Charter school battle ranks growing thin

For nearly a year, state officials have worked to quiet the local uproar triggered by their approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School.

On Saturday afternoon, at least, they succeeded.

The large, ornery uprising of residents that some had expected to greet the state Board of Education at City Hall turned out to be several dozen parents and children, colorful but well-behaved.

And after two hours of rigidly defined legal and procedural discussion, even the most passionate protestors, who entered chanting and waving signs, left the proceeding seeming stumped.

Education Secretary Paul Reville, vilified across the state for the political calculations apparent in his e-mail of support for the Gloucester charter school, spoke at length about being misunderstood with only minimal hissing.

And far from being cowed by the locals, Education Board member Thomas Fortmann — one of the staunchest charter supporters on the panel — was out in front of City Hall after the meeting smiling, looking for restaurant recommendations.

Two days later, it is unclear that anything surrounding the charter has changed — or what, if anything, was learned on Saturday.

When the meeting was proposed by board Chairwoman Maura Banta at the height of controversy over the charter school, with calls for revocation and Reville's resignation, its agenda became the subject of intense jockeying by charter supporters and opponents.

As it turned out, the agenda was to hear a legal opinion on what kind of case the state would have if it tried to revoke the charter school's charter.

Not a great case, according to lawyer David Kerrigan.

The board is taking the issue up again in Malden on Nov. 17 and, based on the backgrounds, comments, and previous votes of some members, will include some sentiment to quash the Gloucester charter approval because of flaws in the process.

But the more likely outcome, considering the legal warning from Kerrigan and the fact that no official has admitted wrongdoing outside of poor communication skills, is that the charter will open as planned, as the school's founders have said all along it will.

And if that is the case, local opponents are almost certain to ask what the real motivation was for holding this meeting in Gloucester at this time.

As a public relations move, the event had obvious advantages.

The board now can answer the charge that it never came to Gloucester to hear the people's concerns, even if those concerns were mostly confined to chants and homemade signs.

While the reception given the state contingent was not favorable, the mood was far less tense than it had been in September when Banta offered to come here in the wake of Reville's e-mail and statewide media scrutiny.

The prospect of pursuing revocation of the Gloucester charter for cause, always a longshot, seems almost impossible now that the Gloucester charter school's lawyers can point to Kerrigan's description of the legal case against them as a tough one.

Should it announce Nov. 17 that it is not pursuing any further action in the matter, the board can point to Kerrigan's description of all the legal and procedural hurdles standing in the way of such a move as sound reason why.

This summer, before Reville's e-mail was published, Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester and Banta rebuffed Gov. Deval Patrick's request to reconsider the charter on the basis that it could not be done legally.

Contributing to the suspicion among some charter school opponents that the board is using the meeting as an "out" was the fact that the agenda specifically referenced options for revoking the charter for "material misrepresentation" but not for flaws in the approval process.

That was a source of frustration for state Sen. Bruce Tarr and state Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante, who argued that the possibility of annulling the board's own actions made more sense in the first place.

The longer the debate about the charter school drags on with only minimal action on the state level, the more likely divisions among the local school and city leaders who have fought it will be drawn out.

On Saturday, Mayor Carolyn Kirk issued the strongest indication yet that, while she still opposes the loss of an estimated $2.4 million in state aid to the charter, she was prepared to move on.

In response to Tarr's suggestion that the city needs to get a lawyer, Kirk said that, while the School Committee was welcome to, she would not enlist City Solicitor Suzanne Egan.

Even for the Gloucester School Committee, the decision to keep fighting the charter at all costs appears to be getting more difficult. Asked whether she would vote to authorize the School Committee's use of an attorney, member Val Gilman said she would, but expressed wariness at the prospect of more hours, weeks and months being dedicated to the fight.

"It has just become a distraction," Gilman said. "It is just not ending.

"We want to get back to focusing on teaching and learning," she said, "but you have to fight for $2.4 million."

Two weeks ago, when Superintendent Christopher Farmer asked the School Committee for permission to spend more time working on the issue, the unanimous response was that there were other things that needed his attention.

Of course, when controversy about the charter has died down before, something else has emerged to reignite it.

Tarr and Ferrante, meanwhile, have asked the state Inspector General to investigate the entire charter approval process. They have also made large public records requests of the state Education Department, along with representatives of proposed charter schools that have been rejected in previous years.

On top of that, lawmakers are expected to start debate in the coming days or weeks on a bill proposed by Gov. Deval Patrick that would expand the number of charter schools in Massachusetts.

Ferrante said lawmakers trying to learn about the issue had been asking about the mess in Gloucester. She said she thought the issue could taint the legislation proposed by Patrick.

Patrick Anderson can be reached at 978-283-7000, x3455, or via e-mail at panderson@gloucestertimes.com.

Local News

Search Results

Related Photos

Discussion

Lack of revocation case seen quieting once-vocal opponents

Site Map

Contact Us