Charter Schools: 1997 Assembly Bill 631
The governor signed this bill into law June 3. An amendment supported
by WEAC was successfully added. It requires school boards to hold a
public hearing and discuss the fiscal impact of approving a charter
school before a contract is granted. WEAC and WFT, however, remain opposed
to the law.
Background:
The current charter school law provides districts with a unique opportunity
to establish innovative programs in Wisconsin’s public schools.
The law works because of a strong commitment to maintaining accountability
to the parents, educators, school boards, politicians, and the broad
based community that create them.
Since passage of the charter school law, a total of seventeen charter
schools have been created in Wisconsin. In addition, federal establishment
grants have been made available to provide an $800,000 infusion of funding
administered by the DPI to generate even greater levels of experimentation.
This experimentation should not, however, lead to a deterioration of
the responsibility and accountability that is the foundation of the
current system.
1997 Assembly Bill 631 greatly expands the charter school law in Wisconsin.
The bill makes the following changes:
- Authorizes a school board to contract with any individual, partnership,
association or politic or corporate body to operate a charter school.
- Allows one or more school boards to contract with a CESA to operate
a charter school.
- Allows private non-religious schools to be converted to charter
schools.
- Repeals current law that requires all charter school employees to
be hired by the school district and all charter schools to be instrumentalities
of a school district.
The provisions of Assembly Bill 631 may appear to foster opportunities
in public education, but in reality could lead to dire unintended consequences.
This legislation must be scrutinized carefully to prevent a system where
entities that sponsor a charter school are given so much authority that
they go beyond the true intent of serving the public interest.
Many of the existing charters schools are innovative and use a variety
of imaginative strategies to reach students who often cannot succeed
in a traditional setting. For example, the Ladysmith Evening Alternative
School is a school which begins each day in the late afternoon/early
evening to meet the needs of students who have serious learning and
personal challenges, including those who are under the jurisdiction
of the court system, who are teenage parents, or who might not even
be in school.
The McKinley Charter School in Eau Claire is an alternative school
which seeks to meet the needs of the most “behaviorally challenging”
students in Eau Claire. The Deerfield Alternative School, Affiliated
Alternatives in Madison (a group of “accelerated” alternative
schools), Middleton Alternative High School and the Beaver Dam Charter
School are all alternative schools which are both creative and successful.
Development of an innovative charter school is a high risk endeavor.
Real innovation is best done in an environment that provides support
and security for those taking the risks. Educators in charter schools
have expressed the opinion that remaining employees of the school district
has allowed, and even encouraged them, to act boldly in creating innovative
instructional approaches to learning.
WEAC/WFT Position:
WEAC and the WFT support the current charter school law as it applies
to school districts outside the city of Milwaukee. We urge opposition
to passage of the provisions of 1997 AB 631 during the extraordinary
session of the Legislature.
Key Questions About AB 631:
- What evidence is there which justifies the proposed expansion of
the law at this time? Is there any evidence to suggest that the current
law is not working?
- What level of accountability will exist once a school board authorizes
creation of a charter school that is not an instrumentality? What
liabilities might ensue? How will the rights of the public be protected
if on-going accountability is no longer provided?
- What consideration was given to the experiences of other states
such as Arizona which adopted a similar law? Has any thought been
given to the possible unintended consequences of the proposed expansions
listed in the bill?
For Additional Information:
Contact John Stocks in the WEAC Government Relations Division at 800-
362-8034 or by e-mail at stocksj@weac.org with any reactions, comments
or questions.
Posted April 27, 1998