Details of Assembly bill A.4307-B

Below is a summary of the main anti-charter school proposals contained in Assembly Bill A.4307-B, which are expected to be passed in the Assembly and negotiated with the Senate and Governor:

1) Cutting Funds to Charter Schools:
a) The State Stimulus Fund, which provides competitive grants to charters mostly for facility needs, would be eliminated; and
b) District formula payments to charters, which follow the spending increases of school districts (i.e., the “approved operating expense”), would instead be tied to the consumer price index -- which is almost always lower than the growth in school spending.
c) In addition, charter funding growth for schools serving grades K-8 also would be cut to 80 percent of their already lowered growth rate; that is, if an AOE/TAPU payment of $10,000 per student was scheduled to grow by a 3 percent inflation factor of $300 per student, the Assembly would cut this to $240 per student. Multiply this reduction by the number of students in your school, the cumulative affect amounts to tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue with each year.
d) This at a time when public school funding is increasing by record levels in every school district, and the Campaign for Fiscal Equity litigation is implemented, charter schools—which already receive less than districts—will see far less money over time.

2) Mandatory Unionization:
a) All employees in existing charter schools with a current enrollment exceeding 250 students will automatically be unionized if and when enrollment increases by the greater of 10 percent or 50 students;
b) For existing charter schools with 250 or fewer students, all employees must be unionized if and when enrollment exceeds 250. The representative will be the union representing like positions in the school district in which the charter is located.
c) Any “adverse personnel action” (i.e., termination, demotion, etc.) involving an individual who is involved in organizing a union, the law would automatically assume that management’s action was an improper labor practice, that the school would have to legal right to rebut this claim, and that the charter school’s action would constitute “irreparable harm” to the employee in the event the school is sued by such employee. This may result in closure of the school.

3) Eliminating SUNY:
a) The State University of New York Trustees would no longer be involved in regulating charter schools, thereby removing this vital alternative for applicants and existing charter schools as an approval oversight body.
b) All charters that currently have SUNY-CSI as their authorizer would have the Regents and the State Education Department as their direct authorizer.
c) The Charter Schools Institute would be abolished.

4) Banning For-Profit Companies:
a) For-profit management companies would be banned from contracting with charter schools, removing a vital and successful option for many parents.
b) This anti-business measure would remove for-profit management firms from doing business in the future, despite playing a critical role in assisting community groups and charter schools to hiring staff, provide curriculum, fulfill reporting requirements, and secure facilities.
c) Charter schools which have worked with such companies also have been properly held accountable, and now comprise only 15 percent of charter schools in operation.

5) Impose State Education Department Building Codes:
a) Charter schools would no longer be subject to local building and zoning codes in the same way as nonpublic schools; rather, more costly and restrictive state Education Department codes would be mandated.
b) Charter schools would have to receive a certificate of occupancy from the State Education Department.
c) This higher-cost mandate would be imposed even though charter schools receive no state building aid.

6) Require Comparable District ELL and IDEA Student Enrollment Ratios:
a) Charter schools would have to “ensure” that they maintain “comparable” enrollment of students with disabilities or limited English proficient in terms of percentage of the district in which they are located.
b) This unworkable provision is inconsistent with existing charter school law governing parental choice, determinations of school district committees on special education, and other areas.