More ‘at-risk’ students may mean more charter schools

By Emily Richmond (contact)

Wednesday, May 29, 2002 | 11:09 a.m.

State education officials are considering changing a regulation that could make it easier for charter schools to open, a move some lawmakers and educators say could open the door to companies looking to elbow their way into public classrooms.

At the State Board of Education's meeting earlier this month, the Subcommittee on Charter Schools presented a first draft on the expanded definitions of an "at-risk" student. That definition, critics say, could bring more charter schools because while the current law limits the number of charter schools that offer open enrollment, there's no cap on schools that show at least 51 percent of their students are at-risk students.

The new definition draws a broader picture of an at-risk student than the one painted by the 2001 Legislature. The new definition would include children of single parents or homes where English isn't the primary language, along with students facing at least a 45-minute bus ride to school.

"We're talking about just about every child in this state," said Al Bellister, research director for the Nevada State Education Association.

The expanded definitions make it too easy for a school to claim it serves at-risk students and circumvent the legislative cap, Bellister said.

That could open the door to more charter schools, critics say, including schools managed by for-profit companies.

Nevada's charter school law, revised during the 2001 legislative session, states that the schools are prohibited from operating for profit. But the law does not necessarily block a charter school from contracting out its services to a for-profit company. There is also a legislative cap on the number of charter schools that offer open enrollment to all students. There is no cap on charter schools serving at-risk students.

The proposed revisions will be voted on later this summer, said Tom McCormack, charter schools consultant for the state education department.

The expanded definitions will improve accountability, McCormack said. Charter school sponsors will be required to document each child's at-risk status at the time they enroll, McCormack said.

"We're asking (charter schools) for more than simply off-the-cuff declarations that the majority of their students qualify as at-risk," McCormack said.

But Bellister said instead of improving accountability, the change would gut the intent of the law. Legislators put a cap on charter schools serving the general student population to discourage for-profit management companies from flooding the community, Bellister said. Expanding the definition renders the legislative cap useless, Bellister said.

"What we have is an attempt to do indirectly through regulations what they could not do through statute," Bellister said. "Our state board should be more concerned with oversight of these schools, rather than liberalizing the operational opportunities for private companies."

Charter schools are usually started by parents, teachers or other community members and receive public funds. While charter schools operate independently, organizers must get their plans approved from the Clark County School Board.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, a special education teacher with the Clark County School District, questioned the timing of proposed revisions. Any questions about the clarity of the revised statute should have been brought up during the past legislative session, Giunchigliani said.

"We made a decision as a state to ensure the charter schools focused on the most needy kids," Giunchigliani said. "If a company wants to be in the education business in Nevada we welcome the competition. But they shouldn't get a dime of public money to do it."

The legislative cap on the number of open enrollment charter schools expires in 2006. Clark County is allowed up to three traditional charter schools for every 75,000 pupils enrolled in public schools while Nevada's smaller counties are allowed up to two charter schools.

Currently an at-risk student is defined in the statute as meeting one or more of the following four categories: economically or academically disadvantaged; has limited proficiency in the English language; is at risk of dropping out of high school; does not not meet minimum standards of academic proficiency. Students with disabilities are not included.

The new definitions are more specific, qualifying at-risk anyone who: qualifies for free or reduced-cost meal benefits; has ever dropped out or been expelled; was pregnant or is a parent; came from a single-parent household; or required a bus ride of more than 45 minutes to the nearest school. Students would also qualify as at-risk if English was not the primary language at home or if they had a parent or guardian who did not complete high school.

The revisions could conceivably make it easier for a charter school to claim it serves at-risk students, but that doesn't mean the floodgates will open for private companies, McCormack said. Nevada is nowhere near its cap on open enrollment charter schools, and applicants must still be approved by local school districts, McCormack said.

Craig Butz, executive director of the Odyssey charter schools in Las Vegas, said Nevada's charter school law is already strong enough to discourage private companies and would not be weakened if the definition of an at-risk student was expanded.

There are just four charter schools in Clark County, including Odyssey's elementary school and high school programs. Neighbor state Arizona, however, has more than 400 of the campuses and its charter school law was rated the nation's strongest by the Center for Education Reform.

In Arizona, some educators are concerned that the flow of students to charter schools will drain funds from the public classrooms, Butz said.

"Here in Clark County, charter schools are such a minute percentage that I don't believe anyone would ever need to see us as a threat," Butz said.

The for-profit school management business can be a risky venture, said Nick Weller, education policy analyst for the Cascade Policy Institute, a Portland, Ore. think tank. In many states the rules governing charter schools are continually changing, which makes it difficult to build a successful business, Weller said.

In most cases, the people interested in starting charter schools are teachers themselves and often lack experience in fiscal management, Weller said.

"Running a school and running a company are not the same thing," Weller said.

Edison Schools Inc., which operates seven campuses in Clark County and 129 other schools nationwide, has seen its stock plummet over the past month, and the Securities and Exchange Commission rebuked the company for failing to complete an audit on time. Half of Edison's campuses nationwide are charter schools, although none in Clark County.

Charter schools in Nevada are subjected to the same scrutiny as any other public school and are required to meet the same standards for teacher licensing, facilities and curriculum, said Craig Kadlub, director of public affairs for the Clark County School District.

"The important thing is educating our students," Kadlub said. "We try and offer as many learning alternatives as we can, and for some students and families the best venue is a charter school."