Princeton Public Schools Protest Charter School Expansion In Letter To Education Commissioner

PRINCETON, NJ — The Princeton Public School District submitted its formal opposition to the Princeton Charter School’s plan to expand to New Jersey Acting Commissioner of Education Kimberley Harrington this week.

In its letter, submitted on Monday, the school district opposes the plan for three reasons:
1) procedural violations in the development and approval of the application;
2) spurious claims within the application that, if implemented, would negatively impact students and represent an irresponsible use of limited public funds; and
3) public policy implications should the application be approved that could undermine the democratic process within the community and the oversight of the charter school movement within the state.
Princeton Charter School Head of School Lawrence Patton said the school is reviewing the public school district’s response, and will respond accordingly.

In December, the Princeton Charter School filed an application with the New Jersey Department of Education to introduce a weighted lottery system that would benefit economically disadvantaged children and to expand in grades K-2.

Princeton Superintendent of Public Schools Steve Cochrane has said that if students transferred to the charter school from the public school district, it wouldn’t be enough to reduce grade populations to the point where the district would need to employ fewer teachers and staff members, but it would be enough that the district would have to pay the charter school additional tuition, under state guidelines.

It also wouldn’t help with the public school district’s growing population problem, as Cochrane has said the biggest problem is at the high school level.

In its letter to the education commissioner, the district said the public school district have to pay the charter school an additional $1.2 million each year to educate 76 students who are already in the district.

It said this would eliminate nearly all of the allowable 2 percent increase in the tax levy that the district counts on every year to fund contractual increases in salaries for teachers, the hiring of new staff to address rising enrollments, the general increase in operating costs, and any program enhancements envisioned as part of its Strategic Plan.

This would impact the quality of education for potentially every student in the Princeton Public Schools, including 500 students with special needs, numerous English Language Learners, and the nearly 12% of our students who are economically disadvantaged, the district said. It would also have a negative impact on the quality of education at the high school, which is where students from both districts ultimately end up.

Princeton Charter School Board of Trustees President Paul Josephson has said the charter school won’t be taking students from the school district, but instead help accommodate the growing population of students.

He also said “it is plain that the enrollment spike is affecting all grades at PPS, not just the high school,” and it will continue in the coming months.

In its letter, the public school district says the Princeton Charter School violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) in developing and approving a resolution to apply for expansion. It contends this makes the application unauthorized and void.

“The proposal is also politically unfair. Eight publicly unelected trustees of the Princeton Charter School have crafted a proposal that has the potential to impact the use of limited, locally-levied tax dollars in a way that harms the public schools and property values for an entire community,” the district said in the letter. “There was no vote or even discussion by the public about the merits of an expansion prior to PCS’s submission of the application. The public could only make their voices heard through letters, petitions, and phone calls to their elected leaders and to the Commissioner, which they have done passionately and in great number.”

To read the executive summary of the letter, click here.

To read the district’s full response, click here.