Archives for category: Education Reform

The California Teachers Association has assembled a large coalition of groups to support the reform of charter schools. The press release calls it a “Broad Coalition” but in California that is a double entendre. (Do they mean a coalition funded by billionaire Eli Broad? No!).

Broad Coalition of Legislators, Educators and Parents Back 3 Bills to Stop Waste, Fraud and Abuse, Ensure Equal Access for All Students at California’s Charter Schools

Contacts: Claudia Briggs at 916-325-1550 or Mike Myslinski at 650-552-5324

SACRAMENTO – Lawmakers, educators, parents and a broad coalition of community supporters joined for a news conference today in the State Capitol to shed light on a very important package of bills that must be enacted to ensure California charter school accountability and transparency and to also ensure unbiased access to all students.

SB 808 by Sen. Tony Mendoza, AB 1478 by Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer and AB 1360 by Assembly Member Rob Bonta would address many of the injustices and fraudulent practices that are negatively impacting California’s students.

SB 808 would ensure local control by allowing charter schools to be authorized only by the school district in which the charters would be located. “It is important, especially as an educator, to have people engage in open discussion about ensuring that our children’s educational system continues to improve. Part of ensuring that our education system advances is to make sure that all schools – charter and traditional – are held accountable for the concerns of parents and students,” said Senator Mendoza, author of SB 808.

AB 1478 would require charter school governing boards to comply with existing laws rightfully demanding transparency and accountability to parents and the public in the operation of taxpayer-funded schools.

“Evidence shows that this lack of accountability has led to financial gains for for-profit corporate charter operators, has too often been disastrous for thousands of California students and has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse,” said Terri Jackson, California Teachers Association Board Member and fourth-grade teacher in Contra Costa County. “Public education should be about kids, not profits. Instead of subsidizing corporate charter schools run by for-profit companies with taxpayer dollars, we should be using the money to strengthen our local neighborhood public schools for all California children.”

The California Federation of Teachers also co-sponsored the bills urging lawmakers and the governor to enact them to stop the fraudulent and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. “By creating non-profit shells, charter corporations are able to hide behind a technicality to skim off profits from public dollars. AB 1478 will help put an end to this practice, and this package of bills will make charter schools more accountable overall,” said Gemma Abels, a CFT Vice President and president of the Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers.

AB 1360 would set new requirements for charter schools’ admission, suspension and expulsion policies, bringing them more in line with traditional schools. “AB 1360 provides equal opportunity for our students by ensuring they have fair access to learning opportunities in all publicly funded California schools,” said Assembly Member Bonta. “Our young people must not be disadvantaged or pushed out of learning environments through unfair admissions policies or disciplinary rules. AB 1360 puts our children first.”

The impact on California’s students has raised many red flags for community supporters around the state, causing heightened attention, concern and action to ensure social justice, equity and consistent application of policies for all students regardless of ZIP code.

“The Alliance for Boys and Men of Color is co-sponsoring AB 1360 because we are committed to ensuring all schools have nondiscriminatory admissions policies and procedural protections for students in place guaranteed by the right to due process that are clear and consistent,” said Jordan Thierry, Senior Associate, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color. “This legislation will help ensure decisions related to admissions or disciplinary actions are not arbitrary, but rather based on established guidelines aligned with state and federal law.”

Support for these bills is widespread. In fact, the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, at the helm of the district where there are many recent cases in which the FBI is investigating fraud and fiscal mismanagement at charter operations like at Celerity Educational Group, adopted a resolution April 18 in support of this legislation that would provide much relief for the students in LAUSD schools.

“These bills reflect the idea that all publicly funded charter schools must adhere to the same accountability and transparency standards as district public schools. In Tuesday’s vote, the School Board signaled that the Trump/DeVos ‘anything goes’ agenda to privatize our public schools is not welcome in Los Angeles,” said United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl about the school board’s action. “We applaud George McKenna, Steve Zimmer, Scott Schmerelson, and Richard Vladovic, all veteran classroom teachers, counselors, and school administrators, who led the charge in this important vote.”

During the 2016 statewide campaign and, once again, in the school board election in Los Angeles, corporate billionaires with a coordinated agenda to privatize public schools are spending millions of dollars to elect candidates whose agenda is aligned to theirs. A concerned group of educators, parents and community supporters launched Kids Not Profits. The campaign exposes privately managed charter schools, their impact on students, the billionaires behind them and urges supporters to take action to demand that state lawmakers create stronger charter regulations, more accountability, transparency and equal access for all students.

Recent news headlines and academic studies have documented the waste, fraud and abuse by privately managed charter schools that have cost taxpayers millions while hurting students. A new report from national nonprofit In the Public Interest finds that much of this public investment, hundreds of millions of dollars, has been misspent on schools that do not fulfill the intent of state charter school policy and undermine the financial viability of California’s public school districts.

In a report released earlier this month, Spending Blind: The Failure of Policy Planning in California’s Charter School Facility Funding, In the Public Interest reveals that a substantial portion of the more than $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized financing spent on California charter school facilities in the past 15 years has been misspent on: schools that underperformed nearby traditional public schools; schools built in districts that already had enough classroom space; schools that were found to have discriminatory enrollment policies; and, in the worst cases, schools that engaged in unethical or corrupt practices.

An ACLU report, “Unequal Access,” found that more than 20 percent of California’s charter schools deny access to students with disabilities, English learners, or students who have lower grades and test scores. The NAACP recently called for a ban on privately managed charters.

Charter school scandals continue to make headlines, while another report shows that an expansion of privately run charter schools would cost the Los Angeles Unified School District more than $500 million this year alone.

And important to note, research by In The Public Interest shows Californians overwhelmingly favor proposals to reform charter schools—proposals that include strengthening charter school accountability and transparency, improving teacher training and qualifications, preventing fraud, returning money to taxpayers when charter schools close, and ensuring that neighborhood public schools are not adversely affected.

Barbara Byrd-Bennett, once Rahm Emanuel’s choice to lead the Chicago Public Schools, was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison for her role in a kickback scheme intended to gain her hundreds of thousands of dollars. She has lost her job, her career, her reputation, and now, her freedom.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-barbara-byrd-bennett-sentence-met-20170428-story.html

One of her co-conspirators received a sentence of seven years, another got 18 months.

MORE BREAKING NEWS: Cook County judge rejects CPS lawsuit seeking more money from the state. The district may close schools June 1 because of lack of funding.

Judge rejects CPS’ state funding lawsuit, gives district option to refile
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-schools-funding-lawsuit-ruling-met-20170428-story.html

Just in from Indiana:

Indiana Coalition for Public Education–Monroe County
http://www.icpe-monroecounty.org
Contact: Alex Tanford
Phone: 812-332-4966
Email: tanfordlegal@gmail.com

LAWSUIT CHALLENGES CHARTER FOR SEVEN OAKS CLASSICAL SCHOOL, SAYS AUTHORIZATION BY A RELIGIOUS BODY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Bloomington, Indiana—The Indiana Coalition for Public Education–Monroe County, an association of parents, teachers, and other supporters of public schools, filed suit today in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the Indiana statute that permitted Grace College and Seminary to authorize a charter for Seven Oaks Classical School after the Indiana Charter School Board denied it. The lawsuit asks the court to void the charter and stop any further taxpayer money from going to either Seven Oaks or Grace College.

Named as defendants in the suit are Indiana’s superintendent of public instruction, who chairs the State Board of Education; the executive director of the Indiana Charter School Board; and Seven Oaks Classical School in Ellettsville, Indiana.

“Our chief concern is that Indiana law permits religious institutions like Grace College to decide whether to authorize charter schools,” said Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer, chair of ICPE–Monroe County. “Charter schools are taxpayer-supported and take money away from our school corporations, so only state and local officials answerable to the public should be able to authorize them.”

On its web site, Grace College and Seminary describes itself as an evangelical Christian institution which applies biblical values to its educational mission, emphasizes a biblical worldview, and teaches students to recognize scripture as the inerrant and inspired Word of God.

The complaint asserts that permitting an evangelical institution to review Seven Oaks’ proposed curriculum and decide whether to authorize a charter violates the federal constitutional principle of separation of church and state. Indiana law does not provide criteria or standards for reviewing a charter application, evaluating the educational quality of the proposal, or ensuring that religious criteria are not used as the basis for approval. The decision to authorize a charter is not reviewable by state officials.

The complaint also challenges a provision in state law that gives up to 3% of a charter school’s public funds to the authorizer—in this case, Grace College and Seminary. “That would seem to violate the Indiana constitution, which says flatly that no money may be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious institution,” said lead attorney Alex Tanford, professor emeritus at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Seven Oaks Classical School’s application for a charter was vigorously contested in Monroe County, in part because of its affiliation with the Barney Charter School Initiative from Hillsdale College, a nonsectarian Christian institution in Michigan. Founding board members of Seven Oaks applied unsuccessfully for a charter two times to the Indiana Charter School Board, in the summer of 2014 and again in the spring of 2015. They then took the application to Grace College and Seminary, which approved their charter in January, 2016. Seven Oaks began operating as a school in September, 2016.

When students leave their public school districts for a charter school, the districts lose money. “School funding is based on a per-pupil formula, so if the number of students goes down, the schools receive less money,” said Fuentes-Rohwer. The problem is that expenses do not go down proportionately. “It’s not like all the students going to Seven Oaks came from the same school so we could save money by closing it,” she said. “When one or two students leave a classroom, we still need the same teacher and still use the same electricity. There is just less money to pay for it, and programs begin to suffer.”

“Our membership cares deeply about the future of public schools in Indiana,” said Fuentes-Rohwer. “By tradition, public schools are open to all, serve as community centers, are a key democratic institution answerable to the public, and provide an inclusive forum where kids of all abilities, ethnicities, religions, viewpoints and socioeconomic backgrounds get to know each other. Charter schools and vouchers undermine this critical role that public schools play in our society. They divide us and facilitate isolation from different views, and should not be taxpayer funded.”

In Indiana, various entities can authorize charters, including local school boards, the Indiana Charter School Board, the mayor of Indianapolis, and public and private colleges. There is no limit on the number of times that a school’s organizers can apply for a charter.

###

For further information about the lawsuit, please contact Alex Tanford at 812-332-4966 or tanfordlegal@gmail.com. To learn more about ICPE–Monroe County, go to http://www.icpe-monroecounty.org/ or contact the organization’s chair, Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer, at 812-320-4400.

The complaint can be viewed online at http://www.icpe-monroecounty.org/complaint.html.

Nancy E. Bailey writes here about the corporate reformers’ love for the term “Dropout Factories” to refer to public schools, especially those in impoverished communities.

She says the term is used to disparage public schools and their teachers. It received wide recognition when it was featured in the abominable pro-privatization film “Waiting for Superman.”

Bailey offers a list of research-based strategies for improving struggling schools, which are almost invariably schools with high proportions of students who live in poverty.

She notes that the originator of the term Robert Balfanz of Johns Hopkins has close ties to the reformer industry.

A valuable and informative post.

P.S. Nancy Bailey and I are updating the Edspeak glossary and thank readers for their many wonderful suggestions. “Dropout Factories” will definitely be an addition!

Under a bill proposed in the North Carolina legislature, corporations would gain the power to set aside half the seats in a new charter for their employees if they contributed funds, land, or equipment. For their generosity, the corporation would also have seats on the charter boards. The charter would become a perk for corporate leaders and valued employees, kind of like a company store.

The state House is considering a collection of bills that would change who can start a charter and how quickly the schools can grow. Corporations would be able to reserve spaces in schools for their employees’ children, and two towns would be able to set up charter schools for their residents. Under current law, charters are open to any student in the state, although schools can give preference to siblings and school employees’ children.

“This is loosening the restrictions on how charters operate and what they’re allowed to do,” Rep. Graig Meyer, an Orange County Democrat, said of the collection of bills the House Education Committee approved Monday in divided votes.

Under one bill, up to half a charter school’s seats could be reserved for children whose parents work for companies that donate land, buildings or equipment to the school. Employees of those companies would also be able to join the charter school’s board of directors.

Rep. John R. Bradford III, a Mecklenburg Republican, framed the bill as an economic development tool that could help attract companies to rural counties. Companies would be able to offer classroom seats as employee perks, Bradford said, equating charter enrollment to companies paying for employee meals.

“This creates a vehicle where a company can create an employee benefit,” he said.

Meyer objected, saying the provision would have taxpayer money going to company schools.

“This moves closer to privatization than North Carolina has ever allowed before,” he said.

Another bill would allow charter enrollment to grow 30 percent a year without approval from the State Board of Education. Charters are now limited to 20 percent annual growth without board approval. Some Democrats objected on the grounds that it could fuel growth in schools that aren’t good. Allowing charters with bad records to expand would not be fair to taxpayers, parents or students, said Rep. Bobbie Richardson, a Louisburg Democrat.

At the same time, the legislature imposed a mandate to reduce class size without any new funding, which will cause layoffs of thousands of teachers and overcrowding in grades not included in the mandate.

North Carolina blogger-teacher Stuart Egan calls the corporate-control bill “The Privatization of Public Schools Bill.”

Can there be any question that the NC legislature is systematically privatizing the schools of the state?

I think you will enjoy this radio show.

David Remnick, the editor of “The New Yorker,” interviews Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Twenty minutes.

Marion Brady, veteran educator, writes a list of reasons why standardized testing is a waste of precious time and money.

It is a comprehensive list. I recommend that you read it.

The Network for Public Education invites you to watch a special filming in Brooklyn on April 30. There will be a wonderful group of speakers from across the nation.

The details are here.

Deborah Meier created an oasis of child-centered education at Central Park East 1?in East Harlem. Parents from out-of-district enrolled. It was different from other public schools.

Deborah Meier left, convinced that her school was in safe hands.

But the system took control. The system does not like rebellion.

Parents are now protesting a principal determined to quash Deborah Meier’s vision.

Arthur Goldstein writes about it here:

http://nyceducator.com/2017/04/unsafe-at-any-speed-at-cpe-1.html?m=1

Dr. Betty Rosa, Chancellor of the New York Board of Regents, responded to a critical article by Robert Pondiscio of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute in this post on the TBF website.

Pondiscio expressed disappointment that the Regents did not award an early renewal to several charter applicants. And he criticized the Regents for agreeing to drop the Academic Literacy Skills Test (ALST). I previously posted about the ALST, which was one of four tests that future teachers in New York must take and is redundant. Critics said that the Regents were backing away from literacy, which is absurd, since applicants must take three other tests that cover the same subject.

Dr. Rosa wrote (please open the link to see her many links):

In his April 5 commentary (“Education Reform in New York? Fuhgeddaboutit.”), Robert Pondiscio writes that “the era of high standards and accountability for schools, teachers, and those who train them…[is] over” in New York. I could not disagree more. The Board of Regents and I are forging ahead with our work to ensure that all students have access to high-quality teachers in high-quality schools led by high-quality principals. We simply have a different view of how to best deliver those things to our students.

To frame his argument that New York has lost its way, Mr. Pondiscio begins and ends his piece by pointing to two recent decisions by the Board of Regents—first, our decision to return to the SUNY Trustees ten applications seeking the early renewal of charter schools in New York City; second, our decision to drop one of the exams needed to become a certified teacher in New York State.

Let’s look first at the charter school decision. In making its decision to return the applications to the SUNY Trustees, the Board of Regents did not comment in any way on the efficacy of the schools seeking early renewal of their charters. Rather, the Board based its decision on the Charter Schools Act, which does not allow this kind of early renewal. It has long been the practice of all authorizers to renew charter schools in the academic year in which their charter term expires to ensure the most recent data is used in the renewal evaluation. Granting early renewals to the ten applicants would circumvent this accountability protection and result in charter terms ending many years from the conclusion of the current academic year—in some cases, the new charter terms would run all the way until 2025.

But there are bigger issues at stake here. As a senior advisor to a network of New York City-based charter schools, Mr. Pondiscio naturally has a vested interest in promoting the growth of that sector. As Chancellor of the Board of Regents, however, I have a very different outlook and a very different set of obligations. The Regents are responsible for the education of more than three million New York State children who attend traditional public schools, charter schools, nonpublic schools, and those who are homeschooled. As a Board, we are obligated to ensure that all those children have access, on an equal basis, to excellent schools and teachers. That responsibility extends to students with physical, intellectual, and emotional disabilities, students who speak little or no English, students who are desperately poor and homeless, and students who exhibit severe behavioral problems.

The Board of Regents will approve only those charter school applications that clearly demonstrate a strong capacity for establishing and operating a high-quality school. This standard requires a strong educational program, organizational plan and financial plan, as well as clear evidence of the capacity of the founding group to implement the proposal and operate the school effectively. The Board and I carefully consider those factors in deciding whether to open or renew a charter school. And we will consider those factors only at the time the law intends for us to make such determinations; we do not and we will not act prematurely to advance anyone’s political agenda.

Let’s also examine the Board’s recent decision to drop the Academic Literacy Skills Test (ALST) as a certification requirement in New York. Mr. Pondiscio described that decision as a vote “to make teaching a ‘literacy optional’ profession in New York.” A literate person might well use the word “hyperbole” to describe that over-the-top description of this change in certification requirements.

Here are the facts. Students in New York’s teacher preparation programs already take many courses that require them to read and write at a high, college level. Let’s not forget that teaching candidates must also take and pass four years of college courses to even reach the point of taking the certification exams—so they have already demonstrated that they possess the literacy skills needed to get through college.

The Regents took this action based on the recommendations of the EdTPA Task Force, comprised of college deans and professors, and after gathering extensive public feedback. These experts were concerned that the test is flawed, with many of the questions appearing to have more than one correct answer. In a recent interview, Charles Sahm, director of education policy at the conservative Manhattan Institute (Mr. Sahm was not a member of the Task Force that recommended the changes) noted that he took the ALST test; here’s what he said about it, “You can take it for $20 online. And I have to say, I only got 21 out of 40 questions right on the reading comprehension.” In short, the test is a flawed measure of literacy skills.

Even with this change, New York’s teaching certification requirements remain among the most rigorous in the country, requiring the vast majority of teaching candidates to pass three other assessments before earning certification; those assessments also require students to demonstrate literacy skills. We simply eliminated a costly and unnecessary testing requirement that created an unfair obstacle for too many applicants.

But let’s get to the crux of Mr. Pondiscio’s argument. He believes that education in New York is heading in the wrong direction. Again, I could not disagree more. The Regents are moving forward to bring greater equity to students in all our schools. And nowhere is this more evident than in the deliberative, transparent, and inclusive approach the Regents and Commissioner Elia are taking to develop our Every Student Succeeds Act state plan. Our goal is straightforward—we will submit to the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) a plan that supports the development of highly effective schools and encourages and enables all schools to become or remain highly effective.

Critical to the success of our State plan is the way we approach the issue of accountability. In a recent post on the Brookings Institution’s “Brown Center Chalkboard” blog, Brian Gill nailed it when he wrote, “It is time for accountability in education to be liberated from its narrow association with high-stakes testing. A single-minded focus on one form of accountability overlooks opportunities to create a rich system of incentives and supports that employs multiple accountability tools to promote improved practice.” That single-minded focus on test scores did not help children in poor, low-performing schools. We will change that.

The ESSA state plan ultimately adopted by the Board of Regents will improve teaching and learning, and it will promote greater equity for New York’s schoolchildren. By improving teaching and learning, we seek to increase teacher effectiveness in providing high-quality instruction aligned with state standards while fostering a positive learning environment for all students. By promoting equity, we seek to reduce the gaps in achievement that currently separate whole groups of students.

One final note about accountability. I have said repeatedly that, ultimately, it is a parent’s decision whether to have his or her child take the state assessments. I have also said that no school and no child should ever be punished because of a school’s low test participation rate. At the same time, I believe that assessments can be useful tools—provided they are diagnostic, valid, reliable, and provided they yield practical and timely information to teachers, administrators, and parents. So our goal is to continue to improve our tests; when we do, participation rates will improve as a natural consequence.

For too long, New York has neglected the needs of too many students. I am proud to head a Board that is dedicated to changing that paradigm.

For what is worth, I would be happy to see New York state lead the way in abandoning the pointless quest for the right combination of standards and tests.

After twenty years of trying, we should have learned by now that what matters most is having expert professional teachers and giving them the autonomy to do their job with out interference by the governor or legislature. The belief that kids learn more if they are tested more has been a huge benefit to the testing industry, but it has done immense damage to public education. We should eliminate annual testing from federal and state law. My favorite model remains Finland, where schools are free of standardized testing, teachers are highly educated, teaching is a high-status profession, and politicians and think tanks don’t have the nerve to tell teachers how to teach.