DN Editorial: Chartered bust

WHEN authorized by the state Legislature in 1997, charter schools were seen to be high-performing alternatives within the public-education system that would operate with public money but without the bureaucracy of the larger systems. Charters were intended to be a booster shot of megavitamins to bolster the existing public school system, to strengthen the education alternatives and reward innovation.

But new proposed legislation that could be voted on as early as next week could allow that booster shot to metastasize into something more destructive - and further imperil struggling districts throughout the state . . . to say nothing of families trying to provide their kids with a quality education.

The legislation at issue - sponsored by Sen. Lloyd Smucker, R-Lancaster/York - would take away many of the controls that local districts have over charter-school growth by eliminating a district's ability to negotiate enrollment caps. In addition, it would double the length of charter terms for some schools from 5 to 10 years, allow universities to authorize charters and allow charters to go directly to the state for payment instead of waiting for money from the district.

Charters are public schools that currently operate under the oversight of the local districts. For every student who enrolls in a charter school, the district is required to pay that charter roughly $14,000 (an average between $8,800 allocated for regular students and $22,000 for special-education students). Some of this used to be reimbursed back to the district by the state, but is no longer.

In Philadelphia, the current charter-school population is 55,280 - a quarter of public school students. The district projects an increase to more than 59,800 this year, which will cost the district $63 million.

If the district has no say over the enrollment numbers of charter schools, how can it be expected to manage its own budget?

Meanwhile, charter schools often chafe at more controls or oversight, and lobby hard for more independence.

Charter-school reform has been attempted by state lawmakers almost every year for the past few years. None has succeeded; the bills usually carry a mix of regulations, some which favor charters and others which favor local control.

There are good charters that provide a solid alternative to district schools. But there are troubled charters that have taken advantage of the lack of hard financial scrutiny, many of whom have been targets of federal indictments - five in Philadelphia in the past five years alone. Even one would be troubling but that number cries out for much more serious oversight into how these education dollars are accounted for.

This oversight issue is not part of the current bill, nor has it seriously been addressed in previous bills.

The growth of charters in the state - and especially in Philadelphia -may have gotten ahead of attempts to manage that growth smartly.

But Smucker's bill doesn't do that; in fact, it will create more problems than it fixes.