Opinion ID: 2278866
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: SBE Proceedings and Rulings

Text: SBE had before it three separate matters  a petition for declaratory ruling by City Neighbors, an appeal by Patterson Park, and an appeal by Lincoln. It was aware that there were several other public charter schools with applications pending before county boards. Recognizing that the appeals by Patterson Park and Lincoln, like the petition filed by City Neighbors, centered on the proper construction of ED § 9-109(a), a public school law that was material to an existing case or controversy, SBE treated the two appeals as petitions for declaratory ruling. Although it kept the three petitions separate and issued separate rulings in the three cases, it consolidated the cases for purposes of oral argument, which was held on April 19, 2005. On May 6, 2005, SBE issued its initial opinions in the three cases (Opinion No. 05-17 in City Neighbors, Opinion No. 05-18 in Lincoln, and Opinion No. 05-19 in Patterson Park). The three opinions were similar in their structure and in their conclusions, and they essentially rejected the city and county boards' construction of ED § 9-109. Unlike City Neighbors and Patterson Park, Lincoln, in addition to the complaint about funding, sought a waiver of the requirement that its employees, other than full-time classroom teachers, be school system employees. The three opinions obviously attracted considerable comment, some of it critical, in the news media and among the educational establishment, and, in response, SBE requested the State Superintendent of Schools, two other State Department of Education officials, and its own counsel to address the Board at its regular open meeting on May 24. As a result of those presentations, SBE issued revised opinions in each of the three cases on May 26, 2005. Those opinions, which were both clarifying and substantive in nature, constitute the final decisions of the Board. Each of the revised opinions addressed three basic subjects  the standard of review to be applied by SBE, the application process, and the proper interpretation of ED § 9-109(a). The opinion dealing with Lincoln also addressed the waiver issue. With respect to standard of review, the Board noted that, under ED § 2-205(e), it was empowered to explain the true intent and meaning of the provisions of the Education Article that were under its jurisdiction and to decide all controversies and disputes under these provisions and that COMAR 13A.01.05.05E directed that the Board exercise its independent judgment on the record before it in the explanation and interpretation of the public school laws and State Board regulations. SBE concluded that the application process involved two steps. The first step consists of the development, submission, and review of the application, which is to allow the county board to examine all aspects of the proposal. The second step commences after the application is approved and involves completion of an actual charter agreement. The thoroughness of the first step, the Board concluded, should pave the way for incorporation of the approved application into the charter agreement with the need for minimal additional negotiation in completing the second step. Mindful of the 120-day statutory deadline for a county board decision on an application, SBE concluded that the second step should be completed within 30 days after approval of the application. The main issue was funding and the meaning of ED § 9-109(a), in particular the phrase commensurate with the amount disbursed to other public schools in the local jurisdiction. The Board concluded that the phrase expressed a legislative intent that a public charter school receive federal, State, and local funding in an amount proportionate to the amount of funds expended for elementary, middle, and secondary level students in the other public schools in the same system. That includes, the Board added, funding for services for which students in the public charter schools are eligible such as free and reduced price meals, pre-kindergarten, special education, English language learners, Perkins, Title I, and transportation. [4] Noting that there existed no statewide formula or methodology for determining how local school systems fund their schools, the Board concluded that a reasonable starting point for determining the commensurate amount was the total annual school system operating budget that includes all federal, State, and local funding with the approved appropriations for each of the major categories specified in § 5-101(b)(2) of the Education Article that each local board of education submits to [the State Department of Education] within 30 days of approval by the respective local governments. [5] The next step is to divide the total annual operating budget and each of the major category appropriations by the annual September 30 enrollment count of the school system for the previous year, to calculate the average per pupil funding overall and per major category. Recognizing that there were certain support functions, such as data collection and the development of public charter school policies, that could be performed only by the central office of the local school system, SBE directed that the total average per pupil amount be reduced by 2% as a reasonable cost of performing those functions. The adjusted total average per pupil amount is then to be multiplied by the student enrollment of the charter school to determine the total funding amount for the charter school. Because the total school system operating budget encompassed all funds, including Title I and special education funds, the Board determined that the average per pupil amount derived from that figure would be sufficient for the charter school to deliver the services for which its students were eligible. The school would have to make budgetary allocations in light of the students' eligibility requirements, however, and must comply with applicable Federal and State requirements. For the special services that must be provided to eligible students, the charter school could elect either to provide the services directly or have them provided by the school system, but if it opted for the latter, it would be required to reimburse the school system for the proportionate cost of those services. Reimbursement would also be required for salary, local retirement, and other fringe benefit costs for the public school employees working in the charter school as well as for regular services and supplies that the charter school requests the local school system to provide. As further guidance on the implementation of that funding methodology, SBE adopted and incorporated by reference guidance documents that had been prepared, at the Board's request, by State Department of Education officials and that had been discussed at the Board's open meeting on May 24. With respect to City Neighbors and Patterson Park, SBE concluded that the total per pupil spending by the city board for the various categories it believed must be included to arrive at commensurate funding was $10,956. In Lincoln's case, the Board determined that the total per pupil spending by the county board was $9,664. The Board recognized the prospect that not every student attending a charter school would be entitled to Title I or special education funds or services and, indeed, that in some charter schools none of the students might be eligible, that funding restrictions applicable to those programs would require the public charter schools to adjust their budgets to be in compliance with programmatic laws and regulations, that the calculation of average cost does not mean that the funding mix of each fund source to the [county board] must be duplicated at the Charter School level, and that average is just that, it does not necessarily represent an amount that any specific pupil gets. As Exhibit 3 to its opinions, SBE adopted a formula for the separate calculation of Title I funding for the charter schools and provided for a reduction in the total per pupil allocation for per pupil Title I funding if the charter school is not to receive that funding. As Exhibit 4, the Board adopted a Technical Assistance Bulletin prepared by the Department with respect to Charter Schools and Special Education. No amounts were calculated with respect to those items. SBE declined to make a definitive ruling with respect to Lincoln's waiver request. It noted that, under ED § 9-108, public charter school employees are public school employees of the public school employer in the county where the charter school is located and that they have the collective bargaining rights granted to other public school employees in title 6, subtitles 4 and 5 of the Education Article. The Board observed as well that the statute allows the charter school and the unions to negotiate amendments to existing collective bargaining agreements to address the needs of the particular charter school. It suggested that Lincoln attempt to negotiate with the unions, or pursue the procedures set forth in the State Board's proposed regulations on waivers for charter schools, or a combination of both. [6] Finally, perhaps in light of the facts that it was already dealing with three charter schools, that there were several others in the pipeline, and that it was issuing a declaratory ruling, the Board noted that its opinions should be used as guidance and direction to the other charter school applicants and local school systems for the refinement of their working relationships on behalf of the public school children throughout this State.