contractors - hence, the labor market, food, and on and on.
I can tell you where a lot of this education budget problem comes from. Charter Schools. Charter schools get funded 90%, if not more, of their education costs. But that doesn't include facility funding. Public schools on the other hand are funded 100% with public money; however, that percentage does include funding for facilities, i.e., new construction, reconstruction, refurbishing, maintenance, etc. Therefore, the actual funding for instruction and supplies is more like 60%.
However, when you give city property (i.e., a public school building space) to a nonpublic school, which by the way every charter school currently in operation or authorized pre May 28, 2010 is deemed to be a nonpublic school when it comes to local land use regulations, zoning, building code compliance and transportation, the giver is misappropriating funds. In other words, money is going where it doesn't belong.
If charter schools going forward, post May 28, 2010 authorized, are to be sited in public school buildings, then they certainly can't be funded 90 + % - minus the facility funding. If anything, they should be funded more like 60%. So the 40% in the charter school allocation that you will now be saving - because you will be treating the two school systems equally when it comes to public school funding - can now be used appropriately so teachers won't have to be laid off- with the guidance of the comptroller's office no doubt.
Regarding the proposed layoffs: Laying off 6,000 teachers is absurd. Does anyone in his/her right mind believe that children entitled to a free appropriate public education will get that, if such a layoff took place?
The mayor would be violating federal law if such a layoff took place. Because I know, and I would be leading the charge, parents would take this issue right to the federal court.
With regard to the four point evaluation system currently being considered: It is highly flawed. It doesn't take into consideration special education and special needs students. It doesn't factor in the socio-economic conditions of students whose learning is most definitely affected by such conditions. And who will be doing this observation of teacher and principal performance? This proposed system is already framed with a political agenda.
