Orange Board’s Charter Schools Idea Contested

Disgusted with public school regulations and eager to advance their own educational philosophies, Orange Unified School District trustees are considering a proposal that would free some of its schools from state control by establishing a multi-campus charter school.

The charter would allow participating schools to create their own educational programs with state funds, but be exempt from state education regulations. Under a 1992 state law, charter schools are free to develop their own curricula, manage their own finances and even hire non-credentialed teachers if they choose.

The proposal, which was presented to board members last month in a task force report, already has enraged members of the district’s teachers union, who now are locked in a bitter contract dispute with the district. Teachers and some community activists question whether school board members are pursuing the charter as a way to weaken the teachers union, privatize school services and advance their own conservative--and sometimes radical--agendas.

The charter proposal also is likely to ignite yet another controversy in a school district that has long been plagued with scandal and chaos.

“There is no question that it is basically union busting,” said Sheryl Stevens, executive director of the Orange Unified Education Assn. “One step they are [forgetting] is that [charters] require a vote by the staff. . . . To think for a minute that the teachers would vote to be released from the protection of the union and the Education Code is laughable.”

After analyzing the task force’s report, Supt. Robert L. French said he will recommend at the July 20 school board meeting that the district draft a petition for a multiple-site charter.

French’s vision is to have two systems operating within the district. One would consist of schools following the state Education Code; the other would include schools operating under the charter.

“I think the advantage of having multiple sites is that there would be a continuity in program from kindergarten through 12th grade,” he said. “I see it as a way of encouraging the staff and the community to look at different ways of providing education and catering it to individual needs of students.”

Despite his enthusiasm, French knows the proposal is bound to be controversial.

Before a charter proposal can be approved, it must receive the approval of 50% of the teachers at the participating sites or 10% of the total teaching staff.

“I think there will be a lot of discussion about this,” French said. “I plan to start talking with principals in August about the advantages of the proposal, and I will encourage them to work with their staffs and communities.”

A majority of board members last week said they also are in favor of pursuing the plan--some even envisioned having most of the district’s 36 schools eventually involved under the multi-site charter.

Board President Maureen Aschoff said she believes the charter plan would help implement the Republican philosophy regarding education reform: less government and more control at the campus level.

“Public education belongs to the public, and the public in general has lost confidence in government programming,” she said. “It’s a lack of confidence in our government, and they want to see a change.”

There are now 87 charter schools in California, with two additional schools expecting to receive final approval later this week. State law allows up to 100 schools to receive a charter, and no more than 10 from each school district.

Santiago Middle School in Orange is the only charter school in Orange County.

Although there are now charters offering alternative education at various sites in California, there is no charter program that unites regular school campuses under a single plan, said David Patterson, an educational consultant with the state Department of Education.

In addition to the Orange school district, schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District also are considering establishing a multiple-campus charter.

“When someone says they’re going to combine regular school campuses together, it kind of takes your breath away because it seems very dramatic,” Patterson said. But because the charter school law doesn’t specifically define what a “school” is, a multiple-site charter is legal, he said.

The Orange school district’s charter report was written by a subcommittee of the district’s Fiscal Advisory Committee, a group made up of parents and community activists. The idea to establish a multiple-campus charter school is in itself a departure from traditional educational practices, but it’s likely to stir even more controversy because of the district’s beleaguered past.

Within the past few years, teachers and others have gone on strike and three top administrators have been accused of sexual harassment. Eight superintendents have come and gone since 1989. District officials also have been accused of bid-rigging, and five previous trustees were targeted for recall.

Despite the school board members’ contention that they are pursuing the charter to improve the quality of education, some critics believe the board simply wants to be free of state guidelines to advance their own interests.

Members of the 1,200-member teachers union, which plans to take legal action against the district because of contract disputes, believe the board wants to establish the charter to get around state laws that protect teachers’ jobs. Stevens and other teachers worry that the charter school would be run by a coterie of activist parents with axes to grind.

“The hardest part is going to be to get the teachers to approve it,” said Kathy Moran, a parent activist who served on the committee that drafted the charter report. “It’ll be controversial because it takes power away from the teachers union. But if we have many parents who want to try it, I think we would find that the teachers would be willing to try it.”

Teachers also fear that board members want to establish a multiple-campus charter to advance their own conservative philosophies.

Trustee Martin Jacobson, who has been an activist in the anti-abortion movement for years, said he hopes the charter would allow schools to teach creationism and possibly initiate prayers in school, if the majority of the community supports those practices.

“You of course would have to use common sense,” he said. “But I feel very strongly that parents should have control over public education.”

Another trustee, Max Reissmueller, also supports the charter plan because he said it increases parental control of education.

Last October, Reissmueller abruptly pulled his daughter out of Chapman Hills Elementary School, saying that the school’s observance of Halloween offended his Christian beliefs. He now home-schools his 7-year-old daughter.

Public schools have become “the social welfare department for children,” he said. “Children go to school to be educated, not to be pampered, not to be fed. . . . To be educated--that’s what the district needs to focus on.”

Opponents of the plan also fear that the board’s interest in establishing a charter stems from its interest in privatizing school services. Last fall, trustees appointed a committee to study the charter concept after they realized that the state Education Code prohibits them from hiring a private management firm to run the district.

“[Other trustees] have been pushing every way they can to turn the whole district into a charter,” said board member James Fearns, who plans to vote against pursuing a charter. “There are sneaky ways to get around the law.”

Fearns said four of the seven board members are likely to favor the plan, and “three of them are of a mind to privatize anything that moves in that district.”

Jimma McWilson, an organizer of a San Diego community group that tried unsuccessfully to get its multiple-site charter school petition approved, said districts must have their sole focus on students when they try to start a charter school.

“If they’re doing it to privatize, they’re doing it for the wrong reason,” he said. “When the bottom-line goal is not to improve the quality of education, you’ve already prostituted your case.”

But Trustee Bill Lewis denied that privatization is the motive behind the charter plan.

“I’m not looking at privatization as much as getting rid of some of the weight of the Education Code,” Lewis said.

French said he’s not sure of the board’s motivation in pursuing a multiple-site charter. But he said he believes a charter could improve the quality of education because it would allow the district to pursue “cost-effective, new ways of providing instructional services and teaching.”

“There would be more flexibility in hiring,” he said. “And the charter allows the schools to purchase certain services, such as transportation and maintenance, outside the normal way.”

French has not determined whether establishing a multiple-site charter would be economically beneficial for the district, but he said individual schools would be able to determine ways of “getting more for their money.”