Parents call on state to revoke charter

Children chanted “CSO Said No Go,’’ a call to the state’s Charter School Office not to recommend approval of the new Gloucester Community Arts Charter School, a recommendation that was disregarded by the board that approved it last winter.

Parents held signs that read, “Do The Right Thing Revoke,’’ and “Charter Group Tells Tall Tales,’’ in a spirited protest that prompted state Education Commissioner Mitchell D. Chester to briefly address the crowd of about 30 people, who believe the charter approval process was politically motivated.

“All I can tell you is that for me . . . my calculus was based on one thing, the merits of the application,’’ Chester said, speaking calmly surrounded by protesters.

The meeting was scheduled to review the process the board used to approve the charter for the school, which proponents said is needed to provide an alternative form of public education for Gloucester families. The elementary school would provide an arts-based curriculum and would be located downtown, where many of the city’s economically disadvantaged students live.

“Gloucester suffers, just as much as other [communities] with an achievement gap,’’ said Amy Ballin, a charter school organizer. ’’ A significant population of our children is being underserved.’’

The gathering also provided a forum for state Education Secretary Paul Reveille to address the contents of an e-mail he sent Feb. 5 to Chester, which opponents say shows the charter was approved to further Governor Deval Patrick’s education reform agenda, rather than for sound education reasons. Patrick has since twice called on the board to review its decision.

During the meeting, Reveille apologized to anyone in Gloucester who may have been offended by the e-mail.

“I am sorry for the role I have played in contributing to any misunderstanding,’’ Reveille said to more than 100 people who filled the auditorium at City Hall.

He said the e-mail was “one piece of a lengthy conversation’’ that education officials had while discussing applications for charter schools proposed for Gloucester, Waltham and Worcester, his hometown.

The e-mail, stated in part, “Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we’ll get permanently labeled as hostile and that will cripple us with a number of key, moderate allies,’’ Reveille wrote on Feb. 5, and included the Globe as a potential ally. “It really is a matter of positioning ourselves so that we can be viable to implement the rest of our agenda. It’s a tough but necessary pill to swallow.’’

He added that the e-mail was part of the “process of deliberations. We all get advice from staff on a variety of issues.’’

Yesterday’s meeting was held to address other issues swirling around the decision to approve the charter as well, including an allegation that the state education board did not have a member present at a public hearing held last year in Gloucester on the charter proposal, as required by state law. The board later waived the requirement.

That decision prompted a rebuke from State Senator Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, who yesterday urged the board to reconsider its vote.

“The board has shown previously that it will waive rules,’’ said Tarr, one of many Gloucester officials who addressed the board.

A lawyer hired by the state to advise the Board of Education said state law only allows for the board to suspend or revoke a charter for a cause, such as financial problems or poor academic performance. Action can also be taken if there is “material misrepresentation’’ or false information presented to the board to influence an outcome of a vote, said the lawyer David Kerrigan.

“I am not going to say you should or should not do this. But if you did, that is the standard,’’ Kerrigan told the board. “Simply reconsidering your vote is not consistent with state law.’’

A lawyer representing the charter school said the standard to prove material representation is very high.

“It’s not a low threshold,’’ said Tad Heuer, a Boston lawyer. “I believe the allegations do not even approach the standards to even revisit the decision, no less revoke.’’

Some Gloucester residents have criticized the charter school as duplicating services already offered in Gloucester schools. “What they’re proposing is imitation, not innovation,’’ said Sarah Grow, a parent of school-age children, after the hearing. “This board should do the right thing, look at the evidence, and revoke this charter.’’

City officials also fear a loss of state education funding if the school opens. On average, about $10,000 is deducted for every student who attends the charter school rather than a local public school district.

“In a way, this is a fight about money,’’ said Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk, who sits on the school committee, at the meeting. “We can’t ignore that reality.’’

The state board is next expected to take up the Gloucester charter proposal at its Nov. 17 meeting but it’s unclear what, if any, action will be taken.

“We have to be really clear and sure of what we do next,’’ said Maura Banta, the board chairwoman.

Kathy McCabe can be reached at kmccabe@globe.com.