Charter school authorization, renewal, and appeal:
problems with lack of public input and transparency
Page first published online July 31, 2016
The processes of charter school authorization, renewal, and application appeals vary widely from state to state. Even within some states, they are handled differently depending on which authorizer or government agency is involved.
In some states (for example, Missouri, Michigan, and Oklahoma) institutions of higher learning such as universities may authorize charter schools. It appears that this is generally done in a closed-door process. Notice of pending applications is not posted online, and no public hearings are conducted.
In other states such as Illinois and Pennsylvania, state-level charter school commissions can override local school board decisions in a process that is often highly politicized, as these state-level agency members tend to be appointed and, by design, tend to be strongly pro-charter. Citizens in the community where the charter school is to be located may be unaware of this appeals process.
We believe that the charter school authorization and renewal process should be easily accessible to the public, that information should be posted online in advance, and that the public should be invited to give input. Some concerning cases where this was not the case are detailed below.
In other states such as Illinois and Pennsylvania, state-level charter school commissions can override local school board decisions in a process that is often highly politicized, as these state-level agency members tend to be appointed and, by design, tend to be strongly pro-charter. Citizens in the community where the charter school is to be located may be unaware of this appeals process.
We believe that the charter school authorization and renewal process should be easily accessible to the public, that information should be posted online in advance, and that the public should be invited to give input. Some concerning cases where this was not the case are detailed below.
Case #1: Renewal of Frontier Schools' charter in Missouri
From Oct 2013 to Feb 2014, Frontier Schools (frontierschools.org) a chain of Gulen charter schools in Kansas City, Missouri, was in the process of applying for a 5-year charter renewal. Frontier Schools' charters were authorized through the University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC) School of Education; however, DESE (Missouri's Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) and the State Board of Education had the final say in the renewals. In Oct/Nov 2013 and Feb 2014, charter renewal was mentioned in the board meeting minutes of Frontier Schools, which could be downloaded from their website. Details such as exactly which of the several schools in this chain are up for renewal, and the length of the proposed charter term, were not given in the minutes. It was stated that Frontier Schools planned to submit the renewal documents by November 2013.
No information about the renewal process could be found on the webpage (link) of the
University of Missouri Kansas City Charter School Center at the time.
As for DESE, the first mention of the renewal process was in board meeting agenda documents for the Feb 18, 2014 meeting (link), where it was stated that approval had already been recommended by UMKC and by DESE. This likely meant that final approval was reduced to a mere formality; the DESE website will not show the final decision until the meeting minutes are posted online, which typically does not happen until 1-2 months after the meeting takes place. The board agenda showed no evidence that public input was sought during the review process.
While the Jan 14, 2014 meeting agenda included a document giving "Agenda items for two months in advance of current meeting" (link), no mention of the Frontier Schools renewal can be found.
In sum, information on Frontier Schools' charter renewal was not posted in a timely manner so that the public could easily provide input and follow the process.
From Oct 2013 to Feb 2014, Frontier Schools (frontierschools.org) a chain of Gulen charter schools in Kansas City, Missouri, was in the process of applying for a 5-year charter renewal. Frontier Schools' charters were authorized through the University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC) School of Education; however, DESE (Missouri's Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) and the State Board of Education had the final say in the renewals. In Oct/Nov 2013 and Feb 2014, charter renewal was mentioned in the board meeting minutes of Frontier Schools, which could be downloaded from their website. Details such as exactly which of the several schools in this chain are up for renewal, and the length of the proposed charter term, were not given in the minutes. It was stated that Frontier Schools planned to submit the renewal documents by November 2013.
No information about the renewal process could be found on the webpage (link) of the
University of Missouri Kansas City Charter School Center at the time.
As for DESE, the first mention of the renewal process was in board meeting agenda documents for the Feb 18, 2014 meeting (link), where it was stated that approval had already been recommended by UMKC and by DESE. This likely meant that final approval was reduced to a mere formality; the DESE website will not show the final decision until the meeting minutes are posted online, which typically does not happen until 1-2 months after the meeting takes place. The board agenda showed no evidence that public input was sought during the review process.
While the Jan 14, 2014 meeting agenda included a document giving "Agenda items for two months in advance of current meeting" (link), no mention of the Frontier Schools renewal can be found.
In sum, information on Frontier Schools' charter renewal was not posted in a timely manner so that the public could easily provide input and follow the process.
Case #2: Appeal of proposed Allentown Engineering Academy Charter School, Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, charter school applications rejected by local school districts can appeal to the state's Charter Appeal Board. This board lists its decisions and gives documentation on its website (link). However, this is only for decisions that have been finalized. No information is given on pending appeals. Dates of board meetings are given (link), but no meeting agendas or minutes are posted, and there is no information on whether these meetings are open to the public. The website contains no mention of any process for collecting public input. All this makes it difficult for the public to keep track of these appeals. For example, an October 31, 2013 local news story (link) said the proposed Allentown Engineering Academy Charter School (Gulen charter school) application was being appealed. No further information appeared in any news articles. The public could not find anything about the status of this appeal by viewing the Charter Appeal Board webpage.
In Pennsylvania, charter school applications rejected by local school districts can appeal to the state's Charter Appeal Board. This board lists its decisions and gives documentation on its website (link). However, this is only for decisions that have been finalized. No information is given on pending appeals. Dates of board meetings are given (link), but no meeting agendas or minutes are posted, and there is no information on whether these meetings are open to the public. The website contains no mention of any process for collecting public input. All this makes it difficult for the public to keep track of these appeals. For example, an October 31, 2013 local news story (link) said the proposed Allentown Engineering Academy Charter School (Gulen charter school) application was being appealed. No further information appeared in any news articles. The public could not find anything about the status of this appeal by viewing the Charter Appeal Board webpage.
Case #3: Override of Chicago Public Schools' rejection of two Horizon Science Academy schools by Illinois State Charter School Commission
In the spring of 2013, Chicago Public Schools rejected two applications for Horizon Science Academy Belmont and Horizon Science Academy McKinley Park; these were proposed Gulen charter schools under the auspices of Concept Schools.
As detailed in a Chicago Sun-Times article of Dec 23, 2013 (link), the Illinois State Charter School Commission reversed this decision and allowed the schools to open. The Sun-Times outlines the political connections that appear to have led to this reversal.
The Commission's approval of the two applications appears as an obscure item on its March 19, 2013 agenda: "Action Item C. a. Accept Staff Recommendation to Reverse District 299’s denial of Concept Proposal for 2 schools and Authorize Both Schools to open in 2013." In this agenda, the names of the two proposed schools are not given, and the full name of Concept Schools is not given either. A member of the public unfamiliar with the proposals might have had great difficulty deciphering what the phrase "Concept Proposal" refers to. Meta-data for this agenda document shows it was created March 15, 2013. That was only 4 days before the meeting took place.
A public hearing regarding the appeal was held in February 21, 2013. In principle, members of the public could have commented. However, the final decision document states that "The Commission held a public hearing regarding Concept’s appeal on February 21, 2013. Commissioner Michael Jacoby, Commissioner Angela Rudolph, and Executive Director Jeanne Nowaczewski represented the Commission at the hearing and representatives for Concept and CPS made statements on behalf of the respective parties." There is no mention of any public comments.
In the spring of 2013, Chicago Public Schools rejected two applications for Horizon Science Academy Belmont and Horizon Science Academy McKinley Park; these were proposed Gulen charter schools under the auspices of Concept Schools.
As detailed in a Chicago Sun-Times article of Dec 23, 2013 (link), the Illinois State Charter School Commission reversed this decision and allowed the schools to open. The Sun-Times outlines the political connections that appear to have led to this reversal.
The Commission's approval of the two applications appears as an obscure item on its March 19, 2013 agenda: "Action Item C. a. Accept Staff Recommendation to Reverse District 299’s denial of Concept Proposal for 2 schools and Authorize Both Schools to open in 2013." In this agenda, the names of the two proposed schools are not given, and the full name of Concept Schools is not given either. A member of the public unfamiliar with the proposals might have had great difficulty deciphering what the phrase "Concept Proposal" refers to. Meta-data for this agenda document shows it was created March 15, 2013. That was only 4 days before the meeting took place.
A public hearing regarding the appeal was held in February 21, 2013. In principle, members of the public could have commented. However, the final decision document states that "The Commission held a public hearing regarding Concept’s appeal on February 21, 2013. Commissioner Michael Jacoby, Commissioner Angela Rudolph, and Executive Director Jeanne Nowaczewski represented the Commission at the hearing and representatives for Concept and CPS made statements on behalf of the respective parties." There is no mention of any public comments.
.....
These were only three illustrative cases; there are far more that have yet to be written about.
These were only three illustrative cases; there are far more that have yet to be written about.