Undermining Charter Schools – Minnesota Nice?

Before you read the excerpt below, relating to legislation amending charter school operation in Minnesota, let me ask you a simple question:

If you wanted a regulator – say of banks, for example – to issue an unbiased report on the performance of the bank, would you make it possible for the regulator to earn money from the bank’s ongoing operation?

In other words: if the reporting/auditing oversight agency has a vested financial interest in the continuation of operations, can you imagine the temptation to assure state (or federal) agencies – in this case the source of operational funds – that everything was running just right even if that was not the case?

Now consider that the language below, drawn from the March 26th revision of proposed MN statute 867 now moving out of committee in the Minnesota Senate, “A bill for an act relating to education; modifying charter school provisions; amending Minnesota  Statutes 2008…”  indicates (in 17.11) that the sponsor agency – the agency responsible for telling the Minnesota Department of Education how the school is performing, and if it should remain open – profits in proportion to the school’s budget.

I’m not saying there’s no cost to a sponsoring organization; it takes time and resources to serve as an effective sponsor for charter schools.

However, it strikes me as a formula for disaster when a revenue stream to the sponsor can be insured by simply finding the school is doing well.  The temptation to overlook irregularities, or to tolerate sloppy fiscal procedures or worse, will be inherent in that system.

Consider, too, how much the sponsor stands to benefit from opening a new charter  in 17.17 (as opposed to insuring the ongoing effective operation of an existing one, for example.)

The President is intent on improving educational opportunities, but this bill will not distribute money to the schools and/or districts, it siphons money off in ways that have nothing to do with improving education. Compared to the prior version, which seemed intended to stunt the growth of charter schools in Minnesota, this might pass the legislature more easily – yet who profits? Not the children; this bill redirects the investment of educational funds away from the schools. One has to wonder what the authors, state Senators Saltzman, Clark, Bonoff, and Wiger, intended.

17.1(b) A sponsor shall monitor and evaluate the fiscal, operational, and student
17.2 performance of the school, and may for this purpose annually assess a charter school: (1)
17.3 in its first, second, or third year of operation up to $30 per student up to a maximum of
17.4 $10,000; and (2) in its fourth or a subsequent year of operation up to $10 per student up to
17.5 a maximum of $3,500 a fee according to paragraph (c). The agreed upon fee structure
17.6 must be stated in the charter school contract.
17.7 (c) The fee that each charter school pays to a sponsor each year is the greater of:
17.8 (1) the basic formula allowance for that year; or
17.9 (2) the lesser of:
17.10 (i) the maximum fee factor times the basic formula allowance for that year; or
17.11 (ii) 1.0 percent of the basic formula allowance for that year times the charter school’s
17.12 adjusted marginal cost pupil units for that year. The maximum fee factor equals 1.5 in
17.13 fiscal year 2010, 2.0 in fiscal year 2011, 3.0 in fiscal year 2012, and 4.0 in fiscal years
17.14 2013 and later.
17.15 (d) The department and any charter school it sponsors must not assess or pay a
17.16 fee under paragraphs (b) and (c).
17.17 (e) For the preoperational planning period, the sponsor may assess a charter school a
17.18 fee equal to the basic formula allowance.

And if we’re trying to control or cut costs, why did the proposed number of Charter School Advisory Council members  increase from seven to nine?

1.23 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 124D.10, subdivision 2a, is amended to read:
2.1 Subd. 2a. Charter School Advisory Council. (a) A Charter School Advisory
2.2 Council is established under section 15.059 except that and the term for each council
2.3 member shall be three years. The advisory council is composed of seven nine members

If you’re a Minnesota resident, please direct your comments concerning this bill to both the members of the Education Committee and your House Member or State Senator.

Tell them Tom Hayes is watching. Tell them I sent you.

Digg this story!