When a team of senior state officials went to Washington in March seeking more than $400 million from the Obama administration’s Race to the Top education reform program, members provided what critics call deceptive answers to reviewers asking about charter schools. And after the team returned, officials continued to show little interest in expanding charter schools — which were singled out by the Department of Education as a linchpin of effective education reform.
The Tar Heel State received no funding and placed 12th out of 16 finalists in round one of the competition. State officials will have another opportunity in round two, with applications due June 1. North Carolina’s five-member team was composed of Gov. Beverly Perdue, Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson, State Board of Education Chairman Bill Harrison, Bill McNeal, executive director of the N.C. Association of School Administrators, and Glenn Kleiman, executive director of the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation.
The simplest way North Carolina could increase its score would be to improve its charter school performance. Of the 30 areas considered in the application for funding, the state scored worst (23 out of a possible 40 points) on area F2, the extent to which the state is “ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools.”
Section F2 (iii) of the application asks whether “the state’s charter schools receive … equitable funding compared to traditional public schools, and a commensurate share of local, state, and federal revenues.” One scorer asked the team, “Do the local [local school districts] provide equal amounts of dollars to the charters in their localities?” All five members nodded in affirmation, with Perdue, Atkinson, McNeal, and Harrison replying emphatically, “Yes, they do.”
(To watch North Carolina’s presentation, click here.)
Critics say this answer is misleading. Charter schools across the state have had to sue local school districts and the state Board of Education for failing to provide charter schools with equitable funding as required by state law.
Under Race to the Top rules, reviewers base their scores only on the information in the application and from the verbal responses provided during the interviews. Had reviewers been aware of charter school litigation dating as far back as 1998, the state may have scored even lower.
Even though school choice is a major priority in the competition, earlier this year Atkinson had dismissed the notion that North Carolina’s charter school policies would hurt its chances of winning federal aid; the state forged ahead without any changes related to charter schools.
Charter school litigation
In two recent high-profile decisions regarding charter school funding, known as Sugar Creek I and Sugar Creek II, the N.C. Court of Appeals unanimously held that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education had violated the state statute requiring local school districts to distribute the appropriate per-pupil share of money in the current local school district current expense fund to every school in the district, both traditional public and charter schools. As a result, CMS paid $5.5 million to the 10 charter schools that were plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Asked about the state’s response during the round one interviews, Richard Vinroot, lead attorney for Sugar Creek plaintiffs, said, “There is no such thing as equitable funding, and they [school districts] have not been doing it despite state statutes requiring them to do so. I have settled several cases, including one in Union County with a $700,000 judgment outstanding. Currently, there’s at least $5 million in claims outstanding owed to charter schools all over the state,” Vinroot added.
Not only has the state failed to cooperate regarding equitable funding, but, in some cases, Vinroot said DPI also has helped schools get around the law. Several local school boards have amended their budgets to move money into other accounts after charter school lawsuits were filed.
The Sugar Creek cases deal specifically with operating funds for charter schools. Recently, the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven public charter schools and more than 50 parents and students challenging the constitutionality of the state’s capital funding system for charter schools. More than 15 government entities are included in the suit. Among them are the state of North Carolina and the counties of Mecklenburg, Union, Rutherford, Nash, Edgecombe, and Halifax, along with their respective school boards.
Jason Kay, senior staff attorney for NCICL, said that charter schools are being denied access to capital funding because they’re not even allowed to have their proposals considered. “The attorney general has interpreted current law as silent on the issue of capital funding,” Kay said, meaning the AG argues the law doesn’t even allow charter schools to request appropriations from the capital outlay fund.
NCICL attorneys seek to remedy this inequity in capital funding, reasoning that the state’s constitution requires a “general and uniform system of free public schools.” The institute says the constitutional guarantee should afford charter schools the same access to funding as traditional public schools.
Other charter schools around the state have been following these cases closely. As reported in the online edition of Kinston.com earlier this year, Charter Academy’s chief executive officer Ozie Hall Jr. threatened to file a lawsuit against the Lenoir County Board of Education if the board didn’t pay the academy the money it was owed, amounting to more than $250,000 over a six-year period. In his statement, Hall cited the Sugar Creek decision.
Sticking with the status quo
Throughout its DOE presentation and subsequent Q&A, Perdue’s team touted North Carolina’s nationwide reputation for education innovation and reform. At times, though, the panelists stumbled in their responses, appearing to have difficulty understanding and addressing the questions posed by the reviewers.
Prior to submitting their round-one applications, some states proactively addressed the Obama administration’s priorities by making policy changes. Tennessee, which scored second highest and was one of only two finalists to win money in the initial round, held two special legislative sessions during which several reforms, including lifting its charter school cap, were enacted.
Instead, North Carolina continues to stand behind current policies. Following the announcement of round one results, the Race to the Top team made clear to the General Assembly’s Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education that state officials have no plans to address concerns about charter schools in subsequent rounds of the competition. Harrison dismissed the notion that the state board might follow Tennessee and try to lift the charter cap.
Perdue’s office did not return a call from CJ for further clarification of the team’s response on charter school funding.
Karen McMahan is a contributor to Carolina Journal.