MA Judge Rules State "blatantly violated" Law in Gloucester Charter School Process

If you were only reading headlines at the Northeast's unofficial organ of the charter schoo movement, the Boston Globe ("Judge Clears Way for Gloucester Charter School to Open"), it would seem like the Charterites have prevailed in the Gloucester case brought by parents trying to preserve their public schools.  Nothing could be further from the truth, however. 

For the full story, here is solid piece of reporting (my bolds) from the Gloucester Times by Patrick Anderson:

A Superior Court judge Monday denied a bid by 15 local parents and the city to stop the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School from opening this fall.

But, in a ruling that turns the spotlight back on state officials, Judge Richard Welch III refused to dismiss the parents' lawsuit and wrote that the case presents "considerable evidence" that the state education commissioner and Board of Education "blatantly ignored and violated state law when granting the GCA charter for political reasons."

And while he denied the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction to stop the charter school from opening, Welch rejected the argument that charter schools movement bring only benefits and no financial harm to public schools systems where they are located, an axiom of the Massachusetts charter movement.

Welch suggested that by January, when the city is working on a budget for next year that will not include full state reimbursement for charter school expenses, another preliminary injunction might be successful.

"As the court stated at the hearing on this matter, the calculus regarding preliminary injunctive relief changes markedly during the next academic year," Welch wrote in the decision. "At that time, the traditional Gloucester public schools will suffer significant financial harm. The GCA cannot claim any justifiable reliance regarding financial commitments/staffing if this court reconsiders the injunctive request early enough to allow planning by both sides for the next academic year."

"Likewise, any student who chooses to attend GCA this September will be aware of the inherent uncertainty involving the next academic year," Welch added.

In his final remarks during oral arguments before Welch last Thursday, charter lawyer Tad Heuer called the awarding of a charter in Gloucester, or any other community in the state, a "windfall" for the city because of state reimbursements during the first several years of each new school's arrival.

But while the question of who would suffer the most from a shutdown was decisive in the preliminary, the strongest language in Welch's decision was targeted at co-defendant Mitchell Chester, the state education commissioner, who endorsed the Gloucester charter against the advice of his own Charter School Office staff, which conducted a close review of each charter application.

While he dismissed the parents' argument that the commissioner is legally bound to follow the recommendation of his Charter School Office, Welch — echoing state Sen. Bruce Tarr and state Inspector General Gregory Sullivan — said there is no evidence Chester made any attempt to independently judge the application against the established criteria.

"... There is a strong factual showing that the Commissioner, despite his affidavit to the contrary, did not perform his own independent evaluation of the GCA application but, to the contrary, ignored the state regulations and caved to political pressure to recommend the project to a Board eager to approve at least one charter application regardless of its merit," Welch wrote.

If the plaintiffs press forward with the case as expected, the judge's opinion that the scales "appear to tip in favor of the plaintiffs" on their case against Chester could put the onus on the commissioner to explain his endorsement of the Gloucester charter in a way he hasn't addressed to date.

"Among many things the judge has done wisely, he has zeroed on the fact that there is nothing on the record that answers why the school was approved," Tarr said Monday. "A lot of what the judge has said has validated the parents' claims."

Welch also wrote that the failure of any member of the Board of Education to attend the public hearing in Gloucester charter was a "clear cut" violation of state regulation.

After the board retroactively waived the attendance requirement, Chester and education department lawyers, have argued that hearings in other communities on the 2009 round of charter school applications satisfies the regulation — including before an oversight hearing of the state Joint Education Committee.

Attempts to reach Chester's office for comment late Monday afternoon were unsuccessful.

On top of signalling that the allegations against Chester may have merit, Welch went against the state bureaucracy in ruling that the parents even have the standing to bring a case against a charter award in court.

Representing Chester, lawyers from Attorney General Martha Coakley's office had argued that no matter how egregious the violation or injustice, the Board of Education's authority to award charters is absolute and cannot be challenged.

"The parents are thrilled with the judge's decision and we look forward continuing to prevail in the next phase of the case," said Ian Roffman, the lawyer representing the parents in the case.

On the other hand, Welch did rule that the city does not have standing in the case and dismissed the city from the case.

Despite seeing his firm's prediction of a swift end to the lawsuit go by the boards, Gloucester Charter Arts school attorney Heuer also claimed victory in the judge's ruling, especially the denial of the preliminary injunction and finding that the internal charter school office opinion was not binding on the Board of Education.

"I think that it is unfortunate that, due to the late filing, (Welch) ruled faster than he wanted," Heuer said. "We are pleased that the judge agreed with the vast majority of our arguments, and the school will not be prevented from opening on time."

It's unclear whether Welch's opinion will increase either the state or charter school's incentive to try to negotiate a settlement, something on which there had been little progress previously.

If the case continues on to trial, the last possible deadline for a ruling is June 2013.

Patrick Anderson can be reached at 978-283-7000, x3455, or panderson@gloucestertimes.com.

Gloucester Parents Stage Protest Against Crooked Charter School Approval

(Photo from Boston Globe's Jonathan Wiggs). Parents were out in force Saturday as State officials reluctantly met in Gloucester to once more air the corrupt process that rammed through the approval of an unwanted and unneeded charter school in Gloucester. From the Gloucester Daily Times:

. . . .Prior to the more than two-hour hearing, dozens of Gloucester parents and others decrying the granting of the charter marched in front of City Hall. The protest, organized in large part by parent and charter school foe Jane Cunningham, drew the attention of state Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester, who spoke briefly to the crowd from the City Hall steps, then chatted with and answered questions from some of the demonstrators individually.

Demonstrators chanted "CSO said no go," — a reference to the fact that the state's Charter School Office had recommended against approval of the Gloucester charter — and "We won't take your bitter pill." That was a reference to the now-infamous e-mail from Paul Reville, Gov. Deval Patrick's education secretary, to Chester that acknowledged approving the Gloucester charter school would be a "bitter pill," but that one of the three charter applications had to be approved to advance the governor's education "agenda," and avoid alienating traditional supporters such as The Boston Globe and The Boston Foundation.. . . .

Not only did the State approve the unwanted charter to curry political favor with corporate ed reformers, but the approval process did not follow the requirements of State Law, in that a State Board member was not present for the approval. The State subsequently eliminated that requirement, as if the illegal action could be erased in retrospect. From the Globe:

Yesterday’s meeting was held to address other issues swirling around the decision to approve the charter as well, including an allegation that the state education board did not have a member present at a public hearing held last year in Gloucester on the charter proposal, as required by state law. The board later waived the requirement.

Meanwhile, the Gloucester Public Schools are starving, just like the rest of the public schools across America. How long will the voices of the citizenry and their elected school boards be ignored in order to satisfy corrupt ideologies and corporate welfare schemes?:

Some Gloucester residents have criticized the charter school as duplicating services already offered in Gloucester schools. “What they’re proposing is imitation, not innovation,’’ said Sarah Grow, a parent of school-age children, after the hearing. “This board should do the right thing, look at the evidence, and revoke this charter.’’

City officials also fear a loss of state education funding if the school opens. On average, about $10,000 is deducted for every student who attends the charter school rather than a local public school district.

“In a way, this is a fight about money,’’ said Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk, who sits on the school committee, at the meeting. “We can’t ignore that reality.’’ . . .

The state board is next expected to take up the Gloucester charter proposal at its Nov. 17 meeting but it’s unclear what, if any, action will be taken.

Governor Patrick Intervenes in Corrupt Charter Approval in Gloucester

The letter writing by Gloucester citizens has been intense enough, and the cram-down approval process was corrupted enough, and the economic costs to Gloucester Public Schools will be severe enough, and the potential political cost to Governor Patrick is clear enough, that the Gov has scheduled a meeting in Gloucester on August 11 to reconsider the question an an unneeded an unwanted charter school in Gloucester. As reported by the Boston Globe, which did not bother to print the fact that a meeting on August 11 is planned, Commissioner Chester's corporate kow-towing earlier this year went so far as to ignore the recommendation from the State Board's own charter school office to NOT approve the Gloucester charter application:

Gloucester officials have faulted the state board for not following its own procedures in its approval process. At a Dec. 11 state-sponsored hearing on the charter, no board member attended. A month later, the board retroactively waived a rule requiring board attendance for this particular application. The commissioner also recommended a favorable vote despite a negative recommendation from the department’s charter school office.

Commissioner Chester and Board Chair, Maureen Banta (also IBM's East Coast Regional Manager for Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Affairs), are not happy campers about the Governor's request for a revote.

Who know, State Secretary of Education, Paul Reville, might even show up for this meeting on Auguse 11. All Gloucester residents should turn out to offer him a warm welcome, don't you think?

Part of the story from Wicked Local Rockport:

GLOUCESTER - Stunning many citizens on both sides of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School debate, Gov. Deval Patrick has decided to intervene in the process that had been considered a done deal, asking the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to reopen the process for community discussion and another vote by the board.

“Because it is essential that the community has utmost confidence in the transparency and integrity of the process, I am writing to ask you to reopen your process and reconsider your decision,” Patrick tells Maura Banta, Chair of the Mass. Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Mitchell Chester, Commissioner of the Mass. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, in a letter sent July 27.

“The proposed charter for the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School has caused deep division within the Gloucester community at precisely the time when we need people to come together,” Patrick continues.

He cites as reasons for his action concerns about the process raised by Gloucester’s two state legislators, Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante and Sen. Bruce Tarr, in a July 6 letter to him, along with concerns voiced and written by other Gloucester citizens, complaining that the process has been flawed and that the community’s objections to the Charter on its merits have gone unheard.

Meanwhile, at Patrick’s behest, a meeting has been scheduled in Gloucester for Tuesday, Aug. 11 with Mass. Secretary of Education Paul Reveille to allow individual proponents, opponents, both state legislators, and Gloucester’s mayor, superintendent, and School Committee to speak to Reveille personally.

Ferrante, reached Wednesday, said it would be an opportunity for Reveille, who missed the February vote, to hear a variety of views first-hand. . . .

A Parent's Call to Action Against Charter School Plans in Gloucester

This letter is written by a parent who was a member of the original planning group for the proposed charter school in Gloucester. From the Gloucester Daily Times:

To the editor:

I am writing to express my serious concerns about the proposed Gloucester charter school.

I am a Gloucester resident and the parent of an eighth-grader at O'Maley Middle School. My son and I have lived in Gloucester since 1997. I have worked in Gloucester as the director of a family support and education center for over 13 years and have served as a volunteer in many capacities, including eight years with the Gloucester School Connection, a grassroots nonprofit that has been awarding student and teacher inspired grants for innovation since 1985.

I was also a member of the original planning group for the charter school application and attended meetings for several months.

Once I realized how the school would be funded at the expense of the rest of Gloucester's student body, however, I could no longer participate because it is not in the best interests of our community as a whole.

Since my son began first grade in 2001, the Gloucester Public Schools have lost 50 teachers. Gloucester elementary and middle-schoolers have not had the support of librarians for more than three years despite the district's strong emphasis on literacy goals. Class sizes have increased across the board from elementary to high school with some specialist classes at the middle school reaching 30-plus students.

Although entering high school next year, my son has not been exposed to world languages because of the cuts, unlike his peers in Manchester or Rockport. To his great dismay, he experiences 80 percent less physical education than the students who preceded him. Our high school is out of compliance for special education class sizes, physical education and its library collection.

In general, per-pupil spending on materials and equipment has been cut by 33 percent. There are more examples of our fiscal crisis and its implications on our students. Every one of them is a reason not to support the charter school application.

Some proponents of the charter school have made public comments that the school district can save money elsewhere and there will not be a negative fiscal effect on the students. Some claim opponents of the charter school are simply afraid of change and innovation. Both claims are simply untrue.

My son and his peers have already suffered enough. I believe it is unethical and undemocratic to divert any funds from the Gloucester Public Schools to support the charter school initiative of a handful of people who are not all Gloucester residents and are not representative of the community as a whole. The antiquated state Chapter 70 formula already shortchanges the working class majority of Gloucester residents because of limited pockets of property wealth such as large summer estates that skew the funding formula.

The rising costs of health insurance, utilities, and uncompromising fixed costs have already weighed heavily on what we can provide for our students as a school district. We have experienced significant losses since 2001. There is an unfair disparity already between Gloucester per-pupil spending compared to our neighbors Manchester and Rockport. We have a tremendous community spirit of truly grassroots efforts that residents have undertaken in collaboration with the school district to continue to support academic achievement and access to sports for all of Gloucester's kids despite our painful fiscal reality. These are all solid reasons why you should not support the charter application.

The timing couldn't be worse: the national recession and probable state budget cuts in the coming months. The supposed gain of 240 students should not be provided on the backs of more than 3,200 students who have suffered more than their fair share of inadequate financial investment.

We are a small city. Gloucester barely reaches the mandatory state level of 30,000 residents before a charter must be regional. Of the four communities of Cape Ann, Gloucester is the least able to support this initiative. As America's oldest seaport, Gloucester has a long history of understanding interdependence and advancement for the common good. The charter school application does not reflect this spirit, despite its claims to celebrate the arts and maritime history of Gloucester.

If you cannot attend the public hearing on Dec. 11, from 4 to 6 p.m. at Fuller School, please send letters to ask the state to reject the charter school application by Jan. 5, to: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Charter School Office, 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, or by e-mail to charterschools@doe.mass.edu.

The charter school applicants ask us to envision a school "where students, teachers, and parents work together on projects that enhance the quality of life in our community."

That particular vision is already alive and well in every school in our district thanks to dedicated teachers, committed parents, caring volunteers, and inquisitive children. You don't create that vision by piloting your own lifeboat while the rest of the crew is left treading water in your wake.

STACY RANDELL
Haven Terrace, Glouceste

Public School Proponents Speak Out Against Charter Plans in Gloucester, MA

The corporate education charter movement has come to Massachusetts, but Gloucester residents are standing strong against the looming decision by the Commonwealth that may impose an unneeded and unwanted charter school there.

The local School Committee last month voted unanimously to reject plans for a new charter school that would drain $2.4 million from the local public school budget. What sense does it make, especially during a Depression, to deny the will of the community in order to impose a "reform" that no one wants or needs--except a handful of supporters of the Business Roundtable agenda for crushing public education?

The final public meeting before the State's decision will be held Thursday, December 11 at Fuller School.

Here is part of a commentary by Jonathan Pope that appears at WickedLocal Essex:

• StumbleUpon
• Newsvine
• del.icio.us
• Digg

. . . . The proponents of charter schools will argue that they are public schools. If the criteria to qualify as a public school are that the public pays your bills then they qualify. If the criteria are that the oversight of the school is accountable to the public, or if their mandate is to educate all children regardless of the child’s emotional, physical or cognitive disabilities, then charter schools do not qualify as public schools.

Public schools are administered by a superintendent of schools who is hired, contracted and evaluated in public by the elected School Committee. Charter schools are run by a self-appointed board of directors approved by the Commissioner of Education and have no mandate of transparency other than the filing of ethics disclaimers and budget audits with the state. Charter schools must accept all local students who chose to apply with out bias but I would argue that the act of choice is a form of discrimination. Charter schools may expel students for behavior or determine that because of their special needs would be better served in an out-of-district placement, but when this happens the financial responsibility falls back to the real public schools.

The proponents of charter schools argue that their funding will not affect the students in Gloucester Public Schools. There is not a remote possibility that this is true. Because of continuing underfunding of education, Gloucester Public Schools have undergone an agonizing reorganization. The goal was to establish a sustainable neighborhood elementary school system. To accomplish this we had to close Fuller School, redistrict the entire city, increase class size at O’Maley Middle School and make a capital investment of over $3 million, not to mention the emotional stress on many families. The approval of the charter school is like a small group of people undoing all of that work, re-opening the school we had to close and putting Gloucester back at the beginning of that process of developing a financially sustainable educational program, with less choices. . . .

Be at the Fuller School Auditorium December 11, 4-6 PM.

Location & Driving Directions:

Fuller School
4 School House Road
Gloucester, MA. 01930

Click here for driving directions to Fuller School