Under pressure from the Texas Education Agency (head by charter-loving non-educator Commissioner Mike Morath), the Houston Independent School District board was considering a proposal to turn its 10 lowest-scoring schools over to a charter chain.
However, the meeting last night brought out a raucous protest against the proposal and the school board dropped the idea. It will ask for a one-year delay by the state.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
They probably didn’t have a back door or window to crawl through to escape the protestors so to save their skin, they “dropped the idea” … for now. If they bring it back, they will schedule a closed-door meeting so they can ram it through with no witnesses or protestors.
LikeLike
“. . . interim superintendent, Grenita Lathan, in a statement Wednesday. “Instead, we will continue to reinforce our commitment to helping students, staff, and families of our Achieve 180 schools continue the hard work they’ve done this year to transform their campuses and increase student achievement.”
Well, when the super adminimal seeks to “increase student achievement” you know that the focus is in the wrong area. Way to lead, Supeadmin! (said with all the snark and sarcasm I can muster)
LikeLike
Meanwhile, I see that ALEC is meeting April 27, 2018 to get more model legislation in the works charter schools and Education Savings Accounts.
Among the new efforts is a proposed amendment to ALEC’s The Environmentally Sustainable Charter School Admissions Act, Subsection 6(C) about Enrollment Preferences. Here is the current model law on enrollment preferences.
(1) Any non-charter public school converting partially or entirely to a public charter school shall adopt and maintain a policy giving enrollment preference to students who reside within the former attendance area of that public school.
(2) A public charter school shall give enrollment preference to students enrolled in the public charter school the previous school year and to siblings of students already enrolled in the public charter school. An enrollment preference for returning students excludes those students from entering into a lottery.
(3) A public charter school may give enrollment preference to children of a public charter school’s founders, governing Board or Commission members, and full-time employees, so long as they constitute no more than 10 percent of the school’s total student population.
(5) This section does not preclude the formation of a public charter school whose mission is focused on serving students with disabilities, students of the same gender, students who pose such severe disciplinary problems that they warrant a specific educational program, or students who are at risk of academic failure. If capacity is insufficient to enroll all students who wish to attend such school, the public charter school shall select students through a lottery.
HERE IS THE AMENDMENT:
“(4) In order to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, a charter school may adopt an environmentally sustainable admissions policy that gives preference to students who either 1) live near the school, or 2) have a parent who works near the school. Under this policy, students will be admitted to each class based on the minimum driving distance from the school to either (1) The student’s home address, OR (2) the parent’s job address. The environmentally sustainable admissions policy, if implemented, shall be applied after any enrollment preference under (1), (2) or (3) above. No more than 50 percent of the seats in each class shall be reserved under the environmentally sustainable admissions policy. An enrollment preference for students under the environmentally sustainable admissions policy excludes those students from entering into a lottery.“
The clear intent is to limit the number of students admitted by lottery and increase enrollments for students who live near the school or who have a parent that works near the charter school.
For its April 27, 2018 meeting, ALEC is also entertaining a new version of its “Education Savings Account Act,” the Economic Development Zone ESA Act. The bill would make education savings accounts (ESAs) available to low-income students in Economic Development Zones, as defined by the federal Department of Labor. Here are a few sections of the Act.
“Economic Development Zone” means a set of contiguous census tracts having a population of not less than 25,000 persons that has been designated by the state Department of Commerce for economic development and job creation or for job attraction efforts.”
One technical definition of a low-income census tract is a poverty rate of at least 20%., but there are other metrics. These indicate that the incomes of most families in the census tract will make them eligible. I looked at the map of Economic Development Zones for greater Cincinnati. Families living in almost all suburbs would be eligible.
Basic Elements of The Education Savings Account Act.
Parents who setup an education savings account (ESA) for a child “sign an agreement promising:
To provide an education …”in at least the subjects of reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science;” and “not to enroll their eligible student in a district or charter school.” However, “a participating student is counted in the enrollment figures for his or her resident school district.”
“The state shall deposit into an Education Savings Account the dollar amount the resident school district would have received to serve and educate the eligible student from state and local sources had the student enrolled there.”
This seems to mean the state will fund the ESA by commandeering local property taxes for the student and add those sums to the state allocations to the district. No other part of the law has the same passage about local sources. However, an end note does reflect the intent to capture local funds for ESAs in addition to state funds: “This updated model legislation recommends that students with an ESA receive the same public investment in their education as those attending traditional public schools.” If so, that means that local taxes for public schools migrate to ESAs, not just funds from the state.
The model legislation is worth looking at. Key decisions about what money can be used for and how it is managed are outlined in the draft legislation. The writers anticipate resistance from state officials in charge of public education and so they recommend a separate non-profit as manager of this new bureaucracy (my term) and payments of fees for account management to private financial management firms, with some portion of these fees prorated for every ESA account.
After extended legal clauses to assure us there is administrative, fiscal, and academic accountability, the endnotes address some loose ends with political implications.
“If legislators are concerned about the hostility the program would face from the existing Department of Public Instruction, they may choose to consider other capable departments, create a new small agency or contract with a private nonprofit organization to administer the program.
Under 42 USC 1981, private schools are already prohibited from discriminating with respect to race, color and national origin.” “In addition, if private schools are recipients of federal funds, they are subject to nondiscrimination requirements under 42 USC 2000d (race, color, national origin) and 29 USC 794 (disability).”
“If you choose to include language, banning discrimination in hiring on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability, take care not to interfere with the ability of religious institutions to hire individuals who share their religious beliefs.”
“The model legislation provides schools with the tools they need to ensure that students will be safe. The schools are required to conduct criminal background checks on existing and potential employees, and then they are given the flexibility to determine from this information whether the employee might pose a risk to students.“
“This language is valuable in two cases: 1) a small number of states prohibit discriminating against felons in hiring even for sensitive positions in schools, and this language would give schools clear authority to dismiss or not hire individual who pose a risk to student safety; and 2) some religious schools see rehabilitation as part of their mission. In this case, the schools could hire someone with a criminal background who they believe is no longer a threat to students, such as someone who committed nonviolent crimes or has decades-old violations followed by a clean record. This language would give schools the responsibility to do background checks and the power to exclude potential risks from the school.”
“Legislators sincerely wishing to demonstrate the program’s academic success to taxpayers could require a scientific evaluation of the program using the testing data established in Section 5(C). It is crucial that the legislature give the oversight responsibility for this study to a trusted objective nonpartisan source like a legislative service agency or a trusted research university department.”
The Endnotes are filled with specifications for the research wanted and advice on what to do if the results are less than spectacular. The legalize clearly shows how “objective scientific research” is wanted if it will “demonstrate the academic success” of the program. Foundations who want to see ESAs succeed will be abundant. Some have paid for research programs. These are sure to be enlisted for evaluations. For an understanding of ALEC’s funding try this website among others https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
LikeLike
“The state shall deposit into an Education Savings Account the dollar amount the resident school district would have received to serve and educate the eligible student from state and local sources had the student enrolled there.”
Wow. That’s really radical. They’re creating a special state school system with preferential funding for private schools.
I think when a few more ed reformers lose elections you’ll start to see legal challenges to the more radical elements of privatization.
It’s coming to a head. Ed reformers are over-reaching, as usual.
The Movement suffers from arrogance. They’re so convinced they’re the smartest guys in the room they are incapable of quitting while they’re ahead.
Now they want PREFERENTIAL treatment for the private schools they prefer and all attended.
LikeLike
Thanks for tracking ALEC and keeping us up to date, Laura!!
LikeLike
The idea that struggling schools should be punished is just crazy. If they’re struggling give them more resources and support.
LikeLike
This can’t be true. Diane. All the DC lobbying groups who support privatization tell us over and over that locals loathe public schools and cannot wait to hand them over to contractors.
Don’t you read The 74? Charter schools are excellent and public schools suck, and the only children who remain in public schools are those who are “trapped” there.
According to ed reformers, 90% of US families are being held against their will inside public schools. Only ed reformers can save them from the evil labor unionists.
Ignore these passionate public protests. The real “grass roots” in America are the paid lobbyists who attend ed reform conventions in DC.
LikeLike
It is so good to see residents of red states protesting privatization and are willing to stand up for their rights to a free public education, although Houston is a blue city in a red state, to be fair. I hope more parents and community members get involved when the powerful try to shut down or starve public schools in favor of charters. We need lots of people to defend their public schools, or we run the risk of losing them.
LikeLike
It’s a myth that handing low performing schools over to charter organizations will solve all the problems. Yet districts across the US are pushing for this change when data does not favor it.
LikeLike