Sign up for our newsletter
Contact

Audit of Charter Funding Audit Needed?

October 29, 2012 By

I was recently asked by a famous Ed Blogger, Alexander Russo, what I thought of the “audit” by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), over how charter school funds are monitored.
The experience of reviewing this report was a reminder of the disconnect between a new way of doing public schooling and the old fashioned way. Here was my response:

Once again we have a federal agency with a 20th century mentality on schooling attempting to audit an industry it neither understands nor can fully appreciate. The purpose of the federal charter grant program was to spawn the creation of new schools and sustain existing ones through state and local entities to which these schools are accountable for results – outcomes — not process and paperwork. The fact that a reviewer felt uncomfortable or untrained or that the federal lens didn’t see allegiance to the kind of old, worn out paperwork requirements that still plague traditional districts should underscore the problem with compelling reviews like this that chase process over achievement. (By the way, those districts do compliance with financial and operational requirements really well but it has no bearing on real educational accountability!)

Arizona lacked a monitoring checklist to make comparisons between schools? How would a check list result in their being able to compare schools? The federal auditors should have FIRST been in touch with the authorizers who are monitoring accountability and second, or failing that, they could have been simply asking for the kinds of data and financial records that every non-profit should produce– namely, identifying the flow of money through budgets, audits, 990s, P&Ls etc…

Oh, but that might require to actually know something about finance and budgeting.

It might be a cool exercise to see what this supposed checklist that is at the heart of the OIG report actually required federal auditors to do. We may find that its WestEd that needs the audit, not the charters. (Did anyone mention that WestEd has never been a fan of charters, nor objective in their comments?)

Filed Under: Commentary, Edspresso Tagged With:

Garden State Teachers Union Among Most Powerful

October 29, 2012 By

“Reform group’s study finds Garden State tecahers unions among most influential”
by Leslie Brody
The Record
October 29, 2012

New Jersey teacher unions are among the strongest nationwide, a report due for release today by a conservative research group says.

The Fordham Institute in Washington, D.C., aimed to show how teacher unions exert influence through spending, politics and clout at the bargaining table. It rated unions in each state by 37 indicators, such as membership, campaign donations, and the degree that local policies suited union interests. New Jersey ranked No. 7 overall.

With 97 percent of its teachers unionized, the report said, New Jersey’s teacher unions ranked No. 1 in resources. They’re No. 2 in “perceived influence,” judging by surveys of business people, parents, civic groups, advocates and educators. And they fall in the middle of the pack in the rating for political involvement, such as donations to candidates for state office.

The analysis comes after three years of heated battles between Governor Christie and the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teacher union. Both sides claimed victory in last summer’s passage of a new tenure law. The governor touted his leadership in improving a century-old system that often protected weak teachers, while the NJEA boasted the new law still shielded seniority rights during layoffs.

The NJEA, with 198,475 members, has long wielded power, though it suffered a setback when Christie signed a law in 2011 boosting public workers’ contributions to their pensions and health benefits.

According to the New Jersey Election Enforcement Commission, the NJEA Political Action Committee spent $556,905 so far this year on legislative candidates and committees and still has more than $1 million on hand. Last year the NJEA eclipsed all other lobby groups in the state by spending $11.2 million on lobbying and advertisements to shape public opinion, the commission said. The American Federation of Teachers, which represents several districts’ faculties including those in Garfield and Newark, has a much smaller presence.

The new Fordham Institute report, called “How Strong Are U.S. Teachers Unions?” was funded by two family foundations and Education Reform, a group affiliated with Democrats for Education Reform. It can be found at edexcellence.net.

Steve Baker, a spokesman for the NJEA, agreed his union is “very strong” but dismissed the report’s data as the “silly” product of anti-union activists. For example, he said the state-by-state comparison of campaign contributions reflected local campaign finance laws more than union muscle. “It means nothing to me if they were to say we are the most powerful, least powerful or something in between,” he said.

Amber Winkler, a lead researcher for the report, countered that it was “an honest attempt” to quantify union strength in ways that had not been done before. “Unions can show power in multiple ways, and some are not visible.

“It’s not a secret we’re not for the status quo,” she added. “We’re trying to push reform.” The Fordham Institute has pushed for more charter schools, vouchers and using student achievement to measure teachers, for example.

Winkler predicted more turbulence ahead.

“You have Chris Christie, who has been very verbal in how he feels about teacher unions but claiming they worked together and collaborated” on changing tenure, she said. “Both sides are claiming success in terms of how the legislation panned out. There will continue to be strife in New Jersey between labor unions and reformers.”

The governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Filed Under: Unions & Establishment

What Catholic Schools Can Learn from Charters

October 26, 2012 By

For the first time ever, this current 2012-2013 school year will see more of our nation’s students in charter schools than in Catholic schools. Although Catholic schools were once the dominant alternative to traditional public schools, offering high academic expectations, standards, and a strong community environment, many of the nation’s best charter schools have embraced these same principles. In this new era of competition for Catholic schools, there are only two choices left: innovate or die out.

There are a few basic things that Catholic schools can adopt from charter schools in order to remain a viable option for parents, according to a report from the Lexington institute:

Blended Learning
Blended learning challenges the old, traditional form of education known as the “factory model.” Rather than viewing students as interchangeable parts that can be treated with the same inputs, blended learning recognizes that students learn differently and require customization. The blended learning model also focuses on the use of technology so that teachers can better deliver instruction and track their students to provide better lesson plans. Teachers can intervene and pace instruction according to a student’s current needs and abilities, allowing teachers to structure their time more effectively.

Mission and Metrics
Catholic schools must be able to define its mission and its metrics to reassure the community and produce evidence of its success. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. identified four pillars of Catholic education: Catholic identity, academic excellence, accessibility, and affordability. Catholic schools can alter their practices and systems in order to emphasize these features that distinguish Catholic schools from other school options.

• Catholic Identity: Blended learning can actually aid Catholic instruction through more individualized learning from teachers.

• Excellence: Catholic schools can be more transparent with data so that student performance is tracked and available to the public. Catholic schools should be able to prove their reputation with hard evidence.

• Accessibility: Catholic schools must be open to everyone and cannot rely on increases in tuition to cover costs. Blended learning can help drive costs down because there is less focus on inputs—dollars per student and teacher to student ratios.

• Affordability: Although the per-pupil cost is less than public schools, parents essentially pay twice to educate children—one through taxes, then again by tuition. Catholic schools must prove their value to not only the traditional charter school, but charter schools as well.

Collecting Data
Data needs to be accurate, accessible, and actionable. Using data empowers teachers to track student performance over time and across different subjects, and also allows parents to engage in a meaningful way. Data provides transparency, can produce results, and can create better relationships between parents and teachers.

Communication
Catholic schools must also be able to market their schools and never stop recruiting in the communities that they serve. If Catholic schools can better communicate with their communities, this can benefit both enrollment and fundraising.

Filed Under: Saving Catholic Schools, Choice & Charter Schools

Takeaways From Virtual Learning Conference

October 25, 2012 By

from “The Shift Is On: iNACOL Conference Attendees Inventing the Future of Learning” by Tom Vander Ark
Education Week
October 25, 2012

Six Trends. We saw the following six trends at Virtual School Symposium 2012, the iNACOL conference:

1. Creative tools and schools that will leave behind outdated models for new ways to teach and learn.

2. Competency-based learning was big at #VSS12. See iNACOL’s online community Competency Works for more.

3. Personalized learning backed by big data is around the corner with the help of adaptive systems, background assessments, and easy-to-use tracking systems. Benefits will include increased student agency, higher engagement and improve outcomes.

4. Educational choice was discussed but with a new twist–digital learning is redefining stale debates on choice and replacing it with conversations about customization.

5. Bring your own device (BYOD) is a growing solution for schools looking to turn the budget crisis into a budget opportunity. More than 30 percent of attendees at the session “You’re Already BYOD” featuring Riverside Unified School District said they were using BYOD policies in their school or district.

6. Rethinking systems and reimagining what schools and classrooms look like in the future when you put this list together. Keynote speakers Monday morning shared some effective ideas for education innovation.

Filed Under: Online Learning

Camden Students Denied Transfer

October 25, 2012 By

“Judge dismisses Camden parents’ request to move kids to better schools”
by Jim Walsh
Cherry Hill Courier Post
October 25, 2012

A state judge has declined to order immediate action on a bid by three parents to remove their children from the city’s troubled school system.

The students’ mothers, in legal papers filed with the state Department of Education, had argued their children suffered irreparable harm each day they remained in a Camden classroom.

But Administrative Law Judge Edward J. Delanoy Jr. said the mothers had not proved the need for immediate action.

As part of a 12-page ruling Tuesday, Delanoy said the parents’ petition offered “nothing beyond general statements” regarding the children’s academic performance and presented “no credible evidence” that the students needed to be placed in schools outside the district.

Delanoy’s decision detailed many shortcomings in the much-criticized district, where 23 of 26 schools are considered failing. It noted the schools attended by the three students — Pyne Poynt Middle School, and Dudley and Davis elementary schools — all are considered “in need of improvement” by the DOE.

But he added, “Mere allegations that tests have been failed and that performance is decreasing does not necessarily distinguish these students from any other student in the state who may also have failed a test and/or have worsening grades.”

He also noted the mothers were unlikely to prevail because they had not named “all indispensable parties,” including the suburban school districts “that might be ordered to accept these students.”

Attorneys for the mothers said they would now take their case to Education Commissioner Chris Cerf, who has 45 days to adopt, modify or reject the order.

“We are disappointed with the order because it requires (the children) to remain in schools that everyone knows are not fulfilling their mission of educating school children,” the lawyers, Patricia Bombelyn and Julio Gomez, said in a statement.

The attorneys said Delanoy’s decision, if it stands, “will mean that ZIP codes do indeed determine whether or not a child has the right to a thorough and efficient education in New Jersey.”

Filed Under: Breaking News

Kids in Poverty Can Still Learn

October 24, 2012 By

by Kevin P. Chavous
Huffington Post
October 23, 2012

During slavery, under some of the worse conditions known to man, slaves taught their kids to read by candlelight under the threat of death. And those kids learned.

On the heels of the great depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s new deal invigorated educational opportunities for poor white kids in places like Appalachia. And those kids learned.

Following the Vietnam War, thousands of Vietnamese refugees came to our nation. The vast majority of those children came to America unable to speak English and often lived with several families under one roof. And those kids learned.

In California, folks like Cesar Chavez fought for better working conditions for Latino migrant workers. While those families struggled to make ends meet, many strived to put their children in schools that would meet their needs. And those kids learned.

Throughout the history of our country, the unifying promise of America has been the hope for a better life for one’s children through education. Especially those children trapped in poverty. At every turn in our history, kids in poverty have demonstrated their ability to learn and succeed.

Today, as we struggle with what ails many of our schools, more and more emphasis is being placed on the linkage between poverty and education. It seems as though each week there is a new study trumpeting the difficulty of teaching low income children and; the fact that poverty needs to be taken into account when we delve into tissues pertaining to teacher effectiveness and the quality of a school’s overall performance.

I get all that. And I do agree that there must be better coordination of services between schools and those entities that help families in poverty. Without question, Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children Zone should be replicated all over America. Geoffrey understands the need to take a holistic, community wide approach to health care, poverty and education. From his innovative Baby College for expectant mothers to his successful charter school to his offering of adult centered services, Geoffrey fills a much needed gap for thousands of Harlem families.

But poverty cannot be used as an excuse for bad teaching or our failure to better educate children who live in poverty. Frankly, some of the growing articles and studies on this topic often times engage in excuse-making and justify the ‘throwing up of the hands’ as it relates to trying to teach kids in poverty. Isn’t it curious that we are hearing more about poverty being a factor in a child’s educational experience as we talk more and more about linking teacher evaluations to their students performance? I discussed this issue with a terrific school leader in St. Louis who bemoaned the fact that far too many people blatantly say to her things like “It’s impossible to educate poor black kids,” and “You need to change your school’s demographic to have any real success.” To me, this line of thinking is ridiculous. All kids can learn. But all kids cannot learn in the same way. It is incumbent upon us to meet these kids where they are and utilize the approach that best serves them, including offering more quality options for them. There are many teachers who have worked their magic with kids who come from the most challenged environments imaginable. From my vantage point, as opposed to using poverty as the easy reason why some kids in poverty can’t learn, let’s put an excellent teacher in the classroom of every low income child in America and see what happens. And once and for all, let’s stop talking about poverty being a barrier to positive educational outcomes for our kids.

Filed Under: Opinions Tagged With: , ,

Are the Schools in Your State Teaching Children to Read?

October 24, 2012 By

The Education Consumers Foundation has put together charts that not only help determine how well a school in a particular state or region is educating a student, but also shed light on the argument heard so often about poverty being an excuse for poor performance.

It is of the utmost importance that voters keep information like this at the forefront of their minds when they are going to the polls to vote, especially when voting for school boards or officials that will appoint school boards, as reform-minded candidates are more likely to understand that it is leadership and other quality inputs, and not just money alone, that will uplift learning. (If you’re having trouble determining where candidates stand on issues, be sure to check out Education Fifty and CER’s Field Guide on How to Spot a Real Reformer.)

Dr. J. E. Stone, President of Education Consumers Foundation, provides some context for these charts by explaining the poverty argument, why it exists, and why it can no longer be an excuse for failing to teach children to read:

 
The Issue

Since the sixties War on Poverty, observers of education have believed that the differences in outcomes between schools mostly reflect the socioeconomic disadvantages of their student populations.

In truth, economic disadvantage is big factor in school success. Disadvantaged students are 1-3 grade levels behind their age mates at school entry.

What is more important, however, is that effective schools can greatly increase the percentage of disadvantaged students who attain grade level by grade 3. Our state-by-state charts of poverty vs. third grade reading proficiency support that claim.

In virtually every school district, there are 40 to 80 percentage point differences in reading proficiency among schools with equally high concentrations of disadvantaged students. Some of them are charters.

Clearly, some schools are able to teach children to read despite their disadvantages–a conclusion that has been repeatedly affirmed by research.

Instead of 32% proficient by grade 4 (NAEP, 2011), the U. S. could have 90% proficient with effective reading instruction.

 
Message to School Board Candidates

This fall, we are sending a letter to school board candidates around the country urging them to look at reading proficiency in their local schools and to reject the demography excuse. Here is an example from Kentucky.

The Education Consumers Foundation’s mission is to improve education by making the facts of local school performance understandable to those who pay for and make use of the local schools. To that end, we have taken data published by the state departments of education in 21 states and created interactive online charts. They permit anyone to see at-a-glance how their individual local schools compare to others on reading achievement. The charts also reveal the larger pattern.

Third grade reading is arguably the single most important determinant of a student’s academic success and, in our view, failure in teaching this most basic of basics is at the heart of America’s college and career readiness problem. Significant improvement of student achievement cannot take place without improved early reading instruction

 
Leadership is the Problem

We are convinced that outcomes differ among high poverty schools because of how they go about their business. Superior outcomes are attainable, but schools fail to choose proven curricula and or adequately coordinate the efforts the sometime-changing group of 4 or more K-3 teachers who are responsible for these vital outcomes.

Teachers have to be on the same page and data driven–and that requires principal leadership. Policy customarily permits teachers to choose programs and teaching styles–but only if those choices well serve their students. When teachers or programs persistently fail, principals and superintendents are paid premium salaries to make decisions about personnel, resources and programs that will lead to success. Student demography can’t be an acceptable excuse when other schools succeed with the same students.

We urge school board candidates to familiarize themselves with the third grade reading performance of their local schools and to discuss this issue with their constituents. Voters need to understand that no amount of resources can significantly improve schools without effective early reading instruction, and effective programs require leadership, not excuses.

Filed Under: Standards & Testing

Once, I Went to a Foreign Policy Debate … and an Education Fight Broke Out

October 24, 2012 By

by Jeanne Allen
October 23, 2012

Some were confused that the presidential candidates in last night’s debate, ostensibly about foreign policy, pivoted so often to the education and the economy. I was surprised, too, but I didn’t share the view that these subjects were “off topic.” Both candidates recognize that for the U.S. to remain competitive abroad and safe at home, we must have a solid domestic foundation, including a robust education system that produces citizens who can compete in the global economy, and who are qualified to protect us.

Prior to the debate, I suggested there were two critical education reform questions that needed to be addressed – national security and competitiveness. I was pleasantly surprised that not only did the candidates address both, but that they went further, discussing the skills gap, teachers, and how education is a driver of economic success.

Some highlights:

• Governor Romney discussed the need to put parents, teachers, and kids first, and asserted that the teachers unions to get behind this principle.

• President Obama talked about the need for more math and science teachers, since American students lag many other developed nations in those subjects. He made the point that our success in these areas will determine whether we have the highly skilled workforce necessary for new business creation, and to make the U.S. attractive to investment.

• Romney talked about the lack of jobs for kids coming out of college and that we can’t fix the economy without fixing that.

• Obama said that if we don’t have the best education system in the world, we will lose our competitive edge over other countries. He argued that Romney’s budget would cut education and undermine that goal.

• Romney expresses pride in Massachusetts’ achievement record, asserting that the federal government didn’t help them get there.

Both candidates took the opportunity to press their now well-established positions – President Obama for teachers, class size and more money; and Governor Romney for standards, performance, and local control.

Whatever side of the issues you fall on, it’s a “win” when education reform enjoys such prominence in a presidential debate. Here’s hoping it stays in the forefront in the next four years.

###

For more on where Romney and Obama camps stand on critical education issues, head over to our Education and the Presidential Candidates page.

Filed Under: Opinions Tagged With: , , ,

U.S. Department of Education Stifles Opportunities in Nation’s Capital

October 23, 2012 By

CER Press Release
Washington, D.C.
October 23, 2012

The enrollment numbers for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) released today show a troubling drop in the number of students being served by the program (1,584 students in 2012-2013 compared to 1,615 in SY 2011-2012). The decrease in enrollment is directly tied to the Obama Administration’s mishandling of the application process.

“Last week, the President spoke of giving students better educational opportunities. Yet his Administration has created numerous roadblocks for children in the nation’s capital to access quality choices,” said Jeanne Allen, President of the Center for Education Reform.

Congress gave the D.C. Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (D.C. Trust), the organization managing the federal program, an increase in program funds for up to 2,100 students. But US Department of Education (DOE) interference created uncertainty about the future of the program. For example:

• DOE failed to provide proper implementation guidance that would have permitted D.C. Trust to hold more application events.

• DOE set arbitrary deadlines for such meetings, for the evaluation and for the actual lottery, setting it at end the end of July rather than May, long after parents have made decisions about their child’s education. While D.C. Trust received nearly 1,500 new applications, only 319 were able to accept the scholarships.

• DOE prohibited D.C. Trust from taking any new applications after March 31, 2012. Parents who learned late about the program or found after spring testing that their child’s education was not meeting their needs are left with no options, which is at odds with the intent of the program.

“These kinds of stall and delay tactics, which reflect the Administration’s long-time opposition to the program, are simply unnecessary and unkind to the kids for whom this program was designed. Congress and the Administration agreed to continue the program despite that opposition. At that point, government was obligated to support the law,” added Allen.

Students participating in the DC OSP are posting graduation rates18 percent higher and are gaining 3.1 months of additional learning in reading than students in conventional public schools.

Research finds that the program enjoys strong parental satisfaction and support from the community.

“Yes, it’s a small program, but it is very popular. It is saving lives and helping children trapped in failing schools – a fate assigned them to by virtue of their zip code. President Obama knows the DC OSP is good. In fact, his daughters attend a school participating in the program.

“Today’s release on the DC OSP provides yet another example of bureaucracy at its best. It’s time to put politics aside and give all parents the power to make smart decisions about their children’s education,” Allen concluded.

Filed Under: Press Releases

VSS Symposium: “Inventing the Future of Learning”

October 22, 2012 By

iNACOL’s Virtual School Symposium, titled “Inventing the Future of Learning” this year, aims to bring over 2,000 industry leaders together to learn about the latest trends, challenges and opportunities in e-learning; interact in session presentations; and gain access to the latest research and best practices reports. The conference takes place in New Orleans from Sunday, October 21 to Wednesday, October 24.

The Symposium is an invaluable opportunity for the field to “come together and share success and learn from others on the leading edge of efforts to provide students of all ages and abilities with ‘anytime, anyplace’ learning solutions,” says Susan Patrick, President and CEO of iNACOL.

You can see the full conference agenda, watch sessions online, and get information about past symposiums here. Follow and add to the discussion on twitter using #VSS12.

Update: The conference has now come to an end, but check out iNACOL’s website to watch sessions from the conference online. For a quick overview of conference content, see Six Topics from the Virtual Learning Conference.

Filed Under: Online Learning
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »