INDIAN RIVER COUNTY – Four of the county’s charter schools can expect to get a portion of $2 million that they can use to build new structures, renovate existing ones or purchase equipment. The funds will come out of the district’s budget that had been earmarked for the schools – $1 million from last year’s budget and $1 million from this year.
The school board voted 3-2 to approve the allocation after nearly two hours of discussion and three years after the then-school board made commitments to the charter schools that it would share its funding with them. “I think it’s wonderful,” Dr. Marge McAdams, of Sebastian Charter Junior High, said of finally getting some district funds.
Ken Miller, of North County Charter School, expressed similar reaction.
Members Debbie MacKay and Claudia Jimenez voted against the motion.
Exactly how much each of the schools would receive is not quite clear. School district staff had calculated the proposed funding based on the number of students at each of the charters.
However, School Board member Carol Johnson proposed the district divvy out the funds based on a needs assessment study the district commissioned.
That study showed the charters had wildly differing levels of need divvied up as follows:
Indian River Charter High: 54 percent – $1.08 million
Sebastian Charter Jr. High: 24 percent – $480,000
North County Charter: 17 percent – $340,000
St. Peter’s Academy Elementary: 5 percent – $100,000
In order to receive the money, however, the charters will have to provide a spending plan in writing to the school district so that it can be presented to the general counsel of the Florida Department of Education for review.
“That’s a lot of money going out the door” without restrictions, said Assistant Superintendent Michael Degutis. “We’re not OK with it at all.”
School District Attorney Usher “Larry” Brown cautioned the school board numerous times before the vote that they must tread carefully in giving money to the charter schools, even though state law permits it.
Charter schools are not required to build school structures to the same standards as traditional schools. And if a charter school were to fail and was not built to the standards the district must meet, the district would not be able to acquire the building for student use.
Brown also voiced concern about the possibility of the charters not using the district-provided funds for capital projects – those that include construction and purchasing equipment. “Capital outlay funds,” as the district calls them, cannot be used for salaries or staff.
“I’m really just concerned” that the money would be spent on something “deemed inappropriate,” Brown told the school board, which could open the district up to legal sanctions.
School board members MacKay and Jimenez argued against allocating the funds to the charter schools based on questions of equity and the service the charters do or do not provide to students.
MacKay said that the district is not treating all its students fairly – giving preference to the charters’ students by giving the schools funds. She said district students are not afforded “choice” as charter kids are, explaining that the district has not granted waivers to students who want to stay at their school rather than be rezoned to another school.
She also argued that the district provides special programs for students who have special needs – programs that the traditional schools pay for, not the charter schools.
Jimenez said she was fully prepared to support allocating the funds to the schools when she arrived at the board meeting but changed her mind by the time the issue came to a vote.
She said she was concerned about setting a precedent of the district helping to fund the charter schools, which is supposed to be the state’s responsibility – even though the state does not fully fund the schools.
Jimenez also said that creating a charter school is a conscious choice and as such should have a plan for funding its own needs.
“This is not easy,” Jimenez said of her decision.