Archives for category: Charter Schools

I received the following letter and agreed to post it.

My name is Matt Schuman, and the majority of my professional experience has consisted of teaching and giving back my own law school education knowledge within New York City schools. My most recent school, The Charter High School for Law and Social Justice (“CHSLSJ”), has been in the news for anti-union behavior. Specifically, the management of the school (via its principal and president of the board) terminated eleven of fifteen members covered by the collective bargaining unit. The only four members retained had no overt association with our union activities.

During CHSLSJ’s first year, my colleagues and I voted to unionize with the U.F.T., not only because we wanted protection, but because we genuinely believed a fair and efficient contract would help this new school build up its infrastructure in positive ways that would impact, both short and long-term, the inaugural classes of scholars and their family-members.

While in law school, I learned about the term, “unconscionable behavior”. I learned that such a level of behavior was a very high bar to reach. From a social justice perspective, lawyers and activists do not just throw around that term. By standard definition, the term “unconscionable” means “unreasonably excessive”. The legal definition means “shocking to the conscience and/or an action so harsh that courts would proscribe it.” New York City can be a tough, competitive place, where a survival of the fittest mentality sometimes reigns: eat or be eaten, play or be played. I could easily complain that I and my fellow colleagues were treated unfairly, but what’s more shocking and unconscionable is the effect(s) of these actions on the scholars and their family-members.

The U.F.T., via its president, Michael Mulgrew, has already cited the blatant “hypocrisy” of my school’s actions: a budding institution formed to help young children from the Bronx not only learn about social justice, but actually move along a better pipeline from high-school to law-school has sent the message that people who advocate for basics protections and their rights are not protected (Otis 18).

As a teacher, I’ve always valued working with the underdogs (people who are not given everything and who very often have to endure strenuous fights for what they want in life). That’s why I joined CHSLSJ as a founding team-member. I wanted to do social justice work, and I believed I could do it there!

Until the leadership regime changed during CHSLSJ’s second year, we all were doing such work. I felt honored and motivated to work with CHSLSJ’s founding principal and assistant principal, Ms. Samantha Pugh and Mr. Simon Obas, respectively. I looked at our Board President’s, Mr. Richard Marsico’s curriculum vitae, and saw that he had devoted his early post-Harvard Law School years to studying and stimulating economic empowerment in the Bronx.

Unfortunately, the charter school wave has generated ample political tension. Charter school C.E.O. figureheads and national networks have pushed results at the expense of human treatment. I never believed that our independent, social justice-oriented charter-school would fall victim to the same trends. I’m disappointed. I do not wish for my scholars to learn non-empathetic, guarded, and secretive behavior.

As a writing teacher, I’m aware of potential back-stories in any given situation: nepotism, social preference, fiscal mismanagement, and uncertain economics. Still, teachers, especially ones that open a school’s doors and promote a man’s mission (or brainchild), deserve to be protected, supported, and celebrated. Many of us went down to the principal, Mr. Sean-Thomas Harrell, and asked for communication towards the end of the year about our roles and status. We were met with vague, misleading, and self-serving responses.

On a larger-scale, I worry about the fate of American education both in technologically, disconnected times and during President Trump’s administration. I look at the recent actions of his son and can only compare them to the actions of the people that I’d hoped would be CHSLSJ’s leaders.

CHSLSJ’s unconscionable actions directly touch on the lives of the scholars and the education provided to them by their instructors. We don’t want to raise a generation of “leaders” who cut corners and think they can squeeze by or into positions with lies. We want people who stand on their own two feet. We don’t want people who fend off any criticism with more misleading information. We want people who will be held accountable, because they, themselves, have integrity.

I am sorry that my former scholars have to see their school’s name in print as a result of a legal case and controversy. Their names should be in print as a result of their achievements! In poignant fashion, the law and mock-trial team which I coached this year knocked off Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School where Donald Trump’s son attends. That achievement mattered, because the children of the Bronx saw firsthand that their own success was possible. We all believed that we could turnkey the skills we demonstrated in the courtroom back to the rest of the school, and in turn move in the horizon line for possibilities, and make what is usually a struggle much more obtainable.

What happened is not fair, but more importantly it is not efficient. My scholars and my colleagues who no longer work at CHSLSJ deserve to hear and see the right messages. The first year teacher among us needs to know he will receive support and be championed. The most struggling learner needs to see and know that the positive connections he built up with his/her teachers will not just be mysteriously washed away by someone with whom he does not have a relationship. Power does not bestow that type of privilege.

For these reasons, I do view CHSLSJ management’s behavior as unconscionable. I am shocked, but not disheartened that the emotions of the board’s most important constituents, the scholars, their families, and their teachers, were not even acknowledged once. The lesson learned for leaders in education is that the decisions they make often impact the faces whom they do not see. These same faces, however, have unbelievable potential to stay strong, keep hope, and become needed human leaders who act in the most conscionable of ways. Our schools, and perhaps our American times, primarily depend on this proposition.

Sincerely,

Matt Schuman

Lifelong Educator and Law Program Coach

Source: Otis, Ginger Adams. “Uncivil act to teachers”. NY Daily News. 2 July 2017. P. 18.

Choice advocates favor the idea of “voting with your feet.”

Peter Greene explains why it doesn’t work and will never work.

“A parental foot vote carries no weight. And since parents get their foot votes by trading away actual votes for board members, access to any transparency about school management or finances, and in some cases even simple access to people in charge, it’s a lousy trade. The only thing they can do is that bipedal vote thing, and as we’ve seen, doesn’t carry much weight.

“Vote with your feet” is just a nicer way for charter operators to say “Take it or leave it.”

“Meanwhile, in places like New Orleans, Florida and North Carolina, legislators continue to aid the invisible hand by cutting the competition off at the knees. The more parents are driven toward charter/choice schools, the less those parents matter, and the easier charter operators have it. So let’s systematically gut public education. If people won’t venture out of the public school building– if they won’t vote with their feet the way we need them to– then let’s coax ’em out of that building by setting fire to it. Then it doesn’t matter where the stampede heads– as long as we can catch a sliver of it, we’re good.

“Foot voting is never going to empower parents. In fact, since foot voting requires parents to give up all other forms of leverage, it’s an approach that leaves them with nothing but tired shoe leather.”

Carol Burris, veteran teacher and principal, author and executive director of the Network for Public Education, here analyzes the proposal by the charter committee of the State University of New York to allow charter schools to hire uncertified teachers and to do their own certifying. Among other problems, this insults the education faculty of SUNY, as well as the New York Board of Regents, which sets high standards for new public school teachers in the state. The charter committee includes no educators; its members were appointed by Governor Cuomo.

Burris writes:

The proposed regulations by the State University of New York (SUNY) Board for charter school teacher certification have been posted. The SUNY Board should hang its head in shame. These regulations eliminate nearly all NYS requirements, requirements they themselves have endorsed under the new TEACH certification regulations.

While this proposal may further the political interests of the Governor who appointed 15 of the 18 Board members, and who has received millions in contributions from charter school board members, it does so at the expense of the children who attend the charter schools SUNY authorizes.

In a nutshell, turn up at a charter school door with a bachelors’ degree, and you can become a certified teacher in weeks.

According to the proposed regulations:

· Prospective charter teachers would be required to take only 30 hours of instruction (the equivalent of less than 4 days) by someone who holds a Master’s Degree, including an uncertified teacher whose students got good scores on state tests. (Yes, that nuttiness is written into the regulation.) The 30 hours do not even have to be “real” hours—SUNY’s proposed regulation defines an instructional hour as at least 50 minutes. Instruction can even be provided via video, as long as there is some face to face time.

· For a second certification—only six more hours is all that is required.

· The candidate needs 100 hours of field experience under the supervision of an experienced teacher. That teacher can be uncertified as long as they are a two-year, TFAer, anyone who has taught for 3 years and received satisfactory evaluations, or a university professor. Contrast this field experience requirement with that of SUNY’s Stony Brook University which requires a 75 day internship with a certified teacher. The State Education Department requires a minimum of 40 days.

· The teacher would be eligible to teach in SUNY authorized charters only, essentially relegating them to an indentured servant status. They would be unable to leave for public schools with better pay and better working conditions unless they went through a traditional program which would be very difficult, if not impossible, given the long days required by charter schools.

Speak out and let SUNY know that you are opposed to the proposed regulations. Let them know every New York child deserves a well-trained, qualified teacher.

Sign the Network for Public Education’s petition: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/every-child-deserves-a-well-prepared-teacher?clear_id=true

Call: Ralph A. Rossi II, at (518) 455-4250

Send an e-mail to charters@suny.edu

Mike Klonsky writes about Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s efforts to close another school. Rahm has left his mark as the Great Destroyer of Public Schools in Chicago.

http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com/2017/07/fighting-another-rahm-school-closure-at.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+mikeklonsky+(SmallTalk)&m=1

Mike and his brother Fred interviewed two members of the elected school council of an elementary school called National Teachers Academy, which they are fighting to save.

“It’s both an inspiring and heart-breaking tale of a school community that has managed to survive and thrive despite district misleadership and the rigors of 15 years of top-down, corporate-style reform, only to find itself on the chopping block. After finally achieving Level 1 status, NTA has been marked for closure. Its students could be moved into an expanded (1,800 students) South Loop Elementary — an elementary school that size is criminal — and NTA turned into a new high school for Chinatown…

“The school was launched in 2002 against the background of gentrification of the South Loop neighborhood, with a fancy misleading title (it was never a national teacher training academy) under the direction of a consortium of 15 school partners including universities who promised to deliver strong professional development for teachers at a neighborhood school.

“Instead, what the school got was a takeover by a private turnaround company, AUSL, leading to teacher firings and principal churn. Since 2006, the school has stabilized, developed a strong teacher residency program in partnership with UIC and has now been declared a Level 1 school, based on its rising test scores. Most of the credit for the gains goes to the school’s teachers and students as well as its two most recent principals, Amy Rome and Isaac Castelaz.

“Niketa and Elisabeth’s story recalled the legacy of then-CEO Arne Duncan’s so-called Renaissance 2010 reform initiative which was launched by Mayor Daley in 2004. It called for the closing of more than 80 schools to be replaced by 100 shiny new charters, contract schools, performance schools, turnaround schools, etc…by the year 2010.

“I still remember Duncan speaking to Dodge Elementary parents who were angry over his handing their school over to AUSL, without any input from the community, and promising them that they would be thrilled with his new Renaissance alternatives. But by 2013, CPS was already closing many of the schools Duncan had created.

“Ren 10 was a disaster on all levels. But it was the manufactured spin of this debacle as a “Chicago Miracle” which paved the way for Duncan’s appointment as head of the Department of Education.

“WBEZ’s Becky Vevea wrote at the time:

“In 2008, Dodge was where then president-elect Barack Obama announced Duncan as his pick for Secretary of Education.

“He’s shut down failing schools and replaced their entire staffs, even when it was unpopular,” Obama said at the time. “This school right here, Dodge Renaissance Academy, is a perfect example. Since this school was revamped and reopened in 2003, the number of students meeting state standards has more than tripled.”

“But fast forward another five years, Dodge and Williams are closing their doors.

“This story must have a familiar ring to the parents and students at NTA.

“But, as Elisabeth assured us yesterday, “We’re gonna win… We are an army of parents and allies from all over the city. This is not over.”

“I believe her.”

Steven Singer reviews the panicked reaction of the charter lobby to the report by the NAACP demanding charter accountability and an end to profiteering off the backs of children.

What part of the NAACP was so horrendous and unpalatable to the charteristas?

What is so radical about accountability and transparency?

Shouldn’t local communities have the right to reject for-profit charters? Shouldn’t they have a say in whether a charter opens in their district? At present, charters are foisted onto communities whether they want them or not. That doesn’t seem right.

Charter school cheerleaders like Education Secretary Betsy DeVos call their movement School Choice. Shouldn’t communities get to choose whether they want them there in the first place? If the program is based on the free market, let them make their case to the community before setting up shop. They shouldn’t get to make a backroom deal with your congressman and then start peddling their wares wherever they want.

Moreover, if charter schools are, indeed, public schools, why should they be allowed to operate at a profit? They are supported by tax dollars. That money should go to educating children, not lining the pockets of venture capitalists and hedge fund managers.

The “backroom deal” that Singer refers to is usually not with a congressman, but with the state legislature or the state board or the governor, and it usually is the result of campaign contributions. But why should campaign contributions determine what happens to public schools?

Gary Rubinstein assesses the claim that graduates of charter schools have a dramatically high college graduation rate than public school graduates.

He writes:

“On the heels of the latest call by the NAACP for a charter school moratorium, there has been a media blitz started by The 74 about a report called ‘The Alumni’ in which they claim that charter school graduates go on to graduate college at three to five times the rate of low income students who do not attend charter schools.

“Besides being reported in The 74, it has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Daily News.

“The 74 article is written by Richard Whitmire (as is The Daily News Op-Ed) who is known for his biography about Michelle Rhee (haven’t heard much about her lately) and also one about Rocketship Charters (haven’t heard much about them lately).

“The summary of the report says that they have tracked the students at nine charter networks and found that graduates of those charters have between 25% and 50% of those students also graduate college. Since a commonly quoted statistic is that only 9% of low income students graduate college, these networks seem to be getting between three and five times the rate of college completion.

“The major flaw in this report — and they admit this in The 74, but not in The Daily News (The WSJ is behind a paywall, if someone can read it let me know if they address it there) — is that while the 9% statistic is for ALL students who enter schools, these 25% to 50% numbers are only for the students who complete 12th grade at the schools (KIPP is an exception, they use data from students who complete 8th grade — I’ll get to that later.)”

The claim, he says, is a lie because there is no way to verify the data.

A great post, vintage Rubinstein. Read it. This is what happens when a vert thoughtful person has a passionate commitment to evidence and accuracy, not ideology or self-interest.

Oklahoma has 29 charter schools. The charter law says that charters are not allowed to base enrollment “on a student’s past academic performance, income level or the abilities of their parents.

“However, on their applications, several charter schools in the state require parents to explain their child’s academic abilities in detail, pledge a commitment to volunteer at the school or have the student submit an essay…Oklahoma law prevents charter schools from limiting admissions based on ethnicity, national origin, gender, income level, disabling condition, proficiency in the English language, measures of achievement, aptitude or athletic ability.”

But some charters have found a way around the law.

“ASTEC Charter Schools in Oklahoma City requires that prospective students and parents fill out a 14-page application with over 80 questions, some that ask for short essay responses to questions about the student’s greatest strengths, what causes the student the most problems in life and why they are applying to ASTEC.

“ASTEC’s application also asks for a student’s discipline history, if they have ever received special education services and whether they can write in cursive…

“Some charter school applications are very simple, including Dove Science Academy in Oklahoma City, which only asks for the name and address of the student applying.

“KIPP Tulsa College Preparatory uses a one-page application that only asks for a student’s contact information.

“But Harding Fine Arts charter school in Oklahoma City asks students to submit three essays with their application, including one answering the question, “What makes you a good student?””

The SUNY charter institute oversees 167 charter schools, which it authorized. It doesn’t believe that charter teachers need a traditional certification, the one that other schools in New state must get.

As it happens, SUNY campuses offered teacher education preparing future teachers for their chosen profession and for certification.

The SUNY charter committee is sending a message to its teacher educators that their classes are a waste of time.

Is it wrong to create a shortcut for charter teachers? Shouldn’t all teachers be well prepared? Doesn’t every child deserve a well prepared teacher? If you agree, send an email.

Michigan Technical Academy in Detroit closed its doors. Teachers who had worked there on contract just learned that they would not be paid, because the school has other debts.

Teachers at the Michigan Technical Academy had contracts that required the school to pay them through the summer for work they did during the school year. But the school’s management company, Matchbook Learning, alerted teachers in an email Wednesday that the money would instead go to pay off the school’s debts.

Tough luck for teachers who counted on that income to pay their debts, feed their children, meet the mortgage or rent payment.

That’s why unions were created.

Graham Vyse, an editor at The New Republic, shows how Betsy DeVos has created a fissure within the Democratic party over school choice.

By her passionate advocacy for charters, vouchers, and every other alternative to public schools, she has put pro-school choice Democrats like Cory Booker into a bind. Booker has vociferously supported both charters and vouchers, yet as a Democrat with hopes for the future, felt compelled to vote against DeVos. It is somewhat amusing to watch him and others try to put distance between themselves and DeVos when she is carrying out the same ideas they have publicly espoused. Any Democrat who is aligned with DeVos on any part of her repugnant agenda should change parties.

“The ground definitely is more fertile,” said Preston Green, an education professor at the University of Connecticut. “I think President Trump’s support of choice does make it difficult. It might make people think twice about it, and especially DeVos’s selling of it…. You’re definitely starting to see a shift.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s education agenda and criticism from civil rights groups “might have made it easier for those who oppose charters to oppose them more vociferously.”

Brookings Institution fellow Jon Valant made a similar case in February, writing that “the Trump administration’s support of charters and choice may be distracting from—and contributing to—an emerging political threat to school choice programs, especially charter schools: renewed skepticism from Democrats.” In other words, with her extremist position on school choice, DeVos may be harming the very movement she helped build.

The recent report by the NAACP calling for regulation of charter schools is another straw in the wind, a very large straw, suggesting that the Democrats’ embrace of school choice is politically hazardous.

DeVos is a gift to those of us who have warned for years that privately managed charters is a decisive victory for privatization and a significant step away from democratically controlled public education.

The message of her tenure in office is that school choice is a radical rightwing strategy that defunds public schools.

She gives Democrats a new opportunity to separate themselves from the favorite cause of the Walton family, the Koch brothers, and the Republican party.

As the recent Democratic gubernatorial primary in Virginia showed, candidates who support public schools without qualification can energize their base of teachers and parents. Democrats who favor any form of privatization will be unable to call upon that base.

If Democrats hope to win back a significant share of House seats in the 2018 election, they must put support for public schools at the top of their agenda. That’s where the voters are.