Legislation watch
2001 House Bill 4800
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Wayne Kuipers (R) on May 22, 2001, to increase the cap on the number of charter schools, to give priority to academies that set measurable educational goals and benchmarks (including plans to close student achievement gaps based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status), exempt charter schools employees from collective bargaining agreements that apply to other schools in the district, require special education programs at charters, require financial and other disclosures about educational management organizations contracted to operate charter schools, and specify the provisions of such contracts, and to allow changes in enrollment, personnel, borrowing, bonding, legal, and school board procedures.
- Referred to the House Education Committee on May 22, 2001.
- Substitute offered in the House on May 1, 2002, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which incorporates the recommendations of the McPherson Charter School Commission, authorized by the governor to find a "compromise" between opponents and supporters of charter schools regarding raising the existing cap of 150 university-chartered schools. This would allow 55 additional charter schools to be created, five in 2002, and 10 per year through 2007. Only one new charter per year would be allowed in Detroit. An additional 175 "special purpose" charter schools would be allowed by 2017, at least 50 percent of whose students must be considered “at risk.” In return, charter schools would be subject to many more state regulations, would have to adopt the same collective bargaining agreements as intermediate school districts under certain conditions, and would be subject to the same or similar comprehensive reporting requirements as regular public schools regarding management, supervisory, and teaching personnel; curriculum; leases; contracts; management contracts with private educational management companies; budgets; and more. Other new regulations would require open enrollment periods, and outreach efforts to special education pupils. If a charter closed, all property and assets it owned would revert to the state. The ability of Bay Mills Community College to create an unlimited number of charters would be limited to the area of the Upper Peninsula it now serves, rather than the entire state. (Bay Mills Community College technically serves Indians across the state, so under current law can establish charter schools anywhere in the state). The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 1, 2002.
- Amendment offered by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III (D) on May 1, 2002, to authorize a legislator to initiate a state investigation of a charter school. The amendment failed 41 to 54 in the House on May 1, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Ken Bradstreet (R) on May 1, 2002, to allow more than one new charter school per year for Detroit. The amendment failed 29 to 73 in the House on May 1, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tom George (R) on May 1, 2002, to require the Department of Education to conduct a long term study of the role and performance record of charter schools. The amendment passed 88 to 15 in the House on May 1, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paul DeWeese (R) on May 1, 2002, to not include special education students among those that would be required to comprise 50 percent of the enrollment of the proposed "special purpose" charter schools. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 1, 2002.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jack Minore (D) on May 1, 2002, to require the Department of Education to conduct study of the role and performance record of charter schools to be completed by May 1, 2007, and to let the law authorizing charter schools expire on July 1, 2007, unless its sunset is extended by the legislature. The amendment failed 54 to 47 in the House on May 1, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jack Minore (D) on May 1, 2002, to require the Department of Education to conduct study of the role and performance record of charter schools to be completed by May 1, 2007, and to let the proposed provision authorizing additional charter schools expire on July 1, 2007, unless its sunset is extended by the legislature. The amendment failed 54 to 46 in the House on May 1, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Ray Basham (D) on May 1, 2002, to reconsider the vote by which the House did not adopt the amendments offered by Minore. The amendment failed 47 to 55 in the House on May 1, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Doug Hart (R) on May 1, 2002, to eliminate a provision of the law requiring a charter school created by a school district to operate under the same collective bargaining agreement as the one covering regular public schools, and eliminate a proposed provision requiring a charter school created by an intermediate school district (ISD) that is a conversion of an existing program of the ISD (such as a special purpose charter school intended to serve “at risk” or special education pupils) to operate under the same collective bargaining agreement as the one covering the existing program in the ISD. The amendment failed 17 to 86 in the House on May 1, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Doug Hart (R) on May 1, 2002, to allow more than one new charter school per year for Detroit. The amendment failed 23 to 80 in the House on May 1, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Brian Palmer (R) on May 1, 2002, to allow more than one new charter school per year for the Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, and Utica school districts. The amendment failed 22 to 83 in the House on May 1, 2002.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jerry Vander Roest (R) on May 1, 2002, to require that if a charter school contracts with a private management company, it must have a different auditor from the one used by the management company. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 1, 2002.
- Amendment offered by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III (D) on May 1, 2002, to allow Wayne County Community College to authorize charter schools. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 1, 2002.
- Failed 54 to 52 in the House on May 1, 2002, to amend the charter school law to incorporate the recommendations of the McPherson Charter School Commission, authorized by the governor to find a "compromise" between opponents and supporters of charter schools regarding raising the existing cap of 150 university-chartered schools. This would allow 55 additional charter schools to be created, five in 2002, and 10 per year through 2007. Only one new charter per year would be allowed in Detroit. An additional 175 "special purpose" charter schools would be allowed by 2017, at least 50 percent of whose students must be considered “at risk.” In return, charter schools would be subject to many more state regulations, would have to adopt the same collective bargaining agreements as intermediate school districts under certain conditions, and would be subject to the same or similar comprehensive reporting requirements as regular public schools regarding management, supervisory, and teaching personnel; curriculum; leases; contracts; management contracts with private educational management companies; budgets; and more. Other new regulations would require open enrollment periods, and outreach efforts to special education pupils. If a charter closed, all property and assets it owned would revert to the state. The ability of Bay Mills Community College to create an unlimited number of charters would end, and it would be covered by the same cap that applies to state universities. (Bay Mills Community College technically serves Indians across the state, so under current law can establish charter schools anywhere in the state).
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on May 1, 2002, to amend the charter school law to incorporate the recommendations of the McPherson Charter School Commission, authorized by the governor to find a "compromise" between opponents and supporters of charter schools regarding raising the existing cap of 150 university-chartered schools. This would allow 55 additional charter schools to be created, five in 2002, and 10 per year through 2007. Only one new charter per year would be allowed in Detroit. An additional 175 "special purpose" charter schools would be allowed by 2017, at least 50 percent of whose students must be considered “at risk.” In return, charter schools would be subject to many more state regulations, would have to adopt the same collective bargaining agreements as intermediate school districts under certain conditions, and would be subject to the same or similar comprehensive reporting requirements as regular public schools regarding management, supervisory, and teaching personnel; curriculum; leases; contracts; management contracts with private educational management companies; budgets; and more. Other new regulations would require open enrollment periods, and outreach efforts to special education pupils. If a charter closed, all property and assets it owned would revert to the state. The ability of Bay Mills Community College to create an unlimited number of charters would end, and it would be covered by the same cap that applies to state universities. (Bay Mills Community College technically serves Indians across the state, so under current law can establish charter schools anywhere in the state).
- Substitute offered by Rep. Bruce Patterson (R) on May 1, 2002, to reconsider the vote by which the House did not pass the bill. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 1, 2002.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Wayne Kuipers (R) on December 3, 2002. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on December 3, 2002.
Comments
1) No Vote Explanation by Admin002 on May 29, 2002Reps. Callahan, Kolb, Spade, Basham, Zelenko, Bogardus, Dennis, Woodward, Murphy, Jamnick, Lipsey, Williams, Phillips and Wojno made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on House Bill 4800 (H-4) because charter schools are public schools, funded with public tax dollars. As such it is our responsibility to ensure that students attending them are receiving top quality education.
While this bill improves the oversight requirements for charter schools, the Department does not have the staff to implement these new requirements. Without additional resources, these provisions are useless, and yet the cap on charter schools would be vastly increased just the same.
In addition, a report on the progress of charter schools is expected from the Legislative Auditor General shortly. The information in that report should prove invaluable in determining the policies and standards governing charter schools.
For these reasons, I believe this bill does not include the best policies to ensure the success of our students attending charter schools. Therefore, I voted no on its passage."
Reps. Waters and Clark, Garza, Hardman, Hale made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on House Bill (H-4) because charter schools are public schools, funded with public tax dollars. As such it is our responsibility to ensure that the students attending them are receiving top quality education.
While this bill improves the oversight requirements for charter schools, the Department does not have the staff to implement these new requirements. Without additional resources, these provisions are useless, and yet the cap on charter schools would be vastly increased just the same.
In addition, a report on the progress of charter schools is expected from the Legislative Auditor General shortly. The information in that report should prove invaluable in determining the policies and standards governing charter schools.
Finally, proponents of this version state that the bill would hold Detroit harmless by limiting the number of new charter schools created within the city limits. Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent the 15 surrounding communities from establishing 2 charter schools in each of those districts on Detroit's border, pulling valuable resources and targeting pupils from within Detroit.
For these reasons, I believe this bill does not include the best policies to ensure the success of our students attending charter schools. Therefore, I voted no on its passage."
Introduced in the House on May 22, 2001, to amend the charter school law to incorporate the recommendations of the McPherson Charter School Commission, authorized by the governor to find a "compromise" between opponents and supporters of charter schools regarding raising the existing cap of 150 university-chartered schools. This would allow 55 additional charter schools to be created, five in 2002, and 10 per year through 2007. Only one new charter per year would be allowed in Detroit. An additional 175 "special purpose" charter schools would be allowed by 2017, at least 50 percent of whose students must be considered “at risk.” In return, charter schools would be subject to many more state regulations, would have to adopt the same collective bargaining agreements as intermediate school districts under certain conditions, and would be subject to the same or similar comprehensive reporting requirements as regular public schools regarding management, supervisory, and teaching personnel; curriculum; leases; contracts; management contracts with private educational management companies; budgets; and more. Other new regulations would require open enrollment periods, and outreach efforts to special education pupils. If a charter closed, all property and assets it owned would revert to the state. The ability of Bay Mills Community College to create an unlimited number of charters would end, and it would be covered by the same cap that applies to state universities. (Bay Mills Community College technically serves Indians across the state, so under current law can establish charter schools anywhere in the state)
The vote was 54 in favor, 52 opposed and 3 not voting
(House Roll Call 642 at House Journal 39)
Click here to view bill details.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
