But there are other similar provisions in Sub HB 2 and SB 148 that, although well-intentioned, have unfair consequences for sponsors. The bills incentivize quality authorizing in a variety of ways, providing benefits to sponsors that are rated exemplary. CMSD strongly supports the focus on quality, but we also believe in fairness. All sponsors should have the chance to be evaluated before any sponsor can access the benefits. Moreover, the SPR (Sponsor Performance Review) was not designed with these benefits in mind. It was created by the General Assembly as a sponsor evaluation system. To reward a handful of sponsors before all sponsors have gone through the evaluation process has an immediate and negative impact on those of us waiting our turn. We sponsors all strive to be rated exemplary. Please give us a fair chance.
Next,CMSD does not support a complete ban on sponsors contracting with schools for goods or services. We understand the intent of this provision, but charter schools are independent from their sponsors and should have the autonomy to make their own decisions regarding from whom they purchase goods or services. We believe there are more nuanced ways than a complete prohibition to address potential issues that could arise when sponsors and schools enter into contracts for goods and services.
Finally, we want to alert your attention to a current provision of law that restricts charter governing boards from obtaining qualified members and impedes collaboration amongst charters and districts. Section 3314.02 of the Revised Code prohibits any employee or immediate relative of an employee of a charter school governing board from being an owner, employee, or consultant of any sponsor or operator of a community school, unless at least a year has elapsed. Under this provision, the brother of a CMSD teacher could not serve as a board member for a charter school sponsored by Cleveland. Similarly, a janitor working at a district school in one part of Cleveland could not serve as a board member for a CMSD-sponsored school at the other end of the city.
These restrictions, we believe, go too far, particularly in large urban districts like CMSD that employ thousands of people and are actively working to strengthen our relationships with charter schools.
As a sponsor, we know firsthand the challenges our charter schools face in recruiting and retaining qualified board members. Our law should not make this critically important work more difficult for charter schools by removing hundreds of talented people from consideration, particularly when those people have nothing to do with the authorizing duties of the sponsor. Moreover, we believe that it benefits both charters and districts to have people with public district experience (or their immediate relatives) serve on charter boards.
A better solution would be to limit board member composition to perhaps 20 percent; that is, to amend R.C. 3314.02 (E) to read, “no more than 20 percent of a charter school’s governing board shall be comprised of present members or immediate relatives of present members of any owner, employee, or consultant of any sponsor or operator of a community school.”
Thank you again for all you do to improve education in Ohio. We are happy to answer any questions.
Stephanie Klupinski, Executive Director of Charter Schools
Michele Pomerantz, Policy and Labor Liaison, CEO Office