Okay, that wasn’t the headline of MN 2020’s updated study of Minnesota charter schools released today. But in fact, 38 charter schools, or almost 25 percent (the report incorrectly stated it was 20 percent) of all charters scored a perfect audit for 2008, up 63 percent from the 24 schools that had scored zero infractions on their financial audits for the previous year. An additional 86 charter schools, or 56 percent of the charters, had three or less infractions in their audits. 19 percent of the charters had infractions of four or more. This improvement was realized even before the impact of the new state legislation, which is requiring substantially more accountability measures for charters.
Last June, we were quite harsh in our critique of MN 2020’s study which stated that “83 percent of all charter schools have at least one financial irregularity” (this year the number and their news release lead was 75 percent), thus leading to the final recommendation that “if charter schools can’t run in a financially competent manner, Minnesota should reconsider whether charter schools are worth public funding at all.”
Our concern of the MN 2020 study then and now is that the study:
- did not differentiate between minor and major findings in the audit, it treated all infractions as equal.
- did not show any correlation between audit findings and academic performance.
- did not include the same critique for district schools that shared many of the same problems as charters. Morgan Brown, assistant state educational commissioner, in response to the 2007 report stated “it is not uncommon for both school districts and charter schools to have findings in their annual financial reports.” Brown pointed to another failure in the report: “Forty-six charter schools had problems related to ‘segregation of duties’ —a provision meant to ensure that more than one person has control of financial operations—but so did 207 traditional district schools.”
Despite our concerns, we want to commend MN 2020 for at least a somewhat less combative tone and position vis a vis charter schools – i.e. “charter schools…have a special place in the constellation of Minnesota’s education system”. This change of tone may be a reflection of a new realpolitik of an Obama Administration’s laser focus on closing the achievement gap by encouraging the growth of high-quality charters, especially in high need areas. The President’s directive of withholding stimulus money to states that have less than friendly charter school laws frankly will be difficult to oppose.
Also, we actually agree with most of the recommendations of the report which include revoking charters with schools that have repeated financial problems; holding sponsor organizations (now called Authorizers) financially accountable for the fiscal health of their charter schools; and requiring addition financial training for charter school leaders and board members. However, we believe these provisions are already a part of the new state law passed in July.
Our statement in June after the first MN 2020 report still nicely reflects our position on charter school financial accountability:
We need to improve the business practices and academic achievement levels for all public schools—charter and district. Tough, stringent fiscal management and accountability measures are an absolute requirement. And as has been reported recently, some bad apples have abused the charter mandate, thus allowing charter critics like Minnesota 2020 to say that all charter schools are suspect. Frankly, some poorly run charter schools that are not providing quality education should perhaps be closed down, as should some poorly run and low-quality district schools. But the vast majority of charter schools have strong management and accounting practices in place, and given the tough new state legislation, which was developed and passed with the assistance of key charter school leaders, even stricter accountability and business measures will be required of charter schools in the future. This is a good thing.