First, let me say how proud I am of our Delaware Bloggers and the work they’ve been doing covering education. It’s been a while since an issue has fired up so many. And if you want to understand what’s going on with education be sure to read every blogger I link to below.
I’m going to start with Mike Matthews. Please watch this video. Go on. I’ll wait.
There’s so much in this video, and Mike’s decision to accept the “unsatisfactory” rating is a very bold move. He’s placed his job on the line.
But it was where Mike explained part B of the evaluation process that jumped out to me. Part B was the assessment that his team of teachers chose to give. They chose the Star Reading/Accelerated Reading Program to show growth. They didn’t meet that goal. Mike says, “Perhaps because we set too lofty of a goal.”
Damn it! I want teachers setting lofty goals! Even if they don’t reach them, I want every teacher comfortable with setting the bar high. I want teachers like Mike Matthews challenging children! But given these teacher evaluations, why would they? Why would they set lofty goals and then be rated unsatisfactory? Was this evaluation created with the purpose of dumbing down our children? Of course not, but that’s what will happen. The evaluation is designed to make it happen. Powerful video, Mike.
Heading over to Kavips we find a detailed breakdown of HB 165 here. I’ll highlight a few of his points, but you should read the entire post. (The bill’s wording is in blue. Kavips’ response in black)
(I) (f) If a child is unable to attend a charter school because the charter school does not provide lunch, and the child would otherwise qualify for a free or low-cost lunch under the federal National School Lunch Program, the charter school shall provide lunch to the child at no cost to the child’s family. Charter schools may not consider whether a child would qualify for no-cost lunches pursuant to this subsection when making enrollment decisions.
(I) Children who qualify for national reduced breakfast and lunch, must be fed lunch on the school. They must give up breakfast if they wish to attend a charter. For low income families, giving up breakfast is something they won’t do. By not allowing breakfast, this bill prohibits low income people from choosing to attend a charter….. Secondly, Newark Charter School does not have a cafeteria. When they gave lunch in the past, the two choices were McDonalds and a pizza joint. So not only are low income students skipping breakfast, they are being forced onto the fast track towards diabetes….
(II) Minor capital improvements shall be funded in the same manner as the Vocational Technical School Districts.
(II) Also changing, instead of minor improvements being the role of the charter, the private for profit enterprise conducting the school, they want to be able to charge off all improvements to the state. It was as if you could get a new roof, and send the state the bill, without costing you a thing… All the money you were making hand over fist, you got to keep and spend on something else… Money for these improvements would be deducted from minor improvements originally slated for public schools. The public schools fall apart, and the charters get repaired… We use our own money; they should too.
Kavips’ point about lunch is a big one. How exactly would that work? Newark Charter School doesn’t have a cafeteria; the kids eat lunch at their desks. So at lunch time the kids take out their packed lunch and then… the teacher would hand out the free lunches to the high poverty kids? To me, that’s unacceptable. It’s nobody’s business who qualifies for Free/Reduced lunch.
His point about Capital Funding is spot on, and in a later post he spells it out. HB 165 is all about Capital Funding.
These bills are up only because of these two lines….
(II) Minor capital improvements shall be funded in the same manner as the Vocational Technical School Districts.
(l) Charter schools shall have the same access to conduit bond financing as any other non-profit organization, and no State or local government unit may impose any condition or restriction on a charter school’s approval solely because the applicant is a public charter school. It is the further intent that a charter school shall apply for conduit funding to issuers within the State of Delaware unless more favorable terms may be found elsewhere.
(m) The Department of Education shall administer a performance fund for charter schools, to be known as the “Charter School Performance Fund”. The Department of Education shall establish threshold eligibility requirements for applicants desiring to apply for funding, which shall include but not be limited to a proven track record of success, as measured by a Performance Framework established by the charter school’s authorizer or comparable measures as defined by the Department. The Department of Education shall also establish criteria to evaluate applications for funding, which shall include but not be limited to the availability of supplemental funding from non-State sources at a ratio to be determined by the Department. The Department of Education shall prioritize those applications from applicants that have (a) developed high-quality plans for start-up or expansion or (b) serve high-need students, as defined by the Department. The fund shall be subject to appropriation and shall not exceed $5 million annually.
This is why the bill is up for a vote. Charter Schools want to be able to get state financing…
That is not what a charter school is! A charter school is a private school, not a public one. Most charter schools are owned by corporations, many of them huge, with multiple units in multiple states. The money they make is astronomical… A charter school is a business that gets its money by educating public school children, and the state sends the money it would normally send to a public school, to the charter instead.
Now, Charters want the state to build their schools, do all the repairs, trim the shrubberies, pay for school lunches, just as they do for public schools. But public schools are not a private business. Public schools are assets owned by the people of that school district. Public schools are the property of We, the People…. For private schools to take our money, our resources, our taxes, and teach at the barest minimum, possibly a 1000 students to a room in order to make as much money as they can…. is immoral.
Especially considering that money comes not out a the General Fund. That money comes from all the public schools surrounding that Charter…
HB 165 is about Charters accessing Capital Funding, and the blogs have been pointing out the capital funding for charters long before HB 165 came onto the scene. Now we have the bill that proves it. Excellent blogging, Kavips.
Over at Mike O’s blog, The Seventh Type, we find Mike trying to find the missing charter school aggregate data. What Mike is looking for is a spreadsheet that shows overall charter school performance – you know, data that every public school district provides.
It doesn’t exist, so Mike and Co. use the data available on individual charter schools and begin to compile it. I’ll show you one chart as a teaser, but you need to hop on over there! (Mike is quite clear that this spreadsheet is a starting point and an ongoing community project, so if you can lend a hand I’m sure he’ll appreciate it.)
Math chart
(click to embiggen)
Interesting, no? Although if this data is correct I can see why the charter community wouldn’t want it on its charter school DDOE page. Also, a commenter over at Kilroy’s (and we’ll get to him shortly!) links to this report. Go ahead. Click the link and check out the section on Charter School Academic Performance.
Now, this doesn’t mean there aren’t good charter schools, but it does put to rest the myth that any charter school is superior to any public school. Charter advocates will call foul on this, saying that each charter school is an individual school – it’s own district, if you will. But if that’s true then why does the Charter School Network Exist? Red Clay has to include all its school on its DDOE homepage. Charters should have to do the same.
And, if we really believe in parent “choice” (I’ve lost faith in that, btw) then why aren’t we providing the necessary information to make an informed choice? I know parents who applied to the Charter School of Wilmington as their first choice and Pencader as their second. Seriously? Those schools couldn’t be more educationally different. They simply aren’t comparable… other than they’re both charter schools.
Onto the Big Bopper of education – Kilroy. Just go read his blog. Read the comments, too. Kilroy has built quite a savvy commenter base. His big issue is transparency, and how school board meetings (public and charter) should be recorded. He makes excellent points on this issue. However, yesterday he focused on Senator Dave Sokola and the proposed Pike Creek (Health and Fitness) Charter School. (I swear, I’m going to open the Charter School of Knitting.)
It appears that Senator Sokola wrote a letter advocating for the approval of Pike Creek Charter School. Kilroy has a problem with that. He writes:
Pike Creek is within Senator Sokola’s Senate District and sure he has an obligation to his constituents. However, injecting his role as Chair of the Senate Education Committee sends a poor message to parents of traditional school students. Sokola’s letter goes on to brag how he was involved in the creation of Newark Charter School leaving out he was a former board member of Newark Charter School while serving as state senator. Our state representatives should have a non-bias position when it comes to public education in relationship to charter vs tradtional. Senator Sokola is clearly bias towards charter schools. At best his letter of support should have come as a citizen not the a state senator and the Chair of the Senate Education Committee.
It was Senator Sokola who lead the charge to repeal Title 14, Chapter 2, Subchapter I Section 207 which called for a “written” educational impact study prior to a vote on any legislation regarding public education.
Wow. I didn’t know that. The things you find out on blogs. If only we had a newspaper in this state. 🙂
Over at Transparent Christina, John Young puts together blog comments to highlight the proposed Charter slush fund:
$5,000,000 available to charter schools “only” (10,438 total students of which a whopping 854 are special ed {8.1%} an additional $479 per charter school pupil.
To equal that in traditional public schools (120,591 students–17,186 special ed {14.2%}) would require $57,763,089. That’s simple math everyone and simply, unacceptably a betrayal of traditional public school students, teachers and support staff (eg. paras) by all parties supporting this slush fund inclusion in the woefully inadequate HB 165
John KowalkoAlso note the disparity in special ed numbers and the very real fact that the costs for special ed students (especially severe needs) is much higher than regular students and the ratio demand for teacher/paraprofessional inclusion in the classrooms requires more assistance (ask any real special-ed teacher like Mike Mathews). But since it is likely that one of the apologists/stakeholders/special interests supporters of this bill will say that there has only been $2million allocated for the slush fund I’ve done the math for them and that number would shrink the required match for traditional schools (to compete with level conditions) to $23,105,235 ( while still ignoring the true needs of the special ed population).
Good luck to all the special interests groups (you know who you are) in justifying that to your clients/taxpayers and members as fair and equitable.
John KowalkoOh by the way feel free to share anywhere since those numbers are dead solid accurate and do not even pretend to calculate how huge the real number will be when distributed to only a handful of high-performing/well-connected charters.Shameful and unacceptable comes to mind for those that would defend this type of policy.
John Kowalko
John Young concludes:
WOW, look at that number!!!! The $5MM Special Interest Charter School Slush Fund being driven by Jaques, Scott, Sokola and Taber would be like giving a performance fund of $57.7 MILLION to DE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
And they can only find $$ like that for charter students?
It really is disheartening. Public schools could sure use more political advocates – or even people in power who considered the impact charter schools have on public schools and attempted to make a level playing field – by considering all children.
In case you’ve forgotten about HB 165… remember that part of the bill that would take into account how a charter school would impact public schools? Remember how, in the bill, it’s not flippin’ mandated, unlike, say, the capital funding for charters? It’s things like this that have people upset.
Money for Charters? Carved in stone. Impact study on how a charter school would affect surrounding public schools? Sure, but that’s not mandated – so not really. Lunch for low income kids? Okay, but charters don’t appear to have to offer breakfast.
I’ll close with Steve Newton’s post from last week. Please make time to read this. Here’s where he ends up:
So extreme charter advocates want more than a chance to try out educationally innovative strategies as they were given in the original law. Instead, they now want:
1. Capital financing.
2. Preferential transportation budgets that they can use as a slush fund if they don’t spend them.
3. Exemption from accountability for a full decade.
4. Different rules for the appeal of their pupil decisions to DOE than the school districts have.
5. Continued exemption from any transparency of operation because, you see, they are state-funded corporations and therefore not accountable (hello Fannie Mae. Sallie Mae, Federal Reserve).
6. Continued ability to simply boot out (ok, counsel out) students back to their old districts.
7. Bail-outs from the state when their finances go belly up.This is not a free market innovation: this is educational welfare for a particular social class.
Please go visit the blogs I’ve linked to because if your source of education information is The News Journal you’re not even getting half of the story. For some reason, whenever The News Journal writes a news article about education they can only seem to find charter supporters to interview. Lazy.
UPDATE: I did pop over to Children and Educators First blog this morning, but Elizabeth hadn’t posted this yet. Check it out. Am I the only one who thinks Rep. Jaques needs to work on his tone?
Elizabeth points out her concerns in an email (click on the link because I’m not including the entire email) and Rep. Jaques answers:
Elizabeth,
First the fund you are referring to is not a “slush” fund. If you attended yesterday’s public meeting you would know that it is not used for capital projects. It is connected to the Charter Performance framework, which will ensure that is used for education issues for either high-performing or high-need students. The money allocated came from the last budget numbers – NOT from the Department of Education. So this isn’t a case of taking money away from our public schools. In fact, the number one priority, according to the testimony from the School Superintendents to the Joint Finance Committee was money for technology. That money is in the budget! The Charter’s number one priority was money for this Strategic Performance Fund, which again the Joint Finance Committee granted and is in the budget based on whether the legislation passes. Since it doesn’t apply, I shouldn’t comment. However, the points you make in the first few paragraphs are done each and every year for our Colleges and Universities. We give them capital money and we don’t own the buildings. If you took the time to read House Bill 165 you would see loads of transparency and accountability throughout. I hope you are not listen to the nay sayers who just like to yell at the top of their voice, but most of the time don’t know what they are talking about!HB 165 has been properly vetted and has loads of support throughout the education community.
Earl
Elizabeth points out in her concerns in her return email (Again, this is only part of the email):
Specifically to HB 165, the well-vetted bill, the following clause concerns me greatly:
The Department of Education shall administer a performance fund for charter schools, to be known as the “Charter School Performance Fund”.The Department of Education shall establish threshold eligibility requirements for applicants desiring to apply for funding, which shall include but not be limited to a proven track record of success, as measured by a Performance Framework established by the charter school’s authorizer or comparable measures as defined by the Department. The Department of Education shall also establish criteria to evaluate applications for funding, which shall include but not be limited to the availability of supplemental funding from non-State sources at a ratio to be determined by the Department. The Department of Education shall prioritize those applications from applicants that have (a) developed high-quality plans for start-up or expansion or (b) serve high-need students, as defined by the Department. The fund shall be subject to appropriation and shall not exceed $5 million annually.
The statement is a generality at best. It does not provide clarity around what can or cannot be funded, nor offer any precision of the eligibility of schools. If applicants must have a proven track record of success, then the bill precludes any new or young schools from eligibility. “Measures as defined by the Department” is very obscure, as is the “availability of supplemental funding from non-State sources.” Nor does this bill define a “high quality plan for start-up or expansion.”
I don’t see the accountability or transparency pertaining to these funds. The fact is that plans are wonderful things, they provide direction. But, if the leadership is incompetent, and we often don’t know that until the plans begin to fall apart, then the plan is just a piece a paper.
For me, this portion of the bill is simply too weak, too easy to take advantage of, and too susceptible to political persuasion.
She’s waiting for Rep. Jaques response. I’ll update when that comes in.