The Massachusetts Association of School Committees respectfully submits the following comments on proposed amendments to 603 CMR 1.00, Charter School Regulations.

1. Process for Amending Regulations. We strongly urge that future proposals to amend the Charter School regulations be accompanied by an explanation and rationale for change. Many government agencies provide such explanations and analysis so that both clients and constituents of the agency and the public at large may understand the purpose of proposed changes. In light of the most recent public policy disputes over renewing and approving charter school authorizations, we believe strongly that the Department should take several steps to improve public awareness and understanding of the process and to facilitate a more thoughtful debate and discussion.

The credibility of the Department and its Charter School Office is at stake here and, merits and liabilities of charter schools aside, significant public skepticism has grown over several policy areas and process at this time. This is no time to establish significant change without ensuring that the public is made fully aware of the impact of amendments.

Finally, the modest and temporary provisions proposed by the governor to replace the loss of Chapter 70 reimbursement for the funds diverted to charter schools from the local school district are woefully inadequate. This is true despite some measure of assurance offered at the meeting of the Board of Education of February 25, 2003 that the loss of revenue would be offset by the governor’s recommendation to the legislature. As a result, we believe the Department should take every step possible to ensure that proposed regulations are open, clear, unambiguous, and easily understood by the public at large.

2. 1.02 Regional Charter Schools. We are concerned about the way in which this section is drafted and find it confusing with particular reference to the applicability of changes as recommended in 603 CMR 1.11(2).

3. 1.05 (1) (g) Criteria for Assessment and Approval of Charter Applications, Awarding of Charters. We urge that the regulations be added to assist in resolving one of the critical questions related to charter schools: "Do charters attract a representative cross section of their community and do students in charter schools achieve at a higher level than had they remained at their original, sending schools?" In this respect, we recommend that charter schools should present not only development of an accountability plan establishing performance and that demonstrates the ability to accomplish recruitment and retention of students and qualified teachers or managers, but also the recruitment and retention of students who represent

a) a representative cross section of their communities with regard to race, status as a student with limited English proficiency, and special education requirements; and

b) socio-economic status within the community.
Further, we recommend that regulations be established to ensure that each charter school will provide an analysis of the comparative advantages in terms of academic achievement that have devolved upon each student compared with the level of peers in the original, sending schools.

4. 1.11 Amendments to Charters. We view these changes as substantial and a dramatic and powerful shift in policy that will further disadvantage local school districts and reduce significantly the level of charter school accountability. This section appears to divert from the Board of Education to the Commissioner or subordinate staff the right to approve changes in charter school locations or governance structures. As representatives of public elected officials whose decisions are required to be made at public meetings and in clear public view, we see this proposed change as an inappropriate strategy to remove important changes in charter school governance to a non-public venue.

In particular, this proposal would allow charter school organizers to move their schools at will from a community where it may have failed to win public support or establish credibility, or where reimbursements for nearby students will be less, to a city or town where the revenue diversion formula will provide a more generous funding stream. Most offensively, it appears that such a decision could be made without public notice, a public hearing, an opportunity for comment, or a thoughtful analysis by parties at interest other than those with a direct financial, professional, or programmatic interest in expanding the charter school concept.

5. 1.12 (1) Renewal of Charters. We are concerned that the timeline represents a change in the renewal process and does not require an open review process and public hearing.

1.12 (3) In response to the proposed renewal of a severely underperforming Worcester charter school renewal application, several observers were stunned but most interested to hear the Department’s representative tell the Board of Education that assessments of charter renewals should be based on more than MCAS performance of students but on multiple areas of assessment. We find this a significant inconsistency over the use of MCAS data by the Department. As a result, we would urge further clarification as to the standards for determining the renewal of a charter based "upon affirmative evidence regarding whether the school’s academic program is a success;". In particular, we would seek further clarification of the meaning of "test results" and note the absence of other measures of student achievement.

SUMMARY:

We find most distressing what appears to be an attempt by regulation to divert public attention and input away from the charter approval process to the non-public venue of the offices of the Department of Education. We believe this offends public policy and is counter to the standards that School Committees must meet themselves in setting public policy. Moreover, at a time when the credibility of the Department of Education is at issue, and that of the Charter School Office in particular is at stake, we strongly recommend that the recommendations above be given most serious consideration.

For this reason, we also recommend that the Department of Education circulate no further regulations and effect no further changes unless and until they are accompanied by a detailed explanation of how the proposed change establish, improve, alter, or modify current policy and practice.
Respectfully submitted,

Carol LePrevost
President