Sign up for our newsletter
Contact

D.C. charter school board objects to Rhee’s report card

January 9, 2013 By

by Emma Brown
Washington Post
January 8, 2013

When Michelle Rhee’s Students First lobbying organization released its first state policy “report cards” this week, one of the fiercest critics to emerge was an important policy player from her old backyard: The D.C. Public Charter School Board.

Scott Pearson, the charter board’s executive director, released a strongly worded statement calling Rhee’s report cards error-ridden and fundamentally flawed.

“Ms. Rhee’s service as Chancellor of DC Public Schools was largely characterized by ambivalence towards the DC charter sector. That ambivalence appears to rear its head in this report,” Pearson’s statement said.

“Unfortunately, and despite repeated attempts by PCSB to correct the record with Students First, the Report Card issued for the District of Columbia grossly mischaracterizes the educational policy environment in DC, particularly when it comes to charter schools.”

Students First rated the District fourth in the nation for reform-minded education policies — but that was only good enough for a C+.

Eric Lerum, vice president of national policy for Students First, stood by the organization’s work.

“We understand the PCSB’s concerns and we believe we have taken them into account in our grading of DC’s state policies,”Lerum said. “D.C. should be recognized for having a robust charter movement that encourages growth of high performing charter schools.”

Among the D.C. charter leaders’ complaints: The report dings charters and DCPS for failing to publish standardized school report cards that grade each school on an A through F scale. The charter school board does publish report cards via its “Performance Management Framework,” which grades each school on a 100-point scale and places each school into one of three performance tiers.

Charter leaders were also galled by the high marks — four out of four points — Rhee assigned for “equitable access to facilities.” One of the charter sector’s biggest complaints is that the city has made it overly difficult for charters, which are constantly challenged to find suitable real estate, to move into old public school buildings.

Pearson also objected to the low scores Rhee assigned for “charter school accountability” in the city, pointing to the charter board’s record of closing schools that don’t pass muster. (Just today, the charter board announced that it will vote Thursday on whether to revoke the charter belonging to Imagine Southeast, a chronically low-performing school.)

The Students First report does praise the charter board’s record on school closures and other measures, but says that city law ought to require more accountability — including a requirement that charters come up for renewal every 15 years instead of every 5.

Full statements from Pearson and Lerum are below.

Pearson:

Unfortunately, and despite repeated attempts by PCSB to correct the record with Students First, the Report Card issued for the District of Columbia grossly mischaracterizes the educational policy environment in DC, particularly when it comes to charter schools.

Significantly, the report never mentions that 43% of DC public school students attend charter schools. This is emblematic of the fundamental flaws in this report, where the significant and fast-growing DC charter sector is ignored when ratings are given to the state.

For example, the report grades DC a “0 out of 4” points for “School Report Cards,” ignoring the significant contribution made by PCSB’s School Performance Management Framework, that grades every charter school on a clear and transparent 100-point scale and assigns schools based on that score to Tier 1, 2 or 3 status. The report makes no mention of charter schools in such areas as fiscal transparency, alternative certification, pensions, and teacher pay.

When the report does look specifically at charters, it usually gets it wrong. For example, the report grades DC a “0 out of 4” points for “Charter School Accountability”, ignoring that fact that PCSB was recognized last year by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers for its aggressive policy towards closing low-performing charter schools. Indeed, of the 82 charter schools that have opened in DC since 1998, 25 have closed, a rate of over 30%. Most of these closed under pressure from PCSB. Similarly, the Center for Education Reform, which annually ranks state charter school laws rated DC first in the nation in 2012, noting “[DC] once again took the top spot in the rankings because of their strong independent authorizer [PCSB], charter autonomy and nearly equitable funding.”

The report also erroneously gives the district high marks for “Equitable Access to Facilities”, ignoring the enormous obstacles that Ms. Rhee herself, as DCPS Chancellor, placed to charters gaining access to closed DCPS buildings. The District has made significant improvement in this regard during the tenure of Mayor Vincent Gray and DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson, but still has more to do to ensure equitable access to facilities for charters.

Ms. Rhee’s service as Chancellor of DC Public Schools was largely characterized by ambivalence towards the DC charter sector. That ambivalence appears to rear its head in this report, yielding a disconcerting disconnection from the facts on the ground. DC public schools are in fact on the move, evidenced by a growing enrollment and improving accountability and performance, led by a charter sector now educating nearly half of the public school students in the city. It’s a shame that Students First and Ms. Rhee have chosen to avert their eyes from that progress in this misleading “Report Card.”

Lerum:

We share their desire to create high quality options for parents. DC should be recognized for having a robust charter movement that encourages growth of high performing charter schools. The PCSB also has worked to ensure accountability with its Performance Management Framework, despite having a weak state law in place to support that work.

Filed Under: CER in the News

Rejections in Maine Not a Surprise

January 9, 2013 By

January 9, 2013

No, we don’t have the ability to tell the future, we just know what solid chartering practices look like, and Maine does not have them. Yesterday’s Newswire noted the Governor’s attempts to improve Maine’s charter school law, but we suggested he go further and consider real multiple authorizers not tied to the state.

Which is why news of the rejection of 4 out of 5 brick and mortar charter schools, as well as two virtual charter schools, unfortunately doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

Check out The Essential Guide to Charter School Lawmaking – Model Legislation for States for more on what constitutes an effective charter school law.

Filed Under: Commentary, Edspresso Tagged With:

Battle Over Maine Charter Schools

January 8, 2013 By

“Battle over Maine charter schools smoldering”
by Robert Long
Bangor Daily News
January 7, 2013

Maine public school administrators lodged a new complaint Monday about the state’s two new charter schools: They won’t feel any impact of $12.6 million in education aid cuts Gov. Paul LePage ordered late last month to close a $35.5 million hole in the current state budget.

Public school officials say that’s not fair, and it reflects a pattern of inequity that marks the LePage administration’s push for charter schools. Maine Department of Education officials say the fraction of state aid that follows students to charter schools didn’t warrant action as part of this year’s emergency, budget-balancing cuts.

The dispute further fuels a contentious debate between public school officials, generally supported by Democrats, and the Republican governor about funding public education in Maine.

The curtailment fairness questions accompany news that the governor plans to propose legislation that would lift the limit on the number of charter schools in Maine. The law that allowed charter schools to begin operating in Maine in 2012 stipulated that only 10 charter schools could be created within the first decade of the law’s enactment.

The Maine Education Association, the union that represents Maine public school teachers, flunked that proposal as a “shortsighted plan which allows state funding to follow the student to a charter school, operated by a company not held to the same standards as public schools.”

In a release issued Monday, the MEA suggested that an expansion of charter schools could force the closure of small rural Maine schools and approached “taxation without representation,” according to MEA President Lois Kilby-Chesley, because boards that oversee charter schools are not “democratically elected.”

As a new Legislature, led by Democrats who reclaimed majorities in both chambers after two years of GOP control, convenes Tuesday, charter schools likely will return as a flashpoint in the ideological wrangling over how to get the best return on public education spending.

Democrats question the fairness of shifting public K-12 education dollars to charter schools, arguing it strips public schools of resources they need to meet rising educational demands. The LePage administration counters that charter schools create healthy competition, which better serves students.

Under a GOP-sponsored 2011 law that made Maine the 41st state to allow publicly funded charter schools, local districts pay tuition for students who live in their jurisdiction to attend a charter school of their choice. State education aid and school funding raised locally pay that tuition, which this year is roughly $9,000 per student, according to the Maine School Management Association. As school administrators scramble to cope with new projected state aid cuts for the fiscal year that ends June 30, some bristle because Maine’s first two charter schools won’t lose state funding.

“The state says charter schools are public schools, but they don’t live by the same rules,” Maine School Board Association President Kristin Malin of Georgetown said in a release Monday. “This is just the latest example of that. When every public school district in the state has to cut back under the curtailment order, charter schools have been automatically exempt. How is that fair?”

State Rep. Mike Carey, D-Lewiston, first raised the issue Friday in a question to Deputy Education Commissioner Jim Rier during an Appropriations Committee meeting on the governor’s curtailment order. The Legislature can alter the temporary cuts included in LePage’s curtailment order as part of a supplemental budget required to balance the current state budget.

“What was the policy decision made to kind of hold [charter school] students harmless from this cut?” Carey asked. Rier replied that the timing of quarterly payments to charter schools and the small number of students — roughly 85 in all — who attend the state’s two charter schools, Cornville Regional Charter School and the Maine Academy of Natural Sciences in Hinckley, led Maine Department of Education officials not to target those schools for aid cuts as part of the curtailment.

The proposed state education aid cuts to local school districts under LePage’s curtailment order also don’t affect funding for about 5,000 students who attend private academies with tuition paid by local school districts.

“It’s important to see that the impact of this curtailment is 0.6 percent,” Rier said Monday. “If you applied a similar percentage to charter schools, it would have been roughly $50 out $9,000.”

The bulk of that impact will be felt by School Administrative District 54 in the Skowhegan area, which sends 42 students to the charter school in Cornville and eight to the Maine Academy of Natural Sciences. For a school district that had to find more than $400,000 to pay charter school tuition after it had passed its 2012-13 budget, the curtailment exemption for charter schools simply adds to the inequity of the charter school law, SAD 54 Superintendent Brent Colbry said.

“It’s a fairness issue for me at this point,” Colbry said. “All our kids are going to feel this, and to isolate charters just doesn’t seem right. If my six towns receive less subsidy, then it seems reasonable those cuts should flow through to the charters.”

SAD 54 already had reduced spending on staff development, field trips, book purchases and other expenses to come up with money in this year’s budget for charter school tuition. Finding an additional $180,000 in response to the curtailment order exacerbates the district’s immediate financial dilemma, Colbry said, but that pales in comparison to a larger problem he believes the possible expansion of charter schools in Maine will pose.

“We lose 50 kids, but the costs to the local district do not change,” Colbry said, citing transportation and curriculum as two areas where funding must be maintained. “That money has to come out of kids’ programs or new taxes or a combination of both.”

The Maine Charter School Commission, which approved applications for two new charter schools to open this fall in Portland and Gray, is scheduled to meet Tuesday at the Cross Office Building in Augusta to determine whether five other applications, including two virtual charter schools, can move forward.

Filed Under: Breaking News

Newswire: January 8, 2013

January 8, 2013 By

Vol. 15, No. 1

Happy New Year! The first half of the first month of 2013 is not even finished and already the momentum — and opposition — around education reform is building. To wit:

STATE POLICY MATTERS. Kudos to StudentsFirst for their new report card, which offers some different perspective on the issues facing policymakers and parents. If Ed Reform is a College Student, this is akin to yet another professor weighing in on his competency in particular areas. But it’s the cumulative GPA that really matters in the end. CER comments today.

UNION POWER?? It’s like Randi Weingarten was suddenly Captain Renault in Casablanca: “I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling going on here!” Her line to Mayor Bloomberg’s characterization of the union being as powerful as the NRA might as well have been: “I’m shocked, shocked that anyone thinks we have as much power as the NRA!” The union was offended and tied the remark to the recent tragedies in Newton. For shame! Whether one likes it or not, the NRA is a powerful political lobby for a cause and members, and that’s what “Hizoner” was saying when the union decided to once again stand in the way of a new teacher evaluation law from being implemented. That law got the union and the Governor of NY and Bloomberg great press TWO YEARS AGO and is STILL NOT IMPLEMENTED, and is one of those laws that US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan attributes to Race to the Top pressure. Ah, but as we predicted, there is more to getting policy changed than getting a law passed, and like so many places, the initial oohhs and aahhs that surround the union becoming progressive turns out to be all about the talk, not the walk. Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson said :”As the mayor has said before, the union is a special-interest group focused on advancing its agenda, whether it’s in the public interest or not. Their refusal to agree to a fair evaluation deal is just the latest example of this.” Ya think?

PROMISES PROMISES. Does anyone else find it odd that Sec. Duncan won’t approve California’s waiver request because it fails to promise the state will adopt a teacher evaluation component tied to test scores, while states that have been approved – or given federal monies on the condition of doing so, like NY – have yet to have more than some smoke and mirror proposals that use words like “evaluation” and “student growth” but in reality, leaves it all up to the unions to approve? At least Gov Brown isn’t gaming the system by simply promising to do something that won’t result in performance pay anyway!

OUT WITH THE OLD. The above piece on New York is an example of why real reformers not only don’t eat quiche, but they fight to keep authentic, substantive education reform in play. Oh sure, it’s much more popular to say we compromised and everyone got a win, but that doesn’t happen when kids continue to be mis-educated. Here’s what we had to say about this in the Huffington Post.

A GOV WHO GETS IT. A governor resolved to fight for reform, no holes barred; that’s Maine’s Paul LePage, a tough talking leader who was willing to take a rolled back charter law to get the reform started but got no reward from oppositional board members and the Blob, who have continued to throw obstacles in the way of new proposals. But rather than back down, the Maine Gov not only announced he’d be moving to lift the 10 in 10 years cap, but that the two new charters opening would not see their budgets reduced in their opening year. Some see that as wrong, since all districts are experiencing cuts, but then the districts actually get 30% more in costs to begin with, plus facilities support, so really, it’s still not equity, for charters, but it’s a start. The state’s charter commission is meeting today to consider additional charter applications, plus a virtual school proposal they tabled out of some kind of fear of new innovations. Let’s hope they’ve come around, and Gov, while you’re at it, you might consider real multiple authorizers not tied to the state. The commission model is not effective.

HITE’S HYPE. A big announcement, bold words, lengthy blueprint. That’s the talk in Philly where Superintendent Bill Hite is trying his best to turn around a bankrupt, failed school system. Closing failing schools is part of it, creating his own blended learning model, more accountability — these are all good things to be sure, but there’s no mention of consequences for adults who don’t reform or real expansion of school choice. See for yourself.

GEORGIA IS JUST PEACHY. According to a new report released by the state education department, fewer than 1% of teachers in the state (including typically low performers like DeKalb County) are unsatisfactory. In another Race to the Top state which promised major improvements in exchange for money, reformers may want to pause to consider whether the infusion is being used as a game changer, or simply funding the system.

PRE-K-3. AppleTree is one of those great charter schools that Washington DC leaders talked about in their Washington Post opinion piece last week, which is why anyone in town on Monday, January 14th should consider learning what AppleTree knows about educating the very young. For more info on the event click here.

LOTS MORE NEWS….Albeit without the commentary, available here every day.

Filed Under: Newswire Weekly Tagged With: , , ,

All About CREDO

January 8, 2013 By

In 2009, a research report from CREDO (Center for Research on Education Outcomes) on national charter school achievement prompted a critical look at charter school research and what research conclusions can tell us about policy.

Four years after the controversial 2009 report, CREDO releases a 2013 report on national charter school achievement. While state-by-state extrapolation of data is a valid exercise, it is hardly the foundation upon which to set forth sweeping national solutions. A critical look at the research can be found in the documents below:

New CREDO Study Fails Test of Sound Research

Reviewing the Conclusions of CREDO’s National Charter School Study 2013

Response to CREDO’s 2013 National Charter Study Rebuttal of CER Methodology Concerns

In July 2009, CREDO (Center for Research on Education Outcomes) published a national report on charter school achievement. The Center for Education Reform and Dr. Caroline Hoxby, among others, have critiqued the report’s results and methodology:

A Statistical Mistake in the CREDO Study of Charter Schools
A report from researcher Caroline M. Hoxby explaining the statistical mistake in the CREDO report on charter school achievement.

Understanding Charter Achievement Research: The CREDO Report
CER provides brief talking points on the 2009 CREDO report on charter school achievement across 15 states and the District of Columbia.

Fact-Checking Charter School Achievement
Why some are saying only 1 in 5 charter schools perform, and why it’s wrong. Insight on the widely cited CREDO study.

CER Summary Hoxby New York Charters 2009
The most comprehensive study on charter school achievement at the time of the 2009 CREDO study comes from Caroline M. Hoxby and demonstrates quality charter school research methodology.

The Center for Research on Education Outcomes continues to research charter school achievement in various states. Below you will find analysis on some of the CREDO state reports:

New Jersey
CER’s research team breaks down differences between the controversial 2009 report and the New Jersey charter school achievement report.

Michigan
New state-level studies demonstrate more rigorous standard of research than national study.

Illinois
Continuing its research series on state charter school achievement, CREDO releases a report finding that Illinois charter school students outperform their traditional public school counterparts, especially in Chicago where the majority of Illinois charter students live.

Filed Under: Choice & Charter Schools

State Policy Report Demonstrates Widely Varied Reform Perspectives

January 8, 2013 By

StudentsFirst report valuable on teacher quality issues, lacking on parent empowerment

CER Press Release
Washington, D.C.
January 8, 2013

While the StudentsFirst State Policy Report Card adds to the growing body of data and information available to parents, policymakers, teachers and the general public, there is clearly widespread disagreement in the field about what constitutes good education reform policy.

“It’s akin to the varying grades given to college students by professors that add up to a cumulative GPA,” said CER Founder and President Jeanne Allen. “As an experienced college parent myself, I’m often struck by how varied the requirements and grading for students can be in the same institution. That doesn’t make the institution itself any less valuable, but it does demonstrate that opinions and preferences for what constitutes a good student can vary widely. In this case, education reform is the student.”

The State Policy Report Card is a complement on many levels to an increasing body of knowledge available about how policy impacts schools. On teacher issues, for example, StudentsFirst’s report shines, providing depth and context for the most important issues governing how states permit schools to evaluate, retain and reward teachers. In contrast, the Center for Education Reform’s annual report cards, issued for more than a decade, place emphasis on “parent power”, which includes in-depth analyses on which state charter school laws yield a truly dynamic and accountable charter school environment in which high numbers of quality schools operate with autonomy. The Parent Power Index© ranks states by their cumulative progress on all reforms, using the Center’s charter school laws annual ranking, data from The Friedman Foundation on state school choice programs, the National Council on Teacher Quality’s State Policy Yearbook and Digital Learning Now’s 10 Elements of Quality Online Learning. In addition, CER considers the user friendliness of state data and accessibility of local school board elections.

When the Center releases 2.0 of the Parent Power Index, as well as the 14th Annual Essential Guide to Charter School Law: Ranking and Scorecard, lawmakers will have another insight into state reform laws and their implementation. It’s likely that DC will remain the leading charter school law in the nation, while Indiana remains the overall top-ranked state for Parent Power. Rhode Island will stay at 31st for its charter law and 22nd for Parent Power. Conversely, StudentsFirst rates DC 4th, Indiana 3rd and Rhode Island 5th. About the differences across the various ratings, Allen said: “It’s terrific to have the ‘cumulative GPA’ that different report cards provide, but interested parties should also understand the differences between how organizations are slicing and dicing information. These tools together can do much to advance our shared goals of empowering parents and informing policymakers and the media which cover them.”

Filed Under: Press Releases

TX School Choice Expansion Proposals

January 4, 2013 By

“School choice legislation introduced this week”
Hays Free Press
January 3, 2013

As of press time, Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and state Sen. Dan Patrick were expected to announce education legislation this week that would allow more school choice. The Texas Tribune reported that the bill would likely spark a major battle in the upcoming legislative session.

Dewhurst and Patrick are strong proponents of school choice options for parents. Newly minted Texas Education Agency Commissioner Michael Williams is also in favor of choice but has said he would not advocate for it in his current position.

According to the Texas Tribune, proponents of school choice believe competition would elevate all schools, while critics are concerned about the effectiveness of competition if there isn’t a level playing field between public and private schools.

They are also concerned about how Texas STAAR measures would apply, as well as whether the cost of transportation and tuition would be affordable for Texas families.

Filed Under: Breaking News

Mississippi Charter School Battle Looms

January 4, 2013 By

Charter School Fight Looms as 2013 Session Nears
by Daniel Cherry
Mississippi Public Broadcasting
January 3, 2013

Mississippi lawmakers will gavel in the 2013 legislative session this Tuesday, and the debate over charter schools is likely to be one of the hottest issues of the session. MPB’s Daniel Cherry has more…

Those pushing public charter schools in Mississippi are eager for another shot at education reform, and they have some political heavyweights in their corner, including the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Advocates like Andrew Campanella, President of National School Choice Week, think it’s time Mississippi families have a say in where their children go to school.

“Not all children have access to a good school, and some of these kids are trapped in failing schools. And when you trap a child in a failing school, they’re more likely to drop out, or graduate without the skills necessary to get a good job.”

Charter schools are publicly funded schools, run by a private or non-profit organization…not the government. Nancy Loome, Executive Director of the Parents Campaign, says she supports school choice, only as long as the organizations running the schools have proven records of success.

“The idea that we should allow anybody to come in and have a charter school, even if the charter school is low-performing, just to give parents more choice, if the choice is a bad choice then I don’t think we’re accomplishing our goal of improving student achievement.”

Opponents are concerned charter schools will siphon off public funds from traditional public schools schools in dire need of money. But Erika Berry, with the Mississippi Coalition for Public Charter Schools, thinks competition will improve education all around.

“A charter school can help that traditional public school, show them how to best serve their students. ‘This is what we’re doing to really put our students on a successful trajectory. You can do it too.’ And I think that’s what we need to focus on and not so much, the school district is going to lose a lot of money, and that’s just not the case…it’s just not.”

Charter school legislation failed to pass the House of Representatives last session.

Filed Under: Breaking News Tagged With:

Charters that fail must pay the price

January 4, 2013 By

by Camilla P. Benbow
The Tennessean
January 3, 2013

When the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Board voted in mid-November to close Smithson-Craighead Middle School at the end of the current academic year, the decision angered parents and generated pleas for patience. This despite the fact that the charter school had been warned over several years that it needed to improve its performance or risk closure.

The most recent TCAP scores showed that only 7.6 percent of Smithson-Craighead students were proficient in math and only 17.6 percent in reading. These abysmal scores were far below those of other Nashville charter and public schools.

Nationally, the data on charter school closings have been mixed. One report from the Center for Education Reform indicated that 15 percent of the 6,700 charters opened over the past 20 years have closed. However, less than a fifth of these closed because of poor academic performance. Most were closed because of financial problems or mismanagement.

And charter school closures are down, according to the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA). The association observed a three-year decline in the percentage of charters closed at the time of charter renewal with 6.2 percent being closed in 2010-2011. However, the association cautioned that there could be several reasons for the decline, including improvement in school quality.

Critics who believe that charters are too slow to close might bear in mind another study, by Peabody alumnus David A. Stuit for the Fordham Foundation, that showed that poorly performing charters are much more likely to be closed than poorly performing public schools.

Signs also suggest that more charters may be closed in the years to come. In the fall, NACSA launched its One Million Lives campaign to strengthen charter school standards. It plans to work with authorizers, policymakers, legislators and charter school operators to close failing charter schools while opening new ones and enrolling many more children. In the face of evidence that most charter schools are neither better nor worse than their public school peers, NACSA hopes to help the charter school movement do a better job of policing itself and improving academic performance. The organization estimates between 900 and 1,300 charter schools are performing in the lowest 15 percent of schools in their states.

In the end, performance should be at the heart of the question of whether to continue or close a charter school. This means looking closely at student achievement on a school-by-school basis. Unfortunately, Smithson-Craighead Middle School did not withstand close scrutiny. MNPS was right to make the decision early enough in the year to allow parents to make other plans for their children. More such decisions may be needed in the years to come.

Parents, politicians and other charter school advocates need to remember that charters have always been experimental in nature. In exchange for public funding and operational latitude, charters promise innovation and academic success. When that success is not forthcoming, the experiment must come to a close.

Camilla P. Benbow is Patricia and Rodes Hart Dean of Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College. Her column on education appears every other Thursday in The Tennessean Local section.

Filed Under: CER in the News Tagged With: ,

Newspaper unfair in articles critical of charter schools

January 3, 2013 By

Opinion by Gregory A. Miller
The Arizona Republic
November 23, 2012

Re: “Insiders benefiting in charter deals” and “Critics say state is lax on charter purchasing practices,” by Ann Ryman (Nov. 18, The Arizona Republic).

Just the titles of the articles are misleading. It should be “Taxpayers are benefiting” because charter schools spend about $7,300 per student in state, federal and local money vs. over $12,500 per student at the district public school.

Ryman indicated that she and her team had “reviewed thousands of pages” of public documents. She found no criminal or bureaucratic bungling on the part of the 50 largest charter schools, just good business practices that are monitored by yearly outside independent auditors to minimize operational and supply costs of these independent, non-profit and for-profit businesses.

Show me a district principal who needs a new television for the media center who doesn’t wish the PTA would go buy it at Target, Best Buy or Walmart for about $250 instead of using the state procurement system and spending $400 for the same TV!

As for conflict-of-interest concerns, or public-trust issues, lots of districts do business with their board members and their families for construction of classrooms, athletic facilities, supplies, etc., with full disclosure and non-voting of the board member.

It is the same for charter schools, as a requirement of their contract (charter) with the state and the required procurement policy even after the exemption. There has been no loss of public trust in Arizona’s charter-school option. In the past 17 years, we have gone from a first-year enrollment of 6,500 to the current 144,800 (a number that is only limited by available space for students). That increase represents an annual growth over 13 percent.

With all due respect to those in the Legislature who believe that charters were established only to “provide an educational setting that may meet specific needs or try out non-traditional methods of educating students,” they are sorely misinformed.

The Education Reform Act of 1995 not only provided “labs of innovation,” it also put choice into the system. It not only gave birth to charters, it gave parents choices other than the neighborhood school within the district system. It put competition into a tried and poorly performing government-run system. It would save money! On new facilities costs alone it has saved the taxpayers of Arizona billions — yes, billions of dollars during the past 17 years.

The idea of free enterprise, with concerted public overview (When was the last time a district school was closed for poor academic achievement?) was taken on by charter operators with passion. We invested our own money, we run our own schools, hands on, and we live and die on our students’ academic performance and sound financial management.

Have there been poor examples of charter schools? Yes, but they have been eliminated by parents voting with their feet or by public oversight and closed by the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

This type of “expose” is always used as a driver of public opinion to add more regulations to try to create a charter profile that looks like, smells like and tastes like all other choices in education. It serves the purpose of the current public-school blob to eliminate by bureaucratic regulations (strangulation) these institutions of higher academic achievement and opportunity provided to the students and parents of Arizona.

Gregory A. Miller, CEO of Challenge School Inc., is the charter-school member of the Arizona State Board of Education.

Filed Under: Opinions
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »