The Regents committee on Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education today approved five more charter schools, each opening by this fall:

-- Bushwick Ascend (Brooklyn CSD 23);
-- Cultural Arts Academy (Brooklyn CSD 18);
-- Challenge Preparatory (Queens CSD 27);
-- Democracy Prep - Harlem (Manhattan CSD 5); and
-- West Buffalo Charter School.


Approval of these schools leaves just one charter remaining from the Regents 100. The State University of New York has 18 charters available and is reviewing 13 applications for new schools proposed to open in 2011.

Strong Community Support - for Charters Seeking DOE Space
Note that of the four New York City charters, two of them (Democracy Prep and Challenge Prep) are seeking to use district space while the other two are leasing privately-owned space. For all the angst about "co-location" in Harlem and elsewhere, what should not be overlooked is the community support these schools generated. For example, Democracy Prep's flagship school in Harlem received 1,500 applications for 80 available seats in that school for the current year. Few if any charters could boast of such numbers. Challenge Prep has letters of support from every major political figure representing the area of the school's location, including state Sen. Malcolm Smith, Congressman Greg Meeks, Assemblywoman Michelle Titus, City Councilman James Saunders, and Queens Borough President Helen Marshall.

Co-location is a fact of life for many district schools "sharing" space with other district schools. Considering the demand and support for charters in communities all over the City, there is no reason charter schools should not continue to access available district space.

The full board of Regents tomorrow will formally adopt the committee's action today, making it official. Congratulations to each of the school's founders!

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

The New York City "rubber room" for teachers who were removed from the classroom amid allegations of misconduct, but whose union contract protects against being fired, continues to get the attention of the New York Post, including from columnist Andrea Peyser (here).

The Post uncovered another sensational case of a teacher seven years in the rubber room who was accused of sexual molestation. There are about 660 teachers in the rubber room awaiting disciplinary hearings.

State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., of the Bronx, expressed outrage at this latest example in today's Post.

Rubber rooms have come under fire from some state legislators - too few, actually. State Senator John DeFrancisco of Syracuse, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, last week questioned NYSUT and the NYC United Federation of Teachers about the rubber rooms. Michael Mulgrew, the UFT president, responded indignantly based on his contention that most of the cases get hearings within a few months; many are settled beforehand; and that policy should not be dictated by sensationalized cases. Mulgrew also asserted that many teachers languish in the rubber room because the City Department of Education never formally charges the teacher of misconduct (but doesn't want them back teaching, either).

Mulgrew promised at last week's legislative budget hearing to say more about this issue, including a new proposal, in the coming weeks. The union has every incentive to want this issue out of the public domain. That will be interesting given the fact that City officials want this perk clamped down upon.

Rubber Rooms in the Union Contract and Embedded in State Ed Law
In effect, rubber rooms are a contractual issue that protects teachers from being summarily fired and designed to assure due process to the accused, which is agreed upon in the collective bargaining contract and reflective of state law (i.e., section 3020-a of the Education Law). Many teachers indeed languish either because the hearings take too long to schedule, or the legal cost is prohibitively expensive to proceed with firing a teacher.

As part of increasing accountability in education for federal Race to the Top funding, the Regents proposed reforms in the 3020-a teacher disciplinary process to streamline and lower the cost of disciplining teachers. Tellingly, this proposal was ignored in the state legislature to the point where no one dared introduce a bill.

A Hot Potato - Expect Nothing to Change
Unless more outrageous stories appear on the rubber room, I would expect nothing to happen legislatively. In addition, watch for the UFT to take the offensive on this and pin the problem back on the City DOE. The last thing the union wants is to be on the defensive about this, with its lack of accountability on display.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Rumors are surrounding Governor David Paterson's status, not just his prospects for re-election, but whether he'll remain as Governor.

Last night's Associated Press story by Capitol reporter, Michael Gormley captured the moment by reporting private meetings over the weekend between the Governor and Democratic officials, purportedly discussing his election campaign, but also involving unsubstantiated rumors of his personal conduct.

The AP story contained the following passage:

"A Democrat close to the situation, though, said the meetings included discussions about whether Paterson would resign or announce he will not run because of the unsubstantiated claims in the whisper campaign surrounding the governor's behavior."

Where this is going I dare not speculate. David Paterson is Governor and that matters, regardless of rumors, poll numbers, or what his fellow Democratic officeholders think of him. I do not believe the Governor is resigning, no matter what "rumors" may surface. For the record, his aides emphatically deny any speculation about a resignation.

On Tuesday the Governor will issue his required 21-day amendments to his Executive Budget proposed for state fiscal year 2010-11, which begins April 1st. The legislature will spend the better part of the next seven weeks dealing with budget issues and trying to close an $8.2 billion gap in an election year. This is the business at hand.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Governor Paterson's proposed Executive Budget for 2010-11 not only continues the charter school funding freeze at 2008-09 formula levels, but continues untouched the formula for "transition aid" to school districts outside of New York City for their charter school payments.

It's bad enough that charter schools get their funding frozen. But school districts meanwhile will next year receive nearly $22 million in transition aid for students that departed the district for a charter school, an increase of $3 million over the current-year amount of nearly $19 million.

The Governor should leave both funding formulas alone. Instead, he continues to freeze the charter funding formula and continues to pay districts for losing students to charters. (Reminder: transition aid to school districts is icing on the cake since they already count charter enrollment in the district-wide enrollment to generate state school aid to districts.)

Charter Funding Doesn't Impact State Budget; Transition Aid Does
The added irony to all of this is that from a state financial standpoint, freezing the charter formula does not impact the state budget since school districts actually pay the charter schools from state and federal aid and local sources. In other words, the state reaps no savings to lower its deficit by freezing charter spending.

By contrast, the transition payments to school districts for losing students is a state expenditure, and impacts the budget by widening the deficit another $22 million.

This is a funding injustice for charters - with an added twist of the knife.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

The Albany Common Council, made up of 16 members, met last Monday evening to consider a resolution introduced by Councilwoman Cathy Fahey to call on the state legislature to impose a local limit on charter school enrollment in the city.

This resolution, filled with misinformation and bogus data provided directly by the Albany City School District, is another example of how citizens should never assume their elected officials take their actions based on accurate information. Often they don't.

Anti-Progressive Resolution about Protecting the System
This resolution was all about protecting the school district. It had nothing to do with children and their needs. It had nothing to do with parental demand; nor about the quality of education in the district or charter schools. The Common Council is loaded with self-proclaiming "progressives" who were poised to approve of this anti-progressive measure: protecting a school district establishment. This school district's failures have been felt particularly among low-income and minority families who have sought refuge and opportunity in charter schools.

None of that mattered to Cathy Fahey and the Common Council - until Monday evening.

Albany Charters Speak Out
The Albany charter school community, which now educates nearly one-quarter of Albany's public school students, rallied against this resolution. Charter school parents, grandparents (including County Legislator, Wanda Willingham), and school leaders packed the Common Council meeting and spoke out against the resolution. Other residents, mostly from the Albany's more suburban-like areas, spoke in favor of the resolution to stop charter expansion.

After about four hours of public comment and member debate, the Council appeared split on the resolution. It was pulled from the floor and debate was ended. Clearly, Ms. Fahey, the Times Union reported (here), did not want to risk defeat or a bare majority approval, which would have sent a "mixed message to state Legislature."

The tabling of this anti-charter school resolution is a victory for charter schools in Albany. Their academic success and opportunities they represent for so many of the City's families was such that enough members of the Common Council did not want to be on record against them.

Councilwoman Fahey has not given up and she may resubmit her resolution. She is misdirected, to say the least. Instead, her focus and that of her colleagues on the Council ought to question why the school district kept increasing non-charter related expenses and remains the same size with the same number of employees during a period when when 25 of the students fled. The district is the taxpayer money pit that has much to answer.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

If New York State fails to win a federal Race to the Top grant in the first round, to be decided by April, it will not be enough for round two to simply raise the statutory cap on charter schools. Charter funding also matters; specifically, "how [funding] compares with traditional public per student funding applications," according to the Race to the Top application.

In New York's case, charter schools receive more than one-third less funding per student than district schools. If you add the in-kind amounts (textbooks, nursing, etc.) the inequity remains, with a funding gap of more than 25 percent.

The lack of facilities funding for charters has been the primary culprit in this funding gap. Now there is an added problem: the "freeze" in charter funding, stuck at 2008-09 levels. Governor Paterson has proposed to continue this funding level for next year, 2010-11. The injustice of this funding freeze has been discussed on The Chalkboard (here).

State Race to the Top Application: What Funding Freeze?
Reading through the charter school section of the state's current Race to the Top application, one would never know there is a charter funding freeze in place. The application explains charter funding thus:

"the charter school tuition formula is based upon the school district's operating expenditures rather than the revenue source, and reflects expenditures supported by both state aid and local taxes for public school students" (emphasis mine).

This much of the charter funding formula description is correct - until this year when its connection to district operations spending was severed by the funding freeze. Gov. Paterson and the legislature have never clearly understood the charter funding connection to district spending, thanks to the teacher unions, which they listen to far more than the state Education Department. The unions last year first made the false, apples-to-oranges comparison between charter funding and state Foundation Aid revenue to school districts, which led to enactment of the charter funding freeze and a $50 million loss to charter schools.

The problem with the Race to the Top application, written by the state Education Department, is that by ignoring the funding freeze, it leads to an erroneous claim that a charter student's resident school district provides "charter school pupils with an amount equivalent to the district's per-pupil operating expenses."

Lifting the Charter Cap Won't Matter with Funding Freeze
Keeping the funding freeze into next year will make this charter funding inequity worse. That will inhibit new charter expansion and bring greater harm to existing charters since a school cannot effectively operate on 2008-09 funding levels and remain without facilities aid, no matter how high the charter cap may be lifted.

What school district, pray tell, would operate on revenue levels from two years ago? None. So why should charter schools be crippled this way?

The U.S. Department of Education will understand this problem, regardless whether the New York Education Department explains it correctly the next time. The better way is for this charter funding freeze to end, and let funding be tied once again to school district spending. This must begin with Gov. Paterson dropping this "freeze" now, in time for his 21-day budget amendments due out on Tuesday (Feb. 9). Failure to do so would make a round two Race to the Top grant as dubious as it is for round one.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Americans are living longer, but you would think the opposite listening to the teacher unions demand early retirement with fewer years of service to earn near full pension benefits.

The teacher unions are fresh from getting a Christmas gift from the state legislature in December, when it granted teachers an earlier retirement age than other public employees, 57 rather than 62, in the newly-established Tier 5 public employee retirement system for new hires. The Chalkboard discussed this issue at the time (here).

NYSUT wants more. The Tier 5 law included a "legislative intent" to enact an even earlier retirement option this year. The union is demanding this earlier retirement option with near full guaranteed pension benefits at the age of just 55 years old with only 25 years of service ("55-25"). Not to worry, says NYSUT Executive V.P. Andrew Pallotta, there is "no financial hardship on the state" for granting this early retirement. Mr. Pallotta requested this early retirement option during his presentation at the legislature's hearing this week on the Governor's Executive Budget proposal.

Downside of Early Retirement Incentives
The cry for 55-25 is purportedly designed to get older, higher-paid teachers to retire in order to save money and avoid layoffs of newer, younger and lower-paid teachers that could result from the state school aid reductions. There are two big problems with this: 1) children lose more experienced teachers; and 2) school district pension obligations to the teacher retirement system increase by having to pay retirement benefits sooner to more retirees. Actually, there is a third problem: this demand comes off as greedy and self-serving by the union.

NYSUT's demand for 55-25 makes for a great rallying cry to its membership, with a historical echo of the 1844 presidential campaign of James K. Polk. Polk ran on the slogan of "54-40' or Fight!" during the dispute with British Canada over the Oregon Territory, where he demanded the U.S. northern border just above 54 degrees latitude. After his election, President Polk settled for a U.S. northern border at the 49th parallel in the Treaty of Oregon in 1846. War was averted (at least in the north).


President James Polk

NYSUT blustering like President Polk in the heat of a campaign could turn badly for New York. The state--meaning its students--needs quality and experienced teachers. We shouldn't be trying to make it financially worthwhile for them to leave sooner, while making future pension obligations more costly.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

More than 3,000 charter school parents, staff and trustees did indeed show up in Albany yesterday in by far the largest gathering for Advocacy Day since the law was enacted more than 11 years ago. Today's Albany Times Union covered the event (here).

(The only other comparable pro-charter school gathering of this magnitude occurred in Albany's Washington Park in September 2005 when thousands of Albany parents gathered for a barbecue in support of their charter schools.)

Gov. Paterson Addresses Charter Gathering
Governor Paterson addressed the gathering at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center, which was filled and required seating in an overflow room. I've never seen anything like it. He stated that he wants to try again and raise the charter cap, especially if the state does not get a federal Race to the Top grant; necessitating a second application submission in June.

Afterward at a press conference just outside the convention hall, the Governor said he would look into the charter funding freeze he is proposing to maintain next year for charter schools, which is a punitive measure that in effect cuts charter funding twice since they also will bear the brunt of any lower school district spending in subsequent years.

This double-cut in charter funding was foremost on the minds of the 3,000 charter school attendees, which was nearly five times the number from last year's record-setting Advocacy Day attendance. Valerie Babb, head of the Charter Parent Advocacy Network, discusses this double cut in charter funding in today's Daily News (here). Ms. Babb also did a superb job as master of ceremonies for Advocacy Day in the convention hall.

Several other legislators came to address the crowd, including Assemblyman Sam Hoyt (Buffalo); Assem. Michael Benjamin (Bronx); Sen. Martin Golden (Brooklyn); Sen. Craig Johnson (Nassau Co.); and others. Even Sen. Bill Perkins from upper Manhattan came to talk, but was not well-received.

Sen. Perkins continues his opposition to charters by claiming "over saturation" in Harlem and elsewhere. I doubt Sen. Perkins can claim the district schools in these areas are all brimming with success, yet he clings to this saturation argument nonetheless. Harlem students and parents from his 30th Senate district marched on the Capitol grounds chanting and holding signs. It was a sight to behold.

Charter Parents Getting Aggressive About Mistreatment of Their Schools
Charter parents are not appreciating this disparate funding and they are speaking up more than ever to their legislators. Throughout the day, they delivered the message against the double-cut in charter funding, demanding their legislators un-thaw these funding freeze. Parents were respectful, but more aggressive than in years past about their demands. They don't want to be treated as second-class, which is what the charter funding and union opposition has done to their schools. In fact, many meetings with legislators had to occur in the convention hall or in an adjacent meeting room since legislators' offices were too small to accommodate everyone from their district.

All in all, Charter Advocacy Day was a huge success. Many thanks and congratulations to the New York Charter Schools Association and the New York City Charter School Center for pulling this together; and most of all to the parents and school leaders for making the trip and delivering the message. This momentum must continue.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Today is the annual Charter School Advocacy Day where charter school parents, staff, trustees and students from across New York State gather in Albany to lobby their state legislators.

More than 3,000 attendees are expected in Albany. This is by far the largest Charter Advocacy Day turnout, shattering last year's record turnout of "only" 750.

The message for legislators is "restore our funding." As The Chalkboard detailed earlier today, charter schools are inequitably funded and it's been made worse by a state-imposed, unjust funding freeze that severs the connection to school district operations spending. This freeze cheats charter schools from funding that rightfully belongs to their students based on what district students have already received.

Charter operators and parents will educate their legislators on this and other issues about charter schools, as the misinformation from charter opponents was in gross oversupply last month during the Race to the Top debate.

So, expect the state Capitol and Empire State Plaza Concourse level to be packed today, more so than usual. Charter school stakeholders have a message and they're not gonna take it anymore - not without a fight. Legislators' actions on charter schools, especially this last month and throughout the state budget-making process, are under scrutiny as never before as charter constituents are watching more closely.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Public charter schools are publicly funded as though their students are second-class citizens.

That's right. It's that ugly.

Funding for charter schools for ten years was tied to the operations spending of the school district(s) in which a charter school students reside. They do not get facilities funding. When school district operating expenditures increase--which has been the norm--the charter school funding formula increased. For those seldom occasions when a school district's spending declined, charter funding from that district decreased.

That is how it should be: charter funding tied to the expenditures of the resident school districts of their students. Today, this is no longer the case, and it's a travesty for charter schools.

This school year, via an act of the New York State Legislature, charter school funding was "frozen" to prior-year levels; that is, 2008-09 payment levels for the 2009-10 school year. This cost charter schools statewide an aggregate of nearly $50 million.

Now, Governor Paterson, who acquiesced to the current-year funding freeze, is proposing in his 2010-11 Executive Budget to continue the "freeze" at 2008-09 payment levels -- two years prior.

This is a continuation of an outrage and an injustice to charter students.

Double-cut for Charter Schools, Which are Overly Reliant on Single $ource
If cuts in state education aid to school districts results in lower school district spending, charter funding will be reduced on a one- to two-year lag basis based on the statutory formula's calculation. Yet, the state imposition of a funding ceiling for charter schools means that prior years' spending growth by school districts will not accrue to charters - compounding the funding reduction and constituting a second funding cut; or, a double cut in charter school funding.

Charter school funding is heavily reliant on a single source: school district payments. Note that all charter school students are counted as district enrollment when calculating state school aid payments to districts; and, for those school districts with more than two percent of their enrollment and budget connected to charter schools, districts get "transition aid" for added charter school enrollment on top of the state school aid for all charter students. Not for nothing are those same charter school student households paying school property taxes.

False Equivalence Between Charter Funding and District Foundation Aid
The state legislature and Governor Paterson have made the false equivalence between state "Foundation Aid" (i.e., general school district aid) and charter school payment levels, egged on by the state teacher unions, the UFT and NYSUT, which strenuously oppose charter schools. Since Foundation Aid has been frozen, the story-line goes, so should charter funding.

In reality, state Foundation Aid to school districts and charter school funding has been an apples-to-oranges comparison since Foundation Aid is one portion of a school district's revenue (e.g., for NYC, it amounts to funding one-third of the education budget). School districts have other funding "buckets" from which to draw, such as local property, taxes if they choose; and federal funding, including Stimulus Funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Charter schools, in contrast to school districts, have no such luxury. They are dependent almost entirely for their funding from student payments from their resident school district(s) which, in turn, are aided by the state.

School districts this year (2009-10) were aided heavily from the federal ARRA program with additional funding, leading to higher school district spending. Yet charter funding was artificially frozen by the state. Thus, after a decade, the direct connection between school district operations spending and charter funding was severed this year. That means school districts spent more thanks to federal sources, while charter funding was artificially frozen by the state.

Charter Funding Inequity Made Worse by So-called "Freeze"
This funding discrimination consigns charter students to a gross funding inequity. Never mind these students get no facilities funding; now their operating aid has had an artificial ceiling that Gov. Paterson is proposing to continue.

Part of the confusion between state Foundation Aid to school districts and charter school funding is that charters are funded on a one- to two-year lag based on school district operations expenditures. Thus, large state funding increases for New York City and urban districts generated by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity litigation were supposed to flow through the charter formula this year. Instead, charter funding was frozen by the state.

Stop Treating Charter Students as 2nd Class Citizens!
Charter schools for too long have tolerated inequitable funding with school districts, primarily from lack of facilities aid. Now, the funding freeze in charter school funding exacerbates this inequity even as school districts can spend more from other sources besides state aid.

Governor Paterson and the state legislature must rethink this double-cut in charter funding. They should undo the funding freeze and provide facilities funding to charters. Anything short of that would continue to treat charter school students as second-class citizens.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ "PeterMurphy26")

The New York City United Federation of Teachers, with its opposition to a strong Race to the Top application and more charter schools has gotten national attention, to the embarrassment of New York State. First by Time magazine (here), and now in today's Washington Post editorial.

The Washington Post noted that failure to raise the charter cap in New York and to remove the ban on student test data "may well doom" the state's Race to the Top application. It went on to admonish U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan that if he's serious about his reform program, "he can begin by tossing out New York's bid and challenging it to do better." Ouch.

This nationally-recognized disgrace by the UFT and its state parent, NYSUT, may not embarrass the unions or cause them to change their behavior. But it should cause state policymakers to rethink what they do on the unions' behalf.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

The state and New York City teacher unions, NYSUT and UFT, have been bellowing quite a bit in the last month about charter schools needing more accountability and transparency. NYSUT boss Richard Iannuzzi himself, the New York Times reported on Saturday, "was able to persuade the Assembly to add requirements to its bill" for that (and much more in an attempt to derail charter schools altogether).

The teacher unions concern for "accountability" is touching -- if it were real. In actuality, it's not real but phony.

School Accountability? Nah - Lawsuit!
Lest anyone doubt the fraudulent nature of the unions call for accountability for charter schools, look no further than the lawsuit being filed today by the UFT to stop the City Department of Education's plan for closing 19 chronically low-performing district schools. They don't want those schools, or their teachers, held accountable - period. When the City attempts to do so by closing a bad school or firing a teacher, a the union sues and the teacher gets the infamous "rubber room" with no work at full pay. See Sunday's New York Post for the latest rubber room celebrity (here).

UFT Bussed In The Crowd
That's not all. Last week's crowd protesting the meeting of the City's Panel on Education Policy that voted to close these schools appears to have a dubious connection to the schools, and unrepresentative of the parents attending those schools. Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said that most of the people speaking out were UFT union leaders and chapter leaders, and the UFT bussed in people to attend the meeting.

Michael Mulgrew, UFT's leader still trying to pretend to be John L. Lewis, acknowledged the union provided 50 buses. But, hey, he denied the that those in attendance were being pushed by the union. Got it?

Do Parents Really Want Those Schools Remaing Open?
Today's Daily News editorial provides a very telling analysis of parental demand for these schools slated for closure which sheds doubt the genuineness of last weeks raucous meeting and substantiates the union's manipulation of the crowd. Every year, about 75,000 eighth grade students rank the high schools they wish to attend, and "hardly mentioned" are those on the closure list. "Parents know what's up," the News writes.

It cannot be said too often: teacher unions are about serving adults, including protecting them from accountability. Sure, teacher unions want quality education for children, too. But when it's absent, they are back to protecting the adults who are culpable, be it a lawsuit, legislative action, or the rubber room. Whatever it takes.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Charter schools have hit a brick wall in the state legislature, so much so that legislators will risk forgoing up to $700 million in new federal money until something is done about the issue of charter and New York City district schools sharing space.

Yesterday's New York Times (here) mentioned this issue by quoting Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver who made clear it that charter placement in district buildings has become a contentious problem to the point where, as he put it, "[legislators] who were supporters of charters previously have become anti-charter." No one should assume the Speaker is spinning. That's not his style.

More Anti-charter Bills Proposed
The response of several legislators to the co-location issue is to try and stop new chartering altogether. State Senator Bill Perkins and Assemblyman Keith Wright, for example, recently introduced similar bills that would place localized charter caps in areas where more than 5 percent of of the community's students are enrolled in charter schools, among other malevolent provisions.

Similarly, Assemblyman Ron Canestrari of Albany and Senator Antoine Thompson of Buffalo proposed a bill that would require the local school board to approve new charters and renewals of existing charter schools. What is particularly obnoxious about this bill is that there is no space-sharing problem outside of New York City, so Messrs. Canestrari and Thompson are simply showing their true colors in protecting failed districts that will not fix themselves, thereby relegating thousands of young people to inferior opportunities. This is hardly a progressive act by these two.

All these efforts are designed to deny charter school opportunities to families and communities, and to protect the system--and the adults connected to that system--that is cheating those same families out of a quality public education, which is the very reason so many such families have sought charter school opportunities.

The Real Answer - Facilities Aid for Charters
What can be done, particularly about the co-location issue in New York City? This is clearly the major hurdle in the current charter school stalemate.

First and foremost, charter schools should be provided funding for facilities. Charter schools do not get facilities aid. This inequity in New York has rendered charter school students as second-class citizens and should not be tolerated any longer. For all the acrimony in the legislature toward the Bloomberg administration for placing charter schools in district buildings, the Mayor and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein are merely trying to overcome the absence of facilities funding for charters that the legislature has refused to appropriate after 11 years.

And what of the teacher unions and their letterhead organizations they finance like Alliance for Quality Education? For years they've demanded fiscal equity for New York City schools and urban areas with acute educational needs, yet they are perfectly at ease to see charter students in those same cities get far less funding from the neglect of facilities aid.

If the legislature can provide some funding stream for charter facilities, charter schools would be less dependent on the City for district space. It's as simple as that. Rather than trying to deny new charter school opportunities to students, policymakers should be focused on enabling those schools to put their own roof over their heads. It's a win-win solution: charters would have equitable funding to be less dependent for space; and the facility quarrels in Harlem and elsewhere would dissipate.

Can NYS "Afford" Charter Facilities Aid?
The natural question arises, can the state afford to fund charter facilities in these challenging fiscal times? The answer is, in fact, yes - beginning with competing for Race to the Top funding from the federal government and putting some of it toward charter facilities. Over time, the state can assume a greater responsibility for this as the economy improves and the state's finances recover.

Finally, I am not at all dismissive or disrespectful of the local pressure on legislators resulting from contentious disputes over district facilities. But charter students and others that want charter schools are constituents, too, and they deserve equality of resources. Rather than denying a better public education that charter schools can bring more urban families (many of whom are on charter waiting lists), we should lower the volume and work together to find facilities funding that would benefit charter and district students alike.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ "PeterMurphy26")