The charter industry is turning its lobbyists loose in Texas. Despite the large number of charters in the state (more than 800), the lobbyists want more. More. More. $$$. The Legislature is now debating changes in state law to remove obstacles to charter entrepreneurs and corporations that want more locations. Texas doesn’t need more charters: Charters in Texas are regularly outperformed by public schools.
The Houston Chronicle reports:
Companion bills filed in the Texas House and Senate, seeking to do away with hurdles facing charter schools that try to open or expand, have bipartisan support but will move the sharp debate over their rapid growth into the legislative arena.
Supporters of Senate Bill 28, called the Charter School Equity Act, say it would level the playing field for new and existing charter schools across the state by preventing local governments from treating them differently from traditional public schools and by relaxing state controls.Advocates for traditional public school districts say the playing field is tilted in favor of charter schools and the way to level it would require more state oversight and local input, not less.
Among other changes, Senate Bill 28 and its accompanying House Bill 3279 would require open-enrollment charter schools to be considered public school districts for the purposes of “zoning, permitting, (subdivision) plat approvals, fees or other assessments, construction or site development work, code compliance, development” and any other type of local government approval.
This would reduce the “red tape” that charter schools face from local authorities after being approved to operate by state officials, the bills’ sponsors say.
It also would make it impossible for cities to act in ways that were advocated by the superintendents of the two largest school districts in Bexar County in 2018, when they suggested San Antonio could use its zoning authority to geographically restrict charter expansion to prevent financial damage to traditional public schools.
“We think charter schools, and open-enrollment charter schools, are good for the state of Texas. That’s the bottom line here,” said the Senate bill’s sponsor, Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, in a recent online news conference. “We are simply putting charter schools on the equity they should have. No city should treat charter schools differently than how they treat somebody else…”
“Right now communities have almost no say on whether a charter school comes in or not,” said Kevin Brown, executive director of the Texas Association of School Administrators.
Brown, who led Alamo Heights ISD as superintendent for 10 years, said leveling the playing field should include requiring charter schools to seek voter approval for funding their expansion and to elect their boards.“Anytime a charter school is being considered in a local community, that local community should have a large amount of input,” Brown said. “And right now they just don’t have that. So I think there should be much more transparency at the local level.”If anything, the SBOE should have more input, not less, on any expansion that would result in public school districts sharing taxpayer funds to educate students, Brown added.
Woods, the Northside ISD superintendent, said the bills, in their current form, ignore the public process that all public school districts must go through to fund and build a new campus. Planning takes years, and voters decide if they want to fund it, Woods said. School districts then have to work with cities and counties to assess the impact of construction in certain areas and get the project approved.
“We elect school board members, city council members and county judges to make decisions locally because they know the community,” Woods said. “And this (legislation) is just another example, in a long line of examples, where local control seems not to be prioritized in the Texas Legislature.”

“Brown, who led Alamo Heights ISD as superintendent for 10 years, said leveling the playing field should include requiring charter schools to seek voter approval for funding their expansion and to elect their boards.”
It’s another broken promise from the ed reform lobby.
When ed reformers started the sales and marketing pitch for charter schools, the public was told there didn’t need to be any public input into operations because the schools wouldn’t be locally funded- they would be state funded.
Now they’re pulling the bait and switch. They want local funding with no local public participation or oversight.
They’re doing the same thing in Ohio and as we know these are national lobbyists so you can expect this to spread to every state. They’re nothing if not lockstep. Marching towards total privatization, always.
LikeLike
If you live in an ed reform echo chamber dominated state, as I do, go to your state legislature site and look at the education related bills up for passage or debate.
About 90% will be about expanding charters and vouchers, or funding charters and vouchers.
If you’re wondering why none of the thousands of state employees you’re paying seem to never get anything productive accomplished on PUBLIC schools, it’s a good bet they’re captured by the ed reform lobby. They simply perform no work on behalf of public school students. They’re ideologically opposed to our schools so refuse to do any work for them and you’re paying thousands of them.
LikeLike
Insightful discussion! As a retired educator with 40 years in the classroom, I continue to wince with the attempts to give charter schools a less-accountable path to follow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The echo chamber are all joining forces to oppose the pro-public school Biden nominee:
https://progressivepolicyinstitute.medium.com/mind-the-gap-education-nominees-supporters-would-rather-senators-look-elsewhere-205edab099d4
Must hire 100% ed reform echo chamber members. No public school advocates are permitted to take federal policy jobs.
She doesn’t bash public schools enough or cheerlead charters and vouchers enough, so she must be banished.
They require strict compliance with the ed reform dogma for employment.
LikeLike
I just watched Cindy Marten’s Senate committee hearing. She handled herself with grace and dignity and answered all questions forthrightly.
Senator Burr, the ranking Republican, brought up all the attacks on her and San Diego, but no one else did, and she was lauded by both Democrats and Republicans.
After I turned off the hearing, I saw in my email a note from the far-right Center for Education Reform which attacked Marten, pulling together all the ed-deform propaganda talking points.
She was impressive. She will be a great help to Cardona.
LikeLike
Texas is following Florida’s misguided example. Florida already has a law that gives charters equal treatment. Taxpayers are accountable for charter school construction costs. Florida also eliminated any local input into where charter schools open and operate. Most recently, it imposed universal vouchers on incomes up to $70,000. None of these changes were put to a public vote.
LikeLike
Actually, Florida voters rejected a constitutional amendment to permit vouchers in 2012, but the Legislature and Governor ignored their vote.
LikeLike
The state no longer asks the public to vote on issues related to privatization because they know it will likely be voted down. Most recent changes have been top down decisions voted on by the legislature without voter input.
LikeLike
Hide the evidence
Compared to regular school districts, Texas charter schools get ample state financial support to help them overcome any “red tape” they may have to contend with when attempting to expand their enrollments and schools.
Prof. David S. Knight (University of Washington) and myself recently considered the matter of funding equity as between charter schools and regular public schools in Texas. The results of our work were published in the online, peer-reviewed journal Education Policy Analysis Archives (2020). In one section of that paper we considered the additional cost to the state when an economically disadvantaged student transfers from a regular school district to a charter school. When this occurs, state aid to the regular public school district is decreased, and state aid to the receiving charter school is increased. To calculate the average change in cost to the state of such a transfer, on average, we calculated the impact on each of the 1,000-plus school districts and the increase to each charter school. The differences were averaged for all school districts and charter schools in each county, and the average amount of such changes was then averaged for the 20 counties that included 97.4 percent of all charter school enrollments, using data for school year 2017-2018.
While there was some variation among the county averages, the overall impact was an increase in cost to the state of $1,491 for each such student who transferred from a regular school district to a charter school. The increase in state aid to charter schools was $8,883 for each additional student; the average decrease in state aid to a regular school district was $6,392 for each student lost. These monies, either lost or gained, were for maintenance and operations purposes only. Consequently, apart from any other considerations, pro or con, of the relative merits of charter schools, there is a decisive increased cost to the state when the promotional efforts of the charter sector succeed in getting an additional student to leave a regular public school and enroll in a charter school in Texas.
Neither Prof. Knight, nor myself, were aware that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) had ever carried out such calculations, or if they did, those calculations were never, to our knowledge, made public. In fact, a recent public information request (PIR) by myself, submitted to the TEA for the results of any such calculations was denied. Although similar calculations had recently been performed, the request was denied on the grounds that they were part of current ongoing dialog between TEA and legislators, pertaining to the development of legislation under review, and state law prohibits the release of such information. This law, permitting the withholding of information pertaining to internal discussion of proposed legislation, was apparently based on a bill hastily passed in the previous legislative session. That bill, House Bill 4181, was described in a June 28, 2019 headline in the Dallas Morning News as, “Hide the evidence: New Texas law may help GOP keep secrets about its redistricting strategy”. Its use to hide information can also, apparently, be applied to areas other than redistricting.
A second PIR was submitted for the results of any such calculations that may have been carried out by the Agency during the previous legislative session, and therefore not subject to the same prohibition. The response to this request was as follows: “TEA has conducted a good faith search for any and all information related to your request and has not been able to locate information that may be responsive to your request.” If it is true that TEA has not carried out such obvious calculations, demonstrating the impact on the state of students transferring between the regular public schools and charter schools, it demonstrates a surprising lack of concern about the fiscal impact on the state of such transfers.
Laurence A. Toenjes
Clear Lake Shores, TX
LikeLike
Thank you for the information. Taxpayers should understand that charter expansion harms the public schools. It also results in paying more or cutting services in public schools. We cannot run parallel schools and quality public schools for the same dollar amount.
LikeLike
Like taking candy from a baby
Taking candy from a babe
Opening a charter school
Ease of doing, ’bout the same
Both are easy, as a rule
LikeLike