Public Charter Schools Board Would Tackle School Governance | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's note: The author of this fine report, Dan Way, is an associate editor of the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

S.B. 337 offers financial guarantees, flexible regulations, and additional oversight

    RALEIGH     A Senate committee Wednesday approved a bill creating the North Carolina Public Charter Schools Board, shifting oversight of the state's expanding number of charter schools away from the State Board of Education.

    The multi-faceted bill includes provisions addressing such thorny issues as funding formulas, allowable enrollment growth, and the relationship between local school districts and charters. It relaxes teacher licensure requirements and states that only nonprofit corporations can apply to operate charter schools.

    "There is no fiscal impact to the budget for this," Sen. Jerry Tillman, R-Randolph, sponsor of Senate Bill 337, said as the measure found near-unanimous approval in the Senate Finance Committee. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations/Base Budget subcommittee.

    The bill would empower the state Department of Public Instruction's existing Office of Charter Schools as the principal administrative unit, working under the direction of the Charter Board. The Charter Board would operate independent of the State Board of Education.

    "The charter staff ... is in place, and I don't believe that there is going to be any extra cost attached to that," Tillman said.

    The Charter Board would replicate many of the functions now performed by the state Charter Schools Advisory Council, but it would be smaller -- 11 voting members instead of 15. Nine members would be appointed by the governor or the General Assembly. The lieutenant governor and state treasurer also would be voting members.
North Carolina General in May, 2012: Above.     photo by Stan Deatherage     Click here to expand image.
    The State Board of Education would be granted veto authority over any Charter Board action, provided it had assent from a three-quarters majority of its board and the veto was voted on within 45 days of the Charter Board's action.

    The Charter Board would provide technical assistance to charter schools and applicants, establish rules, oversee the application and approval process, monitor existing charter schools, renew charters, and revoke them.

    The bill would require charters to pay a "reasonable" application fee for the first time. Tillman said the application fee has yet to be decided. It would not be refunded if an application is rejected or a charter is revoked.

    "In the event that somebody does not have the capacity to pay the fee, is there a provision for a waiver?" Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, asked Tillman.

    "No sir," Tillman responded.

    "The reason we have an application fee is to ferret out those wannabes that are not financially stable enough to pay for an application fee," he said. "You've got to be well fixed to establish a charter, and there are all kinds of applications that come by individuals and fly-by-nights if we don't have a pretty hefty application fee. That was intentional."

    Aside from barring for-profit entities to apply for a charter, the application process has other differences from present practice.

    Preliminary approval no longer would be permitted from a chartering entity such as a local board of education or from a UNC constituent institution.

    An applicant would not have to submit its application to the local school board, and the Charter Board no longer would be required to consider information provided by the local school board in weighing an application.

    There would be no requirement for the Charter Board to hear local school boards' presentation of adverse impacts on a school district when approving enrollment growth for existing charter schools.

    To ensure timely flow of tax dollars to charter schools, the bill would require school districts to provide the charter schools their share of per-pupil funding within 30 days of receiving their approproations. The bill mandates that school districts provide information explaining how the per-pupil share was calculated.

    The bill would remove the requirement for a set percentage of charter school teachers to have teaching licenses, and would require the charter board of directors to establish a policy on criminal background checks for prospective employees.

    Charter schools would have to try to enroll a student population that reasonably reflects the racial and ethnic composition of the local school district.

    In a provision that addresses complaints by many parents, charter schools that hold lotteries for admission would enter one surname for all siblings. They would be required to admit all siblings if that surname is drawn. Present law requires only multiple-birth siblings be admitted jointly.

    In what appears to be an effort to resolve past tensions between charter schools and local school boards, the bill would require a school district to lease to a charter school any available building or land for $1 per year. Otherwise, the district would have to show those facilities are needed for enrollment purposes or that the $1 lease would not be financially feasible.

    Finance Committee member Josh Stein, D-Wake, questioned Tillman about the bill's property tax exemptions.

    "If you are a charter school renting from a for-profit landlord and paying full-market rent, the landlord no longer has to pay property tax. Is that an accurate understanding?" Stein asked.

    "If the building's use is education, and that property is being used for educational purposes as a school building, they would not be subject to tax," Tillman said.

    "That piece doesn't make any sense to me," Stein said. "The tenant doesn't pay property taxes, the owner of the building pays property taxes."

    "Would you be amenable to language that qualified if they [landlords] were giving it for below market rent where they could get a property tax elimination," Stein asked.

    "No, not as long as that building is used for educational purposes," Tillman said. He noted that there are no property taxes collected for land on which traditional schools are located.

    "There is a fiscal note which shows minimal to no impact" from the tax-free provision, said Cindy Avrette, a staff attorney in the legislative Research Division.

    "The statute even provides a partial exemption," Avrette said. "For instance, if you have a large tract of land and a certain part of it is wholly and exclusively used (as a charter school), that part of it would be exempt but not the remainder."

    Sen. Tommy Tucker, R-Union, the only committee member to vote against the bill, wanted to know whether it included transportation and lunch provisions for low-income students.

    Tillman said he and Stein are working jointly on an amendment to deal with transportation and meals for children who meet criteria for free lunch programs.