The Senate Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, chaired by Sen. Bill Perkins of Harlem, had its day-long hearing on charter schools yesterday in downtown Manhattan. It went long, beginning at 9:00 a.m. and wrapped up more than eleven hours later. Gotham Schools today has links to much of the news coverage of the hearing (here).

I was in attendance for most of the hearing, waiting my turn to testify to represent the New York Charter Schools Association on behalf of its member charter schools through the New York City and state. I did not appear until after 7:00 p.m. No surprise there.

Charter Opponents Up First
Committee hearing agendas have a way of sending a message about who matters in the pecking order, as charter school advocates were the runt of the litter and presented during the last two sessions. This hearing was not about examining issues in any evenhanded way. Rather, it was about trashing and discrediting charters. Ironically, just a few blocks away, was President Obama, charter supporter, speaking on a different subject.

First up was Dr. Ravitch, the education reform malcontent at her ornery best. Her anti-reform, vapid message is now familiar, except she may not have expected state Sen. Craig Johnson, a supporter of charter schools, to challenge her. After several minutes of back-and-forth, Dr. Ravitch smugly dismissed him with words, to the effect "I didn't know you were an educational researcher, Senator." It doesn't take a Ph.D. to refute her polemics.

Then there were the unions: first the United Federation of Teachers head, Michael Mulgrew, who was sounding thuggish much of the time, followed by representatives from the New York State United Teachers. Sen. Perkins asked so many leading questions of a softball nature, you had to be nodding off not to notice. It included "questions" like tell us why conflicts of interest in a charter school are bad; or explain why charters shouldn't waste taxpayer money, blah blah blah. Of course, the biggest conflict of interest, wholly ignored, is the profiting by UFT and NYSUT from union dues from charter school teachers while the unions successfully lobbied for the charter funding freeze costing those same teachers lost wages.

In his more measured moments, the UFT's Mulgrew made some interesting comments. For example, in response to the issue of charter school demand evidenced by thousands of students on waiting lists, he claimed that district schools also had thousands of students on waiting lists. This confirms what we know -- that New York City has insufficient numbers of quality public schools with parents clamoring for both charter schools and those district schools of quality. This makes the obvious case for lifting the cap on charters, to be sure; and makes a mockery of the charter "saturation" argument peddled by the unions. Thank you, Mr. Mulgrew.

Special Needs Students
The UFT boss also acknowledged that the charter he operates, the UFT Charter School in Brooklyn, had lower percentages of students with disabilities and English language learners than the community school district - and the charter school averages. He committed to addressing the issue and is exploring ways to do so, as all charter schools should do. The point is that with all the attacks on charters from the union on this issue, it turns out nothing nefarious is going on beyond anecdotal evidence, and that UFT itself lives in a glass mansion on the subject.

Later during the hearing when the authorizers presented, it was mentioned that in New York City, half the students who are English language learners reside in only six of the 32 community school districts. Yet, only 12 of the city's 99 charter schools are located in those six CSDs, which explains at least partially why charters generally have lower percentages of ELL students than the district averages.

NYSUT Digging Dirt on Charters
Following the UFT came NYSUT, including its #2 executive and its chief Albany lobbyist. They were fond of bringing up alleged conflicts of interest in charter schools, and lack of accountability and malfeasance as though nothing of the kind ever occurred in a district school. Better yet, when Assemblyman Michael Benjamin raised a recent case of a district teacher brought up on sexual misconduct, NYSUT's response was that "due process" was warranted and it shouldn't define teachers as a group. Funny how NYSUT never shows the same deference to educators and administrators in charter schools accused of much less.

What's clear from NYSUT's presentation is that it is deep into a fishing expedition and digging for dirt on charters - pick your metaphor. No one should tolerate bad behavior by adults in any school, but NYSUT is intent on painting the worst possible description of anything in a charter school, bereft of context or particulars that present a more benign picture. Expect more of this.

Comptroller Audits No Sub for Rigorous Authorizing
One other point that kept recurring was the issue of the state Comptroller and charters. NYSUT claimed the Court of Appeals ruled against Comptroller audits of charters on "a technicality." This is absurd, unless you believe Article V of the New York State Constitution, which limits the reach of the Comptroller, is a "technicality." The reality is that Comptroller audits are no answer for accountability for charter schools, especially since such audits would occur in a given charter school about once every decade. Rather, rigorous authorizer practices by the Regents, SUNY and the city have been put in place to hold charters accountable - a reality understood by the Court and described in its ruling against the Comptroller.

Much more can be said of yesterday's show. It was a long day. By 2:00 p.m., officials from the state and city education departments, along with the SUNY Charter Schools Institute, finally presented. A serious hearing would have had them go first, followed by the interest groups. The authorizers were choc full of substantive, dispassionate information regarding charter oversight, accountability and transparency, which the legislature and its staff hopefully will absorb.

Charter authorizer practices matter. If laws are changed, it should be understood what existing law provides and how it is enforced. SUNY, State Ed and City DOE acquitted well in this regard. More of this is needed.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
Twitter.com/petermurphy26
Facebook: "Chalkboard Nycsa"