School board member calls legislation ‘anti-public school’
Murphy – The Cherokee County Board of Education is opposing the Charter School Omnibus bill (House Bill 219) making its way through the Legislature in Raleigh, with school board member Jeff Tatham calling the bill “anti-public school.”
 |
The school board voted unanimously to pass the resolution on April 20. Though the resolution has no authority over state government, the school district is sending copies of the decision to members of the N.C. General Assembly and Gov. Roy Cooper, and encouraging parents, students and community members to contact their state legislators to oppose the bill.
Cherokee County’s school board – along with Cabarrus, Stanly and a growing number of school boards around the state – passed resolutions saying that House Bill 219 would result in “uncertainty and encourage future litigation in a currently, well-settled area of the law, such as the current law prohibiting supplemental school tax dollars from leaving the tax district approved by voters.”
The bill was introduced in the House on Feb. 28 by Gastonia-area state Rep. John Corbett and co-sponsored by 19 other fellow Republican lawmakers. It was referred to the Committee on Rules, Calendar & Operations of the House on March 1, passed its first reading, withdrawn from that committee and re-referred to the Committee on K-12 Education on April 20.
Supporters of the bill say it would require equal local funding for public charter schools, prohibits school boards from discriminating against public charter students in district admissions, makes it harder for a local school district to veto a proposed public charter school, and allows counties to fund public charter school buildings and facilities.
They claim public charter school students in North Carolina receive 37 percent less local funding than public district school students and that local governments “shortchanged public charter schools.”
They claim that the state originally required fair and equal funding, but the law was changed in 2010 and resulted in unequal funding. According to their statistics, the average local per-pupil expenditure in the 2020-21 school year was $1,431 for charter schools and $2,289 for public district schools.
“Public school students should not have less local funding than others simply because their parents chose a public charter school,” according to pro-HB 219 literature.
Aside from Tatham’s characterization of the legislation as being “anti-public school,” the Cherokee County school board had no public discussion before the vote.
If HB 219 passes, the total financial impact to the Cherokee County Schools in lost K-12 operating funds based on FY 2022-23 will be substantial, according to the resolution. The resolution didn’t cite specifics, but Cabarrus County, a significantly larger school district than Cherokee County’s, claims the impacts will be in the millions of dollars.
The total financial impact to all local school districts could expand significantly over time “and lead to egregious results based on future increases in charter school enrollments of both in-person and virtual school students,” the resolution said.
Current law already provides equal local funding for all public school students in kindergarten through grade 12, according to the board-passed resolution.
The state operates two primary systems of public education operated by local school boards: charter schools and public schools. Charter schools are not legally required to pay any funds to local school districts, regardless of the source of revenue, including federal funds, grants, and gifts, according to the county’s resolution.
Courts in North Carolina and the General Assembly have confronted the issue of fair funding for students attending charter schools and local school districts in a manner that has created equal K-12 funding and put an end to contentious litigation caused by the original charter funding model, according to the county’s resolution.
Local funding given to local school districts and placed in the district’s Local Current Expense Fund is shared with charter schools on an equal per-pupil basis including county appropriations, fines and forfeitures, and special school tax dollars flowing to a charter school located in the taxing district, the resolution says.
The current law recognizes that local school districts receive certain funds that should not be apportioned or “shared” with charter schools because the charter school does not provide the program or service for which the funds are received, the funds are a reimbursement to the local school district for unrestricted funds already spent including revenues previously shared with charter schools, or the funds are legally restricted and cannot be shared.
Funds not shared with charter schools include reimbursements, indirect costs, tuition, fees for actual costs, sales tax revenues distributed using the ad valorem method, sales tax refunds, gifts and grants restricted as to use, trust funds, federal appropriations made directly to school administrative units and funds received for prekindergarten programs.
In addition, the appropriation or use of fund balance or interest income by a local school administrative unit shall not be construed as a local current expense appropriation;
House Bill 219 deletes the list of protected funds with the exception of trust funds, federal grants restricted as to use, and special programs.
“By deleting the list of protected funds, House Bill 219 creates unequal rather than equal local funding for K-12 education,” according to the local resolution.
That includes:
- Fund balance: Charter schools do not have to share their savings account (i.e., “fund balance”) with local school districts. This is money saved by local school districts from prior years during which eligible revenues were already shared with charter schools. “Sharing” such funds a second time would be double-dipping and a windfall to charter schools at the expense of local school district students.
- Federal reimbursements. Charter schools do not have to share any federal reimbursements with local school districts. By law, many federal programs require schools to spend unrestricted revenues on specific purposes before getting reimbursed that amount by the federal government. Thus, no new money is received and any unrestricted revenues used for the federal program derive from funds that have already been shared with charter schools. “Sharing” such funds a second time would be double-dipping and a windfall to charter schools at the expense of local school district students;
- Pre-K classroom funds. Charter schools can apply for these funds directly and they do not have to share them with a local school district. By law, N.C. pre-K dollars and Smart Start dollars cannot be given to charter schools directly by a local school district.
As a result, if HB 219 passes school districts would be forced to use even more unrestricted local dollars to pay charter schools a proportionate share of these funds, resulting in charter school students getting a higher amount of K-12 dollars simply because the local school district chose to assist the community by operating one or more pre-K classrooms. “Sharing” such funds a second time would be double-dipping and a windfall to charter schools at the expense of local school district students;
- Tuition and fees for actual costs. If a charter school chooses to allow public use of its facilities, operate a summer program, before school program, or after school program it can charge fees that are not shared with the local school district.
Local school districts charge such fees to cover the additional costs of facility use and/or extra programming because these activities are beyond the normal operating costs for K-12 education. “Sharing” such funds would be a windfall to charter schools at the expense of local school district students;
- Sales tax refunds. Charter schools are reimbursed 100 percent of state and local sales tax amounts they pay and do not have to share these funds with local school districts. Local school districts only receive a reimbursement of local sales tax amounts paid by the school district.
This is another reimbursement. “Sharing” such funds a second time would be double-dipping and a windfall to charter schools at the expense of local school district student.