I remember back in the late 1980s and early 1990s when charter schools were first invented. Advocates (then including me) said they would be more accountable than public schools, because if they didn’t get academic results they promised, they would close. They would also save money because they would cost less than real public schools. Turns out none of this is true. Charter schools fight for equal funding with public schools, and now we know they fight against any accountability. Even failing charter schools get renewed.
When charters close because of financial scandal or academic failure, they are typically replaced by another charter.
When a charter school fails to meet its goals, its charter should be revoked and it should be returned to the public schools to be run by professionals, not amateurs.
Greg Windle writes in The Notebook about the decision by the Philadelphia school board to renew a failing charter school. Parents thought the bad old days of the state-dominated School Reform Commission were over. SRC thought that charters were always the answer to every problem.
He writes:
After the Board of Education meeting Thursday night, many longtime activists in the audience felt as if they had returned to the days of the board’s predecessor, the School Reform Commission. The most controversial vote reversed the SRC’s 2017 decision to close Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School for years of poor and declining academics, instead granting it a one-year extension.
This charter had gotten an extension in 2017 despite poor performance. The school met no standards in any of the three categories—academic, organizational, or financial.The SRC voted not to renew on October 4, 2017:
From the 2017 Renewal Report:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9x1ev_U2NtlN29hQ3Z4cVNraFk/view
RENEWAL RECOMMENDATION: REVOCATION AND NON-RENEWAL
Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School was part of the 2014-15 renewal cohort. In spring of 2015, the CSO recommended the Charter School for a one-year renewal with conditions due to declining academic performance in years 3 and 4 of the charter term. The SRC did not take action on the 2014-15 renewal recommendation because the CSO and the Charter School did not reach agreement on the terms of a renewal charter agreement. During the 2016-17 school year, the CSO supplemented the 2014-15 comprehensive renewal evaluation with data and information from the years since the 2014-15 evaluation was conducted; primarily the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years for academic success and financial health and sustainability and through the current school year, 2016-17, for organizational compliance and viability. The Charter School’s performance in the most recent years reflects continued declines in academic success and financial health and sustainability performance and sustained non-compliance for organizational requirements. The Charter School has not demonstrated an improvement in academic performance; proficiency scores are below comparison groups in both 2014-15 and 2015-16 and proficiency rates declined in English Language Arts (ELA) and Science in 2015-16.Furthermore, the Charter School did not meet the growth standard in any subject in both 2014-15 and 2015-16. The Charter School continued to not meet the standard for organizational viability and compliance and now only approaches the standard for financial health and sustainability in 2016-17 due to related party, inaccurate attendance reporting and financial transaction concerns. Based on the aggregate review of performance in the three domains, the Charter School is recommended for revocation.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks for posting this, Diane. The Board’s justifications made no sense. Their illogical contortions in finding some way to justify renewing this charter were embarrassing. The Superintendent and Philadelphia Mayor Kenney have said that they are planning to close more neighborhood public schools. We will see if the same considerations for “the community” are made then.
The new board appointed by the mayor is a diverse group of individuals including some that served on the Reform Commission Board. One criticism is that those that have children in system attend well resourced schools in the district. Another criticism of the group by Julien Terrell of the Phila. Student Union stated that the group represents a fiscal-management type of mindset.http://www.philly.com/philly/education/mayor-kenney-names-new-philly-school-board-20180404.html
Thank you for giving this national attention. Whatever happened to Boards of Education being in charge of keeping all schools accountable for their students’ progress. The Board seems to think that by being “nice” to charters, they won’t sue the district later on. (Spoiler alert: They will do that and anything else to stay open. After all, the only accountability the charter boards care about is to their investors and shareholders.
PA must have a terrible charter law. The general gist of the agreement to keep it open seemed to be the futility of trying to close it, in view of the ability for charters to continually appeal, & the legal cost of perennially defending a decision to close.
PA has some of the worst charter laws in the country. In fact, the state Auditor General has been on a personal crusade to point out all of the flaws in the charter laws. That fact is a feature not a bug, the authors of the law were extremely crooked Philly Dems who wanted to make sure that their grifting would be difficult to prevent.
It’s next to impossible to close a charter school in PA. A charter school in my parent’s neighborhood remained open for fifteen years despite both of its founders being convicted for massive fraud, persistent miserable academic achievement and a violent atmosphere that included a student being stabbed nearly to death.
When the school finally closed last year it was becuase it had run out of money to pay lawyers to file appeals. They had not yet exhausted all of their numerous opportunities to appeal the decison to revoke their charter.
When are they going to close Aspira?