I had an excellent college professor for my graduate course in School Law. What he taught me has stayed with me for decades. He was an attorney by trade, and volunteered much of his time to support the teaching of Social Studies in Pennsylvania. A strong proponent for comprehensive civics education in our schools, he organized state-wide conferences, shared his network of resources, and even trained students in both mock trial and in conflict resolution and peer mediation.
One lesson he taught me was that if you want to know the outcome legislators were hoping to achieve at the time they enacted a law, look to the “intent” of that law. A great example of this is the intent of Act 22, Pennsylvania Charter School Law, enacted in 1997 as stated below:
Section 1702-A. Legislative Intent.–It is the intent of the General Assembly, in enacting this article, to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure.
Act 22 became Charter School Law twenty-five years ago, and legislators did so with an expressed purpose: “to encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods.” But within the law is also a laundry list of requirements for the oversight of charter schools. Rules and regulations created by local school boards and in direct conflict to “operate independently from the existing school district structure.” The law can’t have it both ways. Something needs to change.
Having spent over a decade working with an innovative team and leading an award-winning charter school, my work was a labor of love and, at times, a source of frustration. Our students were engaged. The teachers and staff were remarkable. Our parents were dedicated to our mission and supported us in our work. We were extremely successful at designing a quality learning environment and implementing innovative teaching methods. The school was recognized statewide and nationally for our work, but was denied the opportunity to open a second campus in an underserved community that desperately needed hope and change. The real irony is that while teams from other states sought out our school as a model to replicate, our local school board denied our application to expand in Philadelphia.
The process for granting new charter schools is conflicted and even rigged against approval: the equivalent of Shop Rite having the final say over whether Acme can open a store in the same neighborhood. Unlike in some states, where the state itself is the charter school authorizer, in Pennsylvania local school boards remain the responsible authority for approving new schools. As a result, tens of thousands of students remain on charter school waiting lists. The intent of Act 22 is all but ignored by the very governance that once enacted it into law.
The system of education doesn’t welcome competition. As we speak, there is tremendous influence on lawmakers to amend Act 22, and not in support of creating more charter schools. With school board members representing 95% of elected officials in the country, you can understand the political influence to limit the number of charter approvals. It’s always about the money and there never seems to be enough of it. Yet, charter schools operate on less funding than traditional public schools: a fact often omitted when comparing taxpayer return on investment.
Not discounting the need for accountability, some charter schools have failed in both academics and finance and were rightfully closed. But approval and oversight tasks should be carried out by an entity that doesn’t have skin in the game, or a financial interest in the outcome. If the goal is to achieve different and innovative teaching methods, then it is time for lawmakers to do their homework. We have twenty-five years of charter school data now available within the Department of Education. Research what works for students, invest in success, and replicate quality learning environments. Whether that school is a local public school or a regional charter school, success breeds success and children deserve the best we can give them.
For parents and families of school-aged children, charter schools and school choice can be a lifeline. These options can also be confusing. Charter Schools are public schools and, in Pennsylvania, remain part of the local school district oversight structure. The idea that families can simply “choose” a charter school for a child, however, is a false premise. There are applications, lotteries, waiting lists and, for many families, disappointment when they learn there are thousands of applicants for only a few open seats. (School Choice will be a topic for another time.)
As we get closer to mid-term elections, I am also reminded of another important lesson learned from my School Law class: my civic duty to vote. When it comes to the education of our children, parents and taxpayers in Pennsylvania have an important decision to make on November 8th. For U.S. Senate, we have a choice between John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz . For Governor, we will choose between Doug Mastriano and Josh Shapiro.
The following information is summarized from their respective campaign websites:
John Fetterman believes that far too many families struggle to find good public schools. If we want to prepare the next generation of students for a highly competitive world, we need to get serious about education in the 21st century. He wants to increase investments in career and technical programs, he supports efforts to make community college tuition-free, and he wants to reduce the burden of student loan debt.
Dr. Mehmet Oz believes that a good education is fundamental to a better future and that we need to “fundamentally change” education in this country. He wants to empower students to make their own career choices. He believes that the extreme left wants to use our schools to indoctrinate our children with an anti-American ideology and he wants to end that practice.
Doug Mastriano believes parents have a right to know and control what their children are learning in school. Mastriano will strengthen and enforce statewide curriculum transparency requirements, and work with the legislature to establish a universal “Parental Rights” statute in the law. Mastriano believes schools should teach children how to think, not what to think. He will ban Critical Race and Gender Theory Studies in Pennsylvania schools.
Josh Shapiro believes that a strong education system is foundational to a functioning democracy and favors school choice opportunities for students by funding lifeline scholarships. He supports parents having a voice and will appoint two parents to the State Board of Education. Shapiro wants to make children’s mental health a priority and he will support high school students having access to vocational, technical and computer training. He wants to end the reliance on standardized testing.
All the candidates appear to agree on one thing: the system of education needs a change. But is this Déjà vu all over again? Exactly which of these candidates can successfully bridge the political divide and turn legislative intent into good intentions? Only time will tell.
It’s been a quarter of a century since the last legislative effort to infuse change into the system of education in Pennsylvania. While charter schools are succeeding, there remains a deep divide between “charters vs traditional” public schools. An “us vs them” mentality. There are many successful school models, and there are incredible teachers in both charter and traditional classrooms. It’s time to support what works and replicate success.
Our children deserve the best education that taxpayer money can buy. Who will make that happen? Choose wisely. Vote!