Senate Education digs down into charter school facilities

by Kimberly Reeves, Quorum Report—

Despite tougher laws on the books to shut down failing campuses, Texas charter schools still face opposition from traditional main-line education groups. In his first hearing on interim charges, ChairSen. Larry Taylor, R-Friendswood, held a marathon session on Monday dominated by discussion of the effectiveness of charter schools, including the waiting list of 100,000 students looking for a school.

The specific topic of the discussion was facilities, and more specifically, the disposition of the facilities of failed charter schools, which has been the subject of some contention in recent years.Patty Quinzi of the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers said she wanted to set the record straight on just how tight the market was for publicly funded charter school seats.

“At the July 2015 State Board of Education Committee on School Initiatives meeting, TEA staff stated that although we often hear charter proponents claim there is a student waitlist for charter schools of over 100,000 students, that waitlist is for specific charter schools,” Quinzi said. “In fact, when TEA examined the maximum enrollment numbers of existing charter schools, TEA found there are actually 108,000 empty seats in existing charter schools with existing facilities.”

The more accurate picture would probably be that the cap for potential charter school slots, or seats, is 108,000 over current enrollment. A recent survey of individual charter schools showed some with enrollment at capacity, and others that opened more than a decade ago and have yet to fill the majority of available seats.

David Dunn, executive director of the Texas Charter School Association, said the 108,000 represented the full capacity charter schools expect to enroll. Some expansion occurs with initial enrollment, and others over a number of years. He goes on to add that a lack of facility funding is one reason some charter schools are unable to meet existing demand.

“But, it in no way obviates the fact that there are over 100,000 students looking for a seat in a highly effective charter school that are not able to gain that seat,” Dunn said. “We have never denied – in fact have often said – that wait lists are for specific, highly sought after charters.  We have always said not all charters have waitlists or are even at full capacity.”

Among many main-line educational groups, any funding set aside for charter schools is money taken away from traditional schools. A study by Moak, Casey & Associates, commissioned by Raise Your Hand Texas, notes that actual funding totals find small charters with less funding and large charters with more funding than their traditional public school counterparts.

A number of speakers quoted a recent study that showed some charter schools with $3,300 more per student than traditional public schools. Monty Exter of the Association of Texas Professional Educators noted charter schools often have more philanthropic support than traditional public schools and often have access to federal and state funding sources not available to non-charter schools.

In general, charter schools get the average per-pupil expenditure for the state. This comes out of state funds, and picks up the local fund contribution. Without the ability to draw from a tax base, many charter schools are tapping instructional funds to lease or build facilities.

Both Taylor and Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, took a special interest in how interest & sinking funds – the portion of a tax rate used to pay off facility debt – are calculated. Taylor said his own opinion was that a small percentage of students – maybe only 5 percent – were best served in a charter school setting, an alternative for traditional public education. He said he had some qualms about charter schools taking on the facility debt for so-called frills like athletic stadiums.

« »