Hidden Gems in the RISE Act

In the hours and days after the details of the RISE Act emerged, we were disappointed to see the charter lobby and some teachers’ unions immediately retreat into their usual corners. In the middle of this polarized rhetoric are the families on both sides, hopeful that this toxic back and forth may one day come to a resolution that serves the only stakeholders here that matter: the children.

This weekend brought an opportunity for us to read through the RISE Act again with a careful and informed eye. In that light, the remarkable ease with which our Governor, teachers’ unions, charter school organizations and their proxies have immediately and uniformly dismissed this bill only strengthens the argument that we need the reforms it outlines more than ever.  

Let’s take the teachers unions’ response first. Public school teachers in the Commonwealth understand the very real impacts of our outdated Foundation Budget Formulas. And despite very clear recommendations from the Foundation Budget Review Commission, and advocacy from School Committees, Superintendents and the like all around the state for implementation of those recommendations, both the Governor and Legislature seemed to have no real plan for resolving this important issue. So, what was the statewide unions’ response when the RISE Act actually presented a legislated solution implementing the FBRC? No thanks. We’d rather spend millions of our members’ resources on a protracted ballot measure battle against $18 million in out-of-state lobbying money. Hmmm…makes you wonder how those resources might have been used to help public school teachers continue to innovate in their schools and their classrooms?

And the charter advocacy folks? Well, they know far better than any of us how good they’ve had it. When you’ve had your cake and have been eating it too for years, it’s hard to hear someone tell you it’s time for that to change, even just a little bit. We will grant that Massachusetts’ charter schools have a national reputation for quality. However, we are over 20 years into charter education in Massachusetts and there are still serious questions about which students they actually serve, their approach to student discipline, and their financial practices (for more on that see our last post on Charter School Operational Gains) amongst many others. So, what was their response to the first piece of comprehensive, common-sense reform legislation for Charter Schools in Massachusetts in over 20 years (legislation we might add designed to enhance and secure their current reputation in the country)?  How dare you?!  This is outrageous!  We’ll be speaking to our venture investment friends about this, mark my words. They know people. You’ll see.

We, by contrast, are impressed by the accomplishments of the authors of the RISE Act. They have made significant efforts to create a functioning educational ecosystem for traditional and charter schools alike. True to the spirit of the original law that established charter schools, the RISE Act furthers this effort by asking charter schools to engage their school communities in a meaningful way and commit to the same standards of transparency and accountability as district schools. Charter schools cannot continue to have their cake and eat it too; if they insist that they are public schools, then they must start being held to the same standards on all accounts.

Finally, before we get into some of the hidden gems in this legislation we need to take pause for a word about the media. The oversimplifications of the terms of the RISE Act in the mainstream media are a disservice to the authors, who have written an incredibly comprehensive education bill that is responsive to years of feedback from parents and educators on all sides of this issue. We are frustrated that the Boston Globe continues to promote the opinions of charter supporter Paul Grogan, without stating that The Boston Foundation is the lead financial backer of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association; he has a financial interest in the successful proliferation of charter schools.

It is our sincere hope that the mainstream media takes the time to take a close look at the nuanced details of the RISE Act, rather than overlooking elegant solutions to problems that have plagued our public schools for 22 years. We detail some of these below.

FUNDING REFORMS:

• The RISE Act implements the recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission (FBRC) [Section 3]. The bill includes the FBRC’s recommended revisions to the funding levels for public education in Massachusetts, including increased funding for Special Education, English Language Learners, low income students, employee benefits, salaries of support staff. Implementing the FBRC recommendations would mean an increase of $1.4 billion in new state education aid over the course of 7 years, increasing resources for all public schools in the Commonwealth.

• The RISE Act allows school committees/local authorities to decide if Horace Mann and/or Innovation Schools are part of the charter cap [Section 68]. A school committee may decide to include Horace Mann and Innovation schools within the municipality’s charter spending cap. If a school committee is appointed, the appointing authority can make that decision [Ln 715-728]. To state this plainly, if Boston were to elect a mayor who strongly favors traditional public education, the expansion of charter schools in Boston could be extremely limited.

• Establishes a commission to review charter school funding [Section 95]. Much like the Foundation Budget Review Commission exists to review the funding levels of public education, the RISE Act establishes a commission to study and review how other states fund charter schools. The commission will make recommendations of appropriate future changes to the charter school funding structure. As much as we would like a ready-made solution to the somewhat parasitic current funding structure, simply put, we cannot run before we can walk.

INCREASED DISTRICT AND CHARTER COLLABORATION:

• Charter schools and district schools must meet to design start and end times that are cost effective for the district in terms of transportation [Section 83, Ln 1045-1047]. Boston Public Schools had to halt the implementation of their Extended Learning Time initiative due to limitations related to start times, end times and transportation. Mandating this cooperation will help districts implement the best practice of an extended day and control transportation costs.

• Includes district superintendent and school committee in decision to grant new charters [Section 62]. New charter school applications must include an analysis of educational opportunities and the potential financial impact of the sending district [Ln 641-643]. The Commissioner is expected to be responsive to concerns of the district superintendent [Ln 655-656, 675] and solicit and consider recommendations of the local school committee [Ln 662-663]. The Commissioner’s final decision must include an accurate assessment on the impact to the sending district [Ln 675-677]. In February 2016, DESE voted to allow 1,119 more charter schools seats in Boston. They did not evaluate how the estimated $18.5 million dollar loss would impact Boston Public Schools when making this decision.

• Creates a regional school district planning board [Section 43]. The decision to create a new charter school can impact a number of factors for a region, including funding, local aid and school district transportation. The bill allows for the creation of a regional school district planning committee that includes a school committee member as a moderator.

• Restores original intent of charter schools as labs of innovation and collaborators of best practice [Section 80, Section 63]. The bill allows for the exchange of administrators and teacher between district schools and charter schools [Ln 968-980]. Mandates that districts and charters collaborate to establish a policy on “late arrivals” of students [Ln 685-686].

• Establishes a task force to study effective and appropriate start and end times [Section 96]. The task force will make age appropriate, research based recommendations to modify and align start and end times and identify resources to aid with implementation.

CHARTER SCHOOL REFORMS:

• Reforms the composition of charter schools’ boards of trustees [Section 57] and prevents charter board members from having a financial interest in the school [Section 82]. The RISE Act reformulates the charter schools’ boards of trustees to include one member of the school committee from the sending district, 25% (or at least two) elected parent representatives and one elected student representative with voting privileges [Ln 572-592]. The RISE Act prevents board members of charter schools from having a financial interest in the charter school, either through a non-profit or a corporation that supports the school. A recent report from the Annenberg Institute for School Reform found that 31% of charter boards are composed of members from the corporate / financial sector and that only 16% of charter board trustees in Massachusetts are parents. Preventing financial conflicts of interest and expanding parent representation would strengthen the mission and integrity of charter schools.

• Transparency of charter school financing and governance [Section 71, 72, 91 & 83]. Currently there is much opacity around charter school income and expenditures. Collecting this information requires sifting through financial information from a number of different sources. The RISE Act mandates that a charter school’s vendor contracts be available on the school’s website [Ln 804-805], as well as their grants, gifts and partnerships [Ln 810-812]. Charter schools must also provide financial statements with revenues, expenditures and net assets in their annual reports [Ln 1137-1141]. DESE will set forth designing standards to better evaluate assets, revenues and expenditures, as well as delineate charter spending of public vs. private money. This information will then be made publicly available on the school’s website [Ln 1142-1154]. The RISE Act also mandates that the minutes of meetings of the board of trustees be considered public record and be publicly available on the school’s website [Ln 995-998].

• Charter schools cannot have higher attrition rates than the sending district [Section 87]. A charter will not be renewed if their 3 year attrition rate is greater than the sending district’s, or if their 3 year stability rate is lower than the districts, either as a whole or within any specific group of students [Ln 1069-1083].

• Discipline policies of charter schools must be transparent and fairly addressed [Section 53, 55 & 78]. The school’s discipline policies, including those for expulsion, must be clearly stated on the school’s website [Ln 958-960]. The bill also establishes a panel to address appeals of disciplinary actions. This panel includes one member of the district’s school committee [Ln 535-543]. No student can be expelled for academic performance [Ln 549-550].

• Charter schools cannot have higher out of school suspension rate than the sending district [Section 88]. A charter will not be renewed if their 3 year out of school suspension rate is greater than the sending district’s. A charter school may be given a 2 year probationary period while DESE helps to lower their out of school suspension rate [Ln 1090-1112]. According to a report from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, ”a significant number of charter schools, particularly those in the Boston area, had high discipline rates. Roxbury Preparatory Charter suspended 6 out of every 10 students out-of-school at least once, while the Edward Brooke Charter in Roslindale averaged 5.8 out-of-school suspensions – all for non-violent, non-criminal, non-drug offenses – for each suspended student.”

• Mandates that charter schools backfill vacant seats [Section 70, 75 & 77]. The issue of charter schools’ reluctance to backfill vacant seats is addressed several times in the RISE Act. Charter schools would be asked to constantly identify and fill vacant seats throughout the school year [Ln 795-797, 854-855, 934-936].

• Mandates that charter schools maintain accurate waitlists [Section 77]. The inaccuracy of charter schools’ waitlists has long been an issue for debate. The RISE Act mandates that charter schools update the status of their waitlists with DESE monthly, with an expiration of the waitlist of July 1st of each year [Ln 941-955].

• Mandates that charter school teachers must be licensed [Section 90].

  

  Download the entire RISE Act here.