School Choice in Minnesota

1. School Choice in Minnesota League of Women Voters National Convention June 2014

2. The Opening Act – few schools • 1991 – only authorizers are school districts with approval by state department of education • Teachers must be a majority of the board • No screening allowed for admission • Annual report required – not submitted at first • Degenerates to just finances and test scores • Goal is creative laboratory school environment – the possible sharing is never required or facilitated • Teachers’ unions insist on two provisions and get them • All must be public schools • All teachers must be MN licensed

3. The Evolution • Legislation has been tweaked almost every legislative session! Major changes are: • Disallow the use of a closing school district site as a charter school • 2012 – new statute allows a “collaborative” charter which can access district transport and other help in return for sharing successful practices. Touted at the time, but haven’t seen this! • Teachers do not need to be majority of the board (They wanted off!) • Expansion of authorizers – all of whom now must be approved by state department of education • Institutions of higher ed, non-profit corporations but must be incorporated in MN • 2009 a thorough application process developed • Allow a school with 3 years operation to form a partner building corporation which can finance and own a building which is leased to the school • Sell bonds just like any corporation but need approval of authorizer and MDE

4. What makes MN different • Constitutional clause (from 1857!) that forbids funding for sectarian schools. • Started with other options – PSEO and Open Enrollment –added self-directed schools within school districts • Now more options to start public schools than any other state • Strength and cooperation between two teachers’ unions – now merged into Education Minnesota

5. MN Evaluation – Report from the Office of the Legislative Auditor • 2008 – after accounting for demographics and student mobility, differences in student performance were minimal. • Charter school board members not required to take the same training as public school board members – especially critical in finance. • Most charters that have been closed are due to financial mismanagement. • Conflict of interest laws too weak

6. Continuing issues • Lack of levy authority • Articles cite this as the charter’s getting less money per student than district public schools • BUT, their boards are not elected and have no community to levy! Critics see this as a possible area where charter schools will lobby the state for extra money. • New laws include charter schools which means they are no longer as flexible • An interesting note – charter proponents call a charter law “strong” if it means that charters are excused from more state regulations, so when a state is cited by them as having “weak” charter laws it means we probably like the law! • Resegregation • number of predominantly white charters in the Twin Cities metro area has risen from 11 in 2000 to 37 in 2010 . (Report from the Institute on Race and Poverty) • Influence of special interest groups with money (i.e. Walmart)

7. More Continuing Issues • Charter accountability • MN proposal to force authorizers to either close low performers (about 17 out of 150) or defend their continued existence. • Charter proponents oppose this law • For profit management companies • “Because of the way Minnesota law is written, charter management organizations (CMO's) do not see Minnesota as a good fit because while they might spend considerable amounts of money to start a school, the board of that school can decide not to renew their contract...and no contract can be for longer than five years. “ Bob Wedl • Edison Project has been successful in Duluth • Aid to non-public schools (presently includes transportation, counseling, instructional materials, nursing) • Because of this aid, the fight for vouchers has gone away for now at least.

8. Consulted… • Mary Cecconi – Executive Director of Parents United MN • Joe Nathan – Director for the Center for School Change • Bob Wedl – senior associate at Education Evolving – a policy study group and an authorizer • Garnet Franklin – Educational Issues Specialist at Education Minnesota (merged teachers’ union) • John Schultz, PhD – superintendent of Hopkins Public Schools, MN – district sponsored two charter schools

9. Resources and works cited • Charter Schools by Joe Nathan (c. 1996) • Zero Chance of Passage by Ember ReichgottJunge (c. 2012) • Rhetoric versus Reality by Gill et. Al (c. 2001) • http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/us/a-walmart-fortune-spreading-charter-schools.html?_r=0 • http://hechingerreport.org/content/as-charter-schools-come-of-age-measuring-their-success-is-tricky_12647/