Chris Hendricks, State Representative for the 11th Bristol District in Massachusetts, explains why he opposed a deal to open a second campus for a charter school in New Bedford.
He writes:
THE PROPOSED charter school expansion plan crafted by New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell, Alma del Mar charter school, and state education Commissioner Jeff Riley earlier this year was simply too risky for New Bedford. After reading the memorandum of understanding (MOU), which became public in March of 2019, I saw this as a bad deal.
This plan was a perceived as a compromise, which would have allowed Alma, which already operates a charter school in New Bedford, to open a second school with 450 seats, instead of its sought-after 1,188 seats. New Bedford, in turn, would have to provide Alma with a school building, free of charge. This new charter school, Alma II, would enroll children from the adjacent neighborhood only, as opposed to enrolling through the citywide lottery, which state law currently requires. If this proposal fell apart, the state education commissioner would grant Alma 594 seats through the traditional enrollment system and New Bedford would not be required to give a school building to Alma.
This is one of the strangest deals ever.
Under this agreement, a student living in the proposed neighborhood zone would, by default, be assigned to the charter school. That fact, alone, is jaw-dropping. But it gets worse. According to the MOU, no student would be guaranteed the option of going to a public school. Instead, all requests to attend a public school would require “the approval of the [New Bedford Public Schools] Superintendent.” In what world is it acceptable to tell a child they have to go to a privately-run charter school?
The MOU also mandates that the superintendent consider “Alma’s target enrollment and growth plan” when pondering a student’s request to attend a public school. Call me crazy, but I would prefer that the superintendent consider the interests of the child, not the interests of a privately-run charter school. Sadly, the MOU says nothing about what’s best for the child when considering requests to attend a public school. The superintendent can only consider what’s best for Alma II. Can you imagine the superintendent telling a child they have to go to a charter school because Alma II’s “plan” depends on it? Is this how we want New Bedford managing the education of our public school students?
No “waiting list” at Alma II. Just a promise that it takes the place of the public school.
Charter school giveaway alert!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This plan shows us a picture of the direction of privatization. These privatizers seek to replace free, public education with corporate education. Private charter schools should not get preferential treatment. The people of New Bedford should be up in arms. It’s time for another Tea Party.
“According to the MOU, no student would be guaranteed the option of going to a public school.”
Now we know that “school choices” is about as meaningful as “states’ rights”.
I thought Thanks the big idea of charter schools was choice
Denying access to a public school cannot possibly be legal.
New Orleans has been doing just that for quite a while now.
Who bought and paid for the New Bedford Public Schools Superintendent who thinks that charter schools are entitled to come first?
“According to the MOU, no student would be guaranteed the option of going to a public school.”
Yet he instructs us in that article that “half of the eligible kids in this zone have already opted out” of attending the charter school.
In any event, this may be helpful background:
“Hendricks, one of the other New Bedford reps opposing the petition, voiced support for the new charter school model when it was unveiled in January. ‘The compromise reached between New Bedford and Alma is very encouraging,’ he said in statement released by the state education department. ‘I am excited that Alma will be able to grow at the new location with children from the immediate neighborhood,’ he said, praising Mitchell and Alma del Mar’s director, Will Gardner, for working together on the deal.
“Four days later, however, Hendricks’s office issued a press release saying he opposed the proposal.
“‘That was before I knew the MTA did not like this agreement,’ Hendricks said in an interview this week. ‘It clearly was one of my first political mistakes. I’ll just leave it at that’ said the freshman lawmaker, who had been sworn in less than two weeks before issuing his initial statement of support in January.
[Commissioner] Riley, too, seems to see the union’s clout at play.
“I think people believe this is a decent compromise for the city of New Bedford,” he said. “There may be special interest groups that don’t want the compromise to go through.”
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/education/new-bedford-charter-school-plan-on-the-ropes/
Stephen,
On this blog, we don’t like privatization of public funds. You are a charter zealot. I think you are on the wrong blog.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why involvement of 501(c)(3) public charities constitutes “privatization” while involvement of 501(c)(5) private corporations does not?
I happen to think there can be a useful role for each in public schools so long as arrangements ensure that private corporate power doesn’t become excessive. The quick switcheroo by the legislator based on learning what a powerful private corporation wanted him to do suggests the public interest may be at risk.
Stephen,
If you read this blog every day, you are well aware that the charter industry is riddled with fraud and corruption.
ALEC–the far-right bill mill–has a 501c3 designation as a charity.
You are fronting for corruption.
For the Walton family, who tried and failed to buy charter expansion in Massachusetts.
For the Koch brothers (or just Charles now that David is ill).
For anti-gay fracking master Philip Anschutz.
For Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump.
As you are well aware, Diane, much of the recent news about charter school fraud has implicated not so much those you cite but rather public school districts. In respect to the most dramatic recent example, the apparent $50 million fraud in California, we see: “Prosecutors say they operated the statewide scheme by seeking out small public school districts with limited experience in charter school oversight and convincing them to authorize the online charter schools in order to earn additional public funds through oversight fees paid by the state.”
I think it’s terrific that you unceasingly highlight charter school fraud and believe that those familiar with the excellence of some charter schools should also pay attention to those that are frauds or failures and aim for fixes.
Fixes like what? Well, for example, as the NAACP task force stated: “States with the fewest authorizers have been found to have the strongest charter school outcomes”. Perhaps avoiding districts as authorizers would be helpful, though here in Massachusetts there are at least a few capable district-authorized, unionized charter schools.
While I do appreciate your keen eye for incidents of charter school fraud, for those wanting to round out their reading there’s always the option of entering:
school board fraud
in a Google search, perhaps limiting the search to just the past 12 months and whiling away a summer’s afternoon perusing the multitudinous results.
But even these rather large sets of incidents should not persuade anyone that most charter school operations and most school boards are not diligent, honest, well-intentioned contributors to public education.
You are wrong, Stephen. The state’s that allow only districts to authorize charters have the fewest charters and the least scandal.
The rightwing zealots like Jeanne Allen give the highest ratings to states with many authorizers. The authorizers are paid a commission for every student who enrolls in one of their charters. They have no incentive to crack down or to close corrupt charters, which would cut into their income stream.
The lesson: if there must be charters, they should be authorized only by districts to do something the district itself can’t do.
Diane: “You are wrong, Stephen. The states that allow only districts to authorize charters have the fewest charters and the least scandal.”
To my knowledge, the only state where prospective charter schools can apply solely to LEAs as authorizers, and the LEAs cannot have denials overturned by the state, is Virginia.
Which fits your vision of allowing very few charter schools and lacking charter school scandal. Ranked by Finn et al as #50 in the United States in regard to teachers union involvement in politics, Virginia is, you think, a particularly useful model?
Tied for third in NAEP while 10th in median income? Not too shabby?
Charter school authorizers by state:
https://www.qualitycharters.org/state-policy/multiple-authorizers/list-of-charter-school-authorizers-by-state/
Appeals processes:
http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestNB2C?rep=CS1709
Union strength:
Click to access 20121029-Union-Strength-Full-Report_7_0.pdf
“five states prohibit collective bargaining altogether (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia).”
After Janus, the whole nation is right to work.
There are several states that limit authorizers to local districts. Wherever there are a small number of charters, only local districts are authorizers. There is more than Virginia. I dont have time to do the research now but I think Kansas and Montana are among them.
Yes, that first link I provided helpfully specifies types of entities that have charter authorizer status in each state… Only Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Wyoming, and Virginia are listed with LEA’s as the sole authorizer… and all of those except VA allow appeals with the state able to override the district (as per the subsequent link).
Every school district should be the sole authorizer for their own district. No one should be allowed to open a school that takes money away from the public schools without the district’s approval. Those that do are parasites.