Posted on 07/28/2006 2:47:53 PM PDT by calcowgirl
When California voters approved Proposition 39 six years ago, it was mainly known for lowering the threshold for passing school bond measures.
These days, though, the law is in the legal spotlight for pitting two camps of public education against each other in a high-stakes fight over school buildings.
Proposition 39 also requires districts to share their campuses “fairly” with charter schools, alternative public schools that are self-governed.
How to share fairly is at the center of the dispute.
The rationale behind the law is that charters serve students who otherwise would attend district-run schools. Therefore, they should be entitled to use district facilities.
Since Proposition 39 took effect, districts statewide have faced mounting requests from the growing number of charters seeking to use their campuses.
“Some of the districts are working relatively hard and diligently to try to provide facilities,” said Eric Premack, co-director of the Charter Schools Development Center, a Sacramento-based nonprofit that provides technical assistance to charters. “However, many seem to be still in a state of denial about Proposition 39 and will simply flat out refuse to provide any facilities or drag their feet.”
Roughly 3 percent of the state's public school students – about 200,000 children – attend charter schools, which have their own boards of directors and control of their budget, staff and curriculum. In San Diego, about 10 percent of the district's 133,000 students attend charter schools.
Many charters are housed in churches and office buildings because they lack the money and facilities that traditional public schools receive.
But as they have grown in number and political clout, charter schools have become more aggressive and savvy in their fight for space.
Charters up and down the state have filed lawsuits against their districts contending they haven't complied with Proposition 39. The San Diego Unified School District was sued last year.
Some charter school advocates interpret the law to mean that school districts have an “unconditional legal duty” to provide facilities, even if it means relocating district programs or redrawing attendance boundaries.
Districts say charter schools want more than what is fair and legally required. They also say they are doing their best to comply with a law that could have serious financial and logistical impacts on their operations.
“They have to balance the needs of both sets of kids,” said Stephanie Farland, a senior policy consultant for the California School Boards Association.
“They don't want to penalize the kids they directly serve by giving space over to charter schools.”
A 2005 survey by EdSource, a nonprofit independent research organization, showed that of 131 California charter schools that applied for facilities from districts, 60 percent received offers that fully or partially met their needs.
Almost all charter schools that applied with the San Diego district were offered facilities for the upcoming academic year, but only after intense behind-the-scene negotiations. Some rejected the offers, and many complained about the application process. Charter schools are especially vocal in San Diego.
There are 37 of them fighting for limited space in the city. They have successfully lured away 13,000 students from district-run schools. For the past academic year, they received an estimated $56 million in per-pupil funding from the state – money that in the past went to the district's coffers.
Although charter schools pay fees to their respective districts for various services, the fees don't make up for the loss in per-pupil funding. This loss erodes school districts' budgets at a time when many are grappling with an enrollment decline caused by demographic shifts and high housing prices, which is the case in San Diego.
“We are seen as the competition and the enemy in most cases,” said Luci Fowers, who runs Albert Einstein Academy Charter School, which has clashed many times with the district over access to facilities.
The competition between charter schools and their districts over enrollment has created tension ever since charters were created by law in California in 1992. Proposition 39 has only intensified the conflict.
“Where you see the biggest rub is where you have a district with declining enrollment and students siphoned off, and the district is barely hanging on. It adds that additional fuel to the fire,” said Laura Walker Jeffries, a legislative advocate for the Association of California School Administrators, which represents both charter school and traditional public school managers.
The fight comes down to control of taxpayer-funded facilities.
Before Proposition 39, districts had full control of their properties. They could sell properties to generate cash or lease them to private entities at market rate to fill funding shortfalls.
Not anymore.
Charters now demand the right of first refusal when district facilities become available. Lawyers representing San Diego charter schools say it is illegal for the district to lease surplus properties for extra income instead of offering them to charter schools.
Unlike private entities, charter schools by law don't have to pay market rate. Districts can only charge fees to recover the costs of providing facilities. That means they lose out on lease revenues when their buildings go to charter schools.
For example in San Diego, the former Cleveland Elementary campus is being leased to a charter school for $70,000 a year. Previously, a private school was charged $250,000 a year to use the same site.
Bob Kiesling, San Diego Unified's facilities chief, said the district will generate $4.7 million next year from leases of closed schools and undeveloped land to private organizations. Part of the money is used for maintenance. The rest helps cover operational expenses, such as bus transportation.
Kiesling said it would be detrimental to the district if it could not continue to lease surplus buildings to generate revenue.
However, charter school lawyers suing the district argued in court papers that financial considerations are not a legitimate reason for denying charter schools' equal access to facilities. Two charter schools suing the district asked for a share of the district's lease revenues to defray their cost of renting buildings.
The district “must be ordered to treat the charter school students as if they were the District's 'own,' rather than as unwanted stepchildren or second class citizens,” the lawsuit read.
San Diego Unified has tried to appease charter schools by offering some facilities.
Last year, it allowed Albert Einstein Academy to move into the former Brooklyn Elementary School in Golden Hill. The district is also preparing to let two charter schools move into the old Mead Elementary School in Chollas View, vacated after a new campus opened this year.
The district has tried to protect its income-generating properties by steering charters to less valuable vacant buildings.
To charter schools, it's a no-brainer that the district should accommodate them.
“Aren't we both in education? Aren't we both striving toward the same goal of excellence for students everywhere? But it doesn't feel like that oftentimes,” Fowers said.
In December, Fanno Academy and KIPP Adelante Preparatory Academy, with the backing of the California Charter Schools Association, sued San Diego Unified over its refusal to grant their requests to use district property.
The lawsuit is working its way through Superior Court, but the district is in settlement talks with Fanno to possibly let it move into the old Mead campus. Elsewhere in the state, two notable appellate decisions have come down in favor of charters. At least one ruled for a school district.
Hoping to reduce litigation, the California Department of Education is working on revising Proposition 39 regulations. Revisions are expected to go before the state Board of Education in November.
In the meantime, the California Charter Schools Association has created a legal defense fund to support its members. Districts, including San Diego Unified, have turned to outside law firms to scrutinize charter schools' facilities requests and defend them against lawsuits.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
They're also the same folks that were behind $3 Billion for stem-cell research--that's $3 Billion of your money, not theirs.
They spent over $60 million campaigning for Prop 39. They're looking for their payback--and then some. California--the Venture Capitalists piggybank.
Thank you for the editorial corrections.
Much improved!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.