SJR 11 - One Year Charter Moratorium - Research Required
Jun 9th, 2008 by rsmitty
I am a Charter School proponent. I am also accepting of Senator Blevins’ SJR11, “Instituting a One-Year Moratorium for New Charter School Applications.”
Two reasons that make me wince first, then two reasons I accept it afterward. In the name of front page space, take the jump to page two for the low down.
———————————————————————————————————
Reasons that don’t excite me about this Joint Resolution…
Who’s Who
Some of the names of sponsorship, namely one Senator DeLuca. He often has reared his head to complicate the path of charter schools. One specific example is the Delaware Military Academy and its pursuit of conduit funding. The prime incident being when they had CONDUIT funding lined up by the county only to have it yanked at the last minute at the behest of Senator DeLuca. Senator DeLuca and DMA…not friends, not even close.
Weak Reasoning
Another point I don’t care for in this resolution can be found on lines six and seven:
WHEREAS, Delaware will have a new Governor in January, 2009, and a new leadership team in the Department of Education during the 2008-09 school year…
Weak! To me, this reasoning lends to reasoning that every program should have a moratorium so the new Governor and associated teams can have a training period to deal with the issues of the state. C’mon, now. This resolution was OK without this wording. Anyone for Governor’s school?
———————————————————————————————————
Reasons I accept this resolution…
Educational Achievement
While a few charters are excelling in academic achievement, some charters are academically failing and others are in review. Why the disparity? That needs to be determined and done thoroughly. As much as I support charters, I see no reasoning available that can make me accept some failure in the name of promoting something I support. This was one of the issues that the existence of charters was going to improve. In some cases, there has been significant improvement. In others, status-quo. Yet others, regression. I do believe in charter schools, but I won’t support adding to their numbers “just because.”
Financial Stress
Charters do not pull from the ‘public trough’ in the method some out there would lead you to believe. There still is, though, an overhead that is needed to bring charters into existence. There is also the “bail out” of failed charters, should that happen. That’s not to mean that charters get shovel-fulls of money when they become distressed. It does mean, though, if a charter was to enact a shut down mid-year, there has to be a soft landing to either relocate students asap or to float the school to the end of the academic year.
There is an effort afoot in Dover to establish the use of conduit funding of charters. What more and more people are now understanding about conduit funding (yet a few who are blinded by allegiance still refuse to see), is that conduit funding simply allows these schools to get funding on the use of the body of government’s (state, county, city, etc.) credit rating. That’s it. The body of government has zero obligations on this debt. The obligation is the school’s and that is between them and the source of the funding (such as a bank). Additionally, with this method, there will be no bailout. This moratorium will also be used to get this avenue hashed out. Word is that people from either side of the argument last fall are willing to work the conduit funding availability. Not all, mind you, but some key players and that is an improvement.
———————————————————————————————————
Those are the points of this resolution that I have been able to determine so far. Unfortunately, the wording on the resolution doesn’t go into great detail that can tell you exactly what are the reasons behind it. One of the better-detailed reasons given may be one of the absolute weakest reasons to even have the resolution (lines six and seven). That is disappointing.
If you normally have contact with Sen. Blevins or one of the sponsors (Sens. Adams, DeLuca, Reps Cathcart, Spence, Lofink, Oberle, Gilligan, and Keeley), I recommend you contact her or him and listen to the reasons. Don’t come to a conclusion without listening first, as I almost did. I listened and I came away satisfied that there are productive reasons for this resolution that may result in a healthy stabilization of charter schools in our state.
To the rumor mills I have heard recently:
- This moratorium is intended to shutter existing charters.
- False. It’s to allow for the end of the current legislative session, which is saddled with decisions on financial duress, to focus on the budget and current legislation in consideration. It also allows time for a new session to look at this fully, rather than on a hand-off basis. Now, on a critical point, if this resolution were consistent in reasoning, the moratorium would reach further than simply charter school applications
- Continuing on that same rumor and it’s falsehood, only NEW applications are to be affected, except for an all-female charter, which would to be for the allowance of the balancing of gender-specific charter schools. Anything already past the application-submission-consideration process is not to be affected.
- The DSEA intends to force the charter teachers into paying representation (bargaining) dues without membership.
- I have tried and tried to get corroborating evidence to this rumor, but all I’ve uncovered is the same rumor, so a rumor it shall remain. I know of a significant amount of licensed educators that will pitch major fits if this ever materializes as truth, significant enough of a number that is, so this can’t be snuck into reality. It would face a fight, so rumor or not, it would see the light of day before ever being enacted, if at all.
There is no compelling reason to interfere with the charter process. Reviews can be conducted by the new administration and changes recommended. The charter schools are working as well or better than regular public schools with less money. It seems like an over reaction for no good reason except that the authors want to whip up some idea that some crisis is brewing.
The best thing that could be done would be to change DFMS (DE Financial Management System) to something a lot simpler and compatible with other states. It causes more administrative problems than it is worth and management companies from out of state run into severe problems trying to figure it out. Even worse the districts run into financial issues and they have been dealing with it for years. We need something which is straight forward and practical. DFMS is one of the three big obstacles to education excellence. It narrows are options, tends to mismanagement, and diverts significant resources to operate it. I wish they would spend their energies there.
But where is the interference? Existing charters are not affected, anything already in process is unaffected. That’s what I don’t understand. The one thing the debacle that developed from DMA’s honest effort to get conduit funding and the awful treatment they received was that the process is horribly flawed.
The line of charters in academic review or failing is counter to what they are supposed to accomplish! John “Kilroy - Raw Dog” Alison has a run down here. What about those? Status quo? Marion T was closed for a reason, but was the reason given the actual or an explanation? We don’t know with the players involved there. Let’s get these freaking rules established instead of ad-hoc.
Remember, I am a proponent of charters, but one has to accept criticism in order to grow and succeed. Don’t take my position wrong, either. Charter schools have their sworn enemies, much of it political-based. I am not looking to them for answers. However, when I learned more of what is trying to be accomplished here, I am way more at ease with it now, than I was before picking up the phone.
The interference is called a moratorium. The so called problems that they are looking at are not affected by the numbers of schools. The fact is that charters should be welcomed because they save the state and districts construction money. We have not had to build several schools in Kent County because of charter schools. The districts did not lose students, but it turned out to be a great way to handle growth. With the budgets tight as is, I would think this would be the last option we would wish to pursue.
We normally reform the process while it operates. The only reason to issue a moratorium is if there is some crisis or to make it look as if there is one. The silent reason could be to stop the constituency from growing. The more students in Charter schools, the more voters with a vested interest in them.
I agree with David.. None of the offered reasons are logical:
1) Making life easier on the new governor - Obvious BS… No one seriously considers this as a good reason for a moratorium, right?
2) Educational Achievement - Not all charter schools can be expected to excel. One of the original goals of the charter system was to allow room for innovation in education. Innovation implies risk-taking; so it should not be a surprise to find that some of the schools have failed. Failing schools, whether traditional public schools, or charter schools, should be closed.
3) Financial Stress - As pointed out, charter schools can alleviate financial stress by reducing capital funding requirements. Conduit bond financing is a relatively simple financial tool that can be explained in minutes. If our legislators can’t grasp the concept after six-plus months, it’s time to find more competent candidates.
Additionally, the governing boards for charter school applications (Delaware Department of Education and the individual district school boards) already have the right to limit the number of charter school applications they will accept, or even to reject all applications for a given year.
I personally oppose this legislation, because it reduces the educational opportunities we provide to Delaware’s children.
1) Making life easier on the new governor - Obvious BS… No one seriously considers this as a good reason for a moratorium, right
Yeah, I said that, thanks. In case you missed it:
Why is it OK to add to the numbers just because you can? Charters are great, but come on, 17 already and more on the way? There needs to be an assessment as to why the ones that fail academically are failing. Many are doing fine but why are others failing?
This legislation, a RESOLUTION, NOT A BILL, does NOTHING to the existing schools or those already through the process! I’d much rather they finally get it freaking right than to continue to plod along and band-aid everything along the way where it likely won’t ever be right, or at minimum, consistent.
Sorry, but my conclusion to the counter-arguments I’ve read jave a “just because” ring to them.
I don’t know much about charter schools, I do know that DeLuca is very, very pro-labor union. If this somehow puts public schools with their powerful teacher’s unions on a better footing than other competing schools without such uneccessary handicaps, I wouldn’t be suprised in the least. I don’t know that to be true, I’m just stating that it would not suprise me if it was.
Randy,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you believed in “Make Life Easier” point. It’s absurd, and you, me, and any other logical person will dismiss it immediately.
I am not advocating adding to the number of charter schools simply for numbers sake. I believe that the system is working properly already, in that successful schools (Delaware Military Academy, Charter School of Wilmington, Newark Charter) are flourishing, and failing schools (Marion T Academy, etc) are being closed. To arbitrarily deny additional charter school opportunities, even for one year, only slows down the pace of improvement in our school system.
I simply do not see a systemic problem in our state’s charter school system. I see a healthy, functioning system that has created some of our state’s most successful schools. How will Delaware students benefit from a one year pause in this process?
I have attempted to summarize my thoughts on my own blog, if you are interested. It can be found at http://www.jeremyfilliben.com.
Jeremy
Oh, believe me Christian, DeLuca’s name certainly gives me pause, hence my comment in why I have issues with this resolution. Also, some disclosure, I have an indirect connection to DMA (Delaware Military Academy) and I am very aware of his past interference and some spoken reasons for the interference (including what you expressed as a concern).
I don’t necessarily embrace this resolution with open arms like a parent does to a child. I do, however, accept what I learned to be the intent. It is unfortunate that it isn’t spelled out in this resolution, but understanding SOME of the innerworkings from last fall’s fiasco, I am satisfied with what was expressed to me when I made my calls.
Let’s also remember something using semantics. This is a RESOLUTION, not a bill. I have heard and read some critics lash out at this “proposed law.” That couldn’t be more wrong. If approved by both houses and signed by Gov (likely), then, yes it is treated as a law, but by definition is temporary, in this case one year. Nothing has to be done to terminate this resolution as it already has an expiration of one year. From DE’s Legislative site:
Big freaking deal. Let’s get it right. My opinion, though, is that once this one-year period is over, that’s it. No do overs. They get it done and get it done in that period.
Jeremy, I haven’t had a chance to look at your blog, so my apologies. I have somewhat of an inroad, an indirect one, to the issues charter schools face and it’s stacked against them, despite what some vocal critics claim.
You would think with that knowledge, I would be against this resolution. My reflexive action was to be against it, then I figured I needed to make a call. There are a couple sponsors on this resolution that are in favor of charters, so I thought there was more than what I saw on the surface.
One of the intents is to indeed establish a route to conduit funding. Of course, there will be milestones, checkpoints, etc. to “qualify” for conduit funding (it’s the government’s credit rating afterall), but in the case of DMA last fall, that was met! Yet, in the absence of a documented process for charter schools to access conduit funding, the critics were able to crush it.
I honestly see this as a short-term pain for a longer-term gain. Also, it gets the state out of the bail-out path that actually exists in the current set up. That bail-out being the guarantee of a soft landing so the students will not end up without school before the end of an academic year. That is something that we, as economic conservatives should be embracing!
My last comment (#9) may have left way too much to interpretation at the end, so here goes the clarification:
I honestly see this as a short-term pain for a longer-term gain. Also, it gets the state out of the bail-out path that actually exists in the current set up. That bail-out being the guarantee of a soft landing so the students will not end up without school before the end of an academic year. That is something that we, as economic conservatives should be embracing!
To get the conduit funding, from what I understand, the school will have to have funding to allow for the completion of an academic year should insolvency become an issue for operation. The students are not to be subjected to the potential of not having a school to attend before the year is completed. Optimally, to qualify for the funding, insolvency shouldn’t even be a concern, but we all know how dynamic economics can be, so the ability to complete an academic year is a priority.
Randy,
I believe I understand your point of view on this issue, but I still don’t see the connection between the moratorium and conduit funding. I have written to my elected officials (Representative Viola and Senator DeLuca), but have not received a response. I left messages with both officials’ offices for clarification.
Jeremy
DeLuca? That’s my biggest hang up here. Good luck with that. Let me know how that goes, although I think that was stating the obvious.
Jeremy there is none. Conduit funding shouldn’t even be an issue. It is within the counties’ rights and it is done for all sorts of organizations. It is an illogical debate on its merits, but when you understand the real motivation then you know that this opposition is one more roadblock for charter schools. They want to regulate them to death instead of freeing the district schools from burdensome and unproductive restraints. I think you should go to http://www.whyy.org and look at Monday’s Delaware tonight’s political forum. Dennis Rochford and Chip nailed it. Except for one fact, it won’t pass.
…and that same vein, David, the critics will continue to roadblock them to death without getting this addressed. Just let them plod along and band-aid issues along the way?
Maybe I am the idiot in thinking I could talk any sense here.
Come on, don’t be insulting to either us or yourself. You are a good man. There is no criticism of you. Look at the Delaware tonight clip. I don’t think the reasoning behind this is strong, to address these concerns does not require radical action. These are on going minor issues not a system failure. We are on the verge of implementing radical change and need a break to protect someone from getting caught up in a massive change while we are moving along.
Look at the 5 candidates for governor. Look at the GA. The likelihood that the charter schools will run into the same hostility from DOE in the future is small. Most of DOE just wants to see children educated. It is only a few and most of them seem to be political appointees of this administration who are a problem. Sure we will make adjustments, but to sacrifice the high ground to make peace is usually not good strategy in war or politics. It makes even less sense when your principle opponent is about to go away.
I think Dennis, Chip, Jeremy, and Christian are pretty astute and I think history has shown me to be as well. You can’t just dismiss our concerns as us not listening. This would be seen a slap against charter schools in the public. People would wonder about the future.
There is a new charter school for first responders being proposed. Making it wait serves no purpose other than to make them find a sight again (if the owner pursues other opportunities)and reestablish funding. As you know you cannot keep people waiting forever for money. They should have a right to make their case and get an answer.
Oops I left the not out. We are not on the verge of radical change.
You get the point.
I actually think some profound changes in education will help all schools. They are quiet ones. Mapping will make a real difference because it will focus teaching on the individual student. To make it work well though we will need to commit more resources to the classroom. It does no good to show the student’s weakness if you don’t address them. The GA has real opportunities to make a difference in all of the public schools and should do them before this.
The argument is weak and rewards don’t outweigh the liabilities. We actually have a good charter school law which has served us well. It is better to stay with the status quo than surrender to change from a position of weakness. The result will be a situation where we are worse off not better. If we get Protack, Lee, or Markell as governor, I think there is real hope for bettering our status. I think John Carney has real possibilities as well on this issue. That gives me hope. The last thing we need is the Minner administration’s allies shaping the discussion. Truth is that fact is the very reason they want to try to do so. That is what the rush is about. That is why you should maintain your original skepticism.
The charter school moratorium is not a one-year moratorium. It will be the first year of a permanent moratorium.
Why stop the addition of schools that get the same or better results with less money?
“While a few charters are excelling in academic achievement, some charters are academically failing and others are in review. Why the disparity? That needs to be determined and done thoroughly.”
This is incredibly obvious, but political correctness keeps anyone from pointing it out: There are no schools in the state comparable to the inner-city charters, because they have such high levels of minority students and below-poverty students. The BS that these schools “regressed” is just that, because there is literally no comparison point.
Saving money is the least of the reasons to support charters. Freedom of choice is the reason the public (as opposed to ideological conservatives) supports charters. The savings are a minor bonus.
We actually have a good charter school law which has served us well. It is better to stay with the status quo than surrender to change from a position of weakness.
I am not in total disagreement with you, which I think is a concern here, among others. HOWEVER, if it is well, why the conduit funding fiasco last fall? DMA did everything right, except in the eyes of the critics of charters in general. That is suspected to be because of what they are, charter schools. I see this as an opportunity to get them off of our backs once and for all.
If I am considered delusional, then so be it, but I don’t want to see that fiasco with both the county and state that DMA suffered to ever, ever happen again. It was unwarranted and undeserved.
You are right that the DOE doesn’t want them to fail (or suffer), but unfortuantely they don’t possess the power when the likes of DSEA can lobby their legislative pals into overriding what should have been an obvious decision. Sorry, but I think it is more fantasy to think the GA will address this without the moratorium. That was SUPPOSED to have been done this session and it isn’t happening, is it? This moratorium puts them in a very bright light to get it done, period. BTW, what makes you think a weakening stance can happen only from of a moratorium? If the GA wanted to weaken it, they’d do it with or without.
If this resolution fails, then I expect (and I personally place the onus on) all those who think the resolution unnecessary to pressure their local sens and reps to once and for all address the conduit funding and surrounding issues that allowed for that fiasco in 2007 to come to the floor in the manner of a bill. It needs to come to closure. There is way too much wiggle room for personal and lobbyist interpretation. Get it done, get it over, period.
The charter school moratorium is not a one-year moratorium. It will be the first year of a permanent moratorium.
That is either a lie or an opportunistic exaggeration. Let me once again hold a class on Delaware legislation:
The proposed RESOLUTION has a stated period of one year. If it is enacted and they wish to change it, that is a NEW resolution. If they wish to make it permanent, then that is a BILL. Woe and wishful luck to their political careers if they take that path.
Smitty: I think what he’s saying is that this is merely the first move. If Carney gets elected, do you really think it will be the last?
some charters are academically failing and others are in review.
That’s what you guys wanted to happen, right? You can’t have competition unless you allow failures.
Why the disparity?
Oh, who cares - “disparity” is a made-up issue for liberals and unions. If you start looking for reasons, you will just be back where the traditional public schools are. So forget it and just let competition sort out the winners and losers. Seems to be working just fine, right?
kilroysdelaware.blogspot.com/2008/06/delaware-charter-school-mirror.html
Ah, then there is the parrot side of the argument from noman. At least it keeps the conversation going. Sarcasm or not, that exact type of stance that makes me scream to get this done!
You really think we believe Darwinism in regard to the educational system is acceptable? Get real.
Thanks for Kilroy’s link, except I had already hyperlinked it in comment #2. I appreciate what John (Kilroy) does because it keeps it on the table. We can NOT NOT NOT pretend all is well because it isn’t. However, it’s not just the examples of the underperformers that’s the issue as many of the blinded-by-allegiance critics would have you believe (not a knock on Kilroy, btw).
I don’t think any school of any type of structure is acceptible if it is academically sub-par. Why in the hell are those schools failing…ANY OF THEM? By the blinded-by-allegiance reasoning, it’s because of the charter schools…except…hmm, schools were failing academically long before charters were even a thought!
OK, if this resolution is DOA, then where to go from there? It is painfully obvious that status quo will not work. Go back to the conduit funding issue and the obscene lobbying that sufficiently aided in the blocking of the funding. Status quo is unacceptable. Saying the GA will address this is wishful thinking and that’s from recent history. They were going to do that this session, or so was stated back when the conduit funding was crushed. Where is that now?
I reiterate, this forces a bright light upon them to get it done. Otherwise, it’s back to too much damned whispering and not enough action.
Ever give any thought to the idea that, with the coordinated opposition of so many forces — including noman’s beloved unions — those charters that enroll mainly inner-city kids have been set up to fail? They’re made to do with less, when what they clearly need — particularly to attract teachers — is more.
Unlike public schools, every charter is unique. But it sure is handy for “liberals and unions” to use the predictable poor performance of 99% minority schools to trash the entire idea.
“Go back to the conduit funding issue and the obscene lobbying that sufficiently aided in the blocking of the funding. Status quo is unacceptable.”
My solution is simple: Show the DSEA for the force against educational choice that it clearly has set itself up to be. Continue to campaign against Democrats as tools of unions, which represent only 1 in 10 American workers. This has the added benefit of being true.
Hoo boy…and I just reinstated Dana. I am in trouble, even though Al said it.
I am honestly frustrated to the ends on this, all the way back to the conduit funding issue. It needed to come to a head, we were told it was going to…yet it fizzled. I see this as an opportunity to finally go head-to-head and a moritorium, in my eyes, would bring out the heaviest of hitters, something it desperately needs.
Yes, that means I am placing a lot of faith on the charter schools to be abundantly prepared to represent themselves well. I feel that faith is well placed.
Smitty: Gotcha. I didn’t understand your reasoning at first.
Mr. Smitty ,
The resolution is a first step toward a permanent moratorium. I did not intend for my comment to be taken as a literal interpretation of the resolution. What I meant was that this is the first step in a deliberate process to rid Delaware of charter schools. This process is being initiated by the employees of the teacher’s association. It is quite the open secret in Dover.
Do you mean the leadership or the membership? If you mean the latter, you are being fed intentionally false rumors. If you mean the former, then I don’t have any info to agree or dispute your statement.
Ever give any thought to the idea that…charters that enroll mainly inner-city kids have been set up to fail?
Actually what I think about more is how DMA, CSW and Newark Charter were set up to succeed.
They’re made to do with less, when what they clearly need — particularly to attract teachers — is more.
Al, if you want to hang with the charter school proponents, you have to learn to say that money is not the problem.
Because if you say schools with inner-city kids need “more,” the next thing you know the regular public schools will also be asking for “more.”
What is your ASSUMPTION about DMA, noman? Watching how you lumped it in already tells me you are likely incorrect. I’ll figure that one after you spew it.
So my hunch, not knowing anything about the issue, is in agreement with the majority of posters on here? That is, this being a DeLuca pro-union move in order to keep the teachers union in charge of all education?
If we’re all in agreement on the fundamental purpose of this resolution we all need to sing a kumbaya or something as that’s got to be a first.
Thoughtful post, Smitty. Too bad most people think in terms of good and evil. I agree we need to slow down when it comes to charters simply because all charters are not created equally.
I am neither pro or anti-charter. Some charter schools are excellent, some are pure crap. Kinda like public schools.
Noman actually hits the nail on the head, albeit unintentionally… “Ever give any thought to the idea that…charters that enroll mainly inner-city kids have been set up to fail?
Actually what I think about more is how DMA, CSW and Newark Charter were set up to succeed.”
Success and failure once again linked to socio-economics… just like public schools.
CSW enrolls the best of the best and I’m supposed to be impressed with their DSTP scores? Meanwhile, high poverty, racially identifiable charter schools are failing and charter school advocates don’t question why?
Trying to make this issue political or about the teachers’ union leaves out the most important issue: The children.
Is there a problem with public school education. Yes, but all’s not well in the land of charters either.
Thanks for the post, Smitty. Good luck trying to find some middle ground. Maybe if the “all charters are good” crowd and “all charters are bad” crowd toned down the rhetoric the kids in charter and public schools would benefit. I’m not holding my breath.
I do appreciate my fanclub of one. Thanks Pandora!!!
Noman says, “Actually what I think about more is how DMA, CSW and Newark Charter were set up to succeed.”
There’s my gripe, right there — the assumption that the parents involved were motivated by a desire to make the teachers’ union look bad. Yes, success sure is a bad thing. Don’t want high-achieving kids to achieve even higher. It might make the other kids look or feel bad. Yes, noman, it’s a terrible thing when a school is set up to succeed.
“Al, if you want to hang with the charter school proponents, you have to learn to say that money is not the problem. Because if you say schools with inner-city kids need “more,” the next thing you know the regular public schools will also be asking for “more.” ”
Another slippery slope argument. I’m sick of them. I’m not looking to hang with anybody. This is about giving people choices, and that’s all it’s about for me. My attack on the union comes because they crossed a line when they used political muscle to deny low-cost loan terms to the military academy.
“Maybe if the “all charters are good” crowd and “all charters are bad” crowd toned down the rhetoric the kids in charter and public schools would benefit. I’m not holding my breath.”
I’ve never said all charters are good. I’m trying to stave off the teachers’ union position, which is that all charters are bad. And the motives of that union are worse than bad.
Noman actually hits the nail on the head, albeit unintentionally
You wound me, Pandora!
I also appreciate the thoughtfulness and open-mindedness of Smitty’s post, and I should have said so at first.
I am actually not opposed to charter schools; they are fine as long as we understand them as experiments and incubators, and not a model for the whole system.
And they do suck resources from the system, but the system is big enough to tolerate the loss, as long as it receives the benefit of the lessons learned from the experimentation. That is why there should be some but not too many charters. And just like any human experimentation there needs to be be ethical standards applied to make sure the subjects (the kids) are not harmed.
In medical experimentation, when a large number of subjects start doing poorly as compared to the standard treatment, the experiment is terminated and the causes are investigated. That is where we are at with charters, so that is why a moratorium makes sense.
Yes, success sure is a bad thing. Don’t want high-achieving kids to achieve even higher. It might make the other kids look or feel bad. Yes, noman, it’s a terrible thing when a school is set up to succeed.
So why don’t we just call CSW and Newark Charter “Magnet Schools For The Advantaged” and stop pretending the charter school model works for anybody else?
Didn’t mean to draw blood, noman. Actually thought your point hit the core of the problem/success with charters… Not all charters are created equal.
Actually, Pandora brings us to very important point. Many charter schools are about serving the people failed by the district schools (notice I don’t say public and charter because they are all public schools). What I think needs to be part of reform is to expand the school year by about 2 or 3 days and have testing the beginning of the year and the end of the year to see if the child improved. If a student came to a school two years behind and ends the year only one year behind, then all should be congratulated. If the child started a year ahead and fell to grade level, then we shouldn’t be happy. The current system would reward the school for the child who lost a year and punish the school for the child who gained a year because we are not looking at student progress but overall test scores for a grade.
That type of system adversely affects choice schools who try to help disadvantaged or at risk populations in particular.
“In medical experimentation, when a large number of subjects start doing poorly as compared to the standard treatment, the experiment is terminated and the causes are investigated. That is where we are at with charters, so that is why a moratorium makes sense.”
A canard. There is no evidence that the INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN in poor-performing charters would perform better in the regular school system.
“So why don’t we just call CSW and Newark Charter “Magnet Schools For The Advantaged” and stop pretending the charter school model works for anybody else?”
Because you have no evidence that only the advantaged are allowed in. There may be a correlation between household income and school performance, but it isn’t a one-to-one relationship. There are plenty of “advantaged” kids who aren’t smart enough (or more accurately who don’t perform well enough in school) to make the cut. Unless you can show me evidence that the schools you mention are accepting students not on ability but by household income, this is a canard as well.
The idea of charters is that EVERY parent — including those of kids who are doing well in traditional public schools — should have the opportunity to maximize their child’s performance.
The question becomes, Why are you so willing to say “good enough” when it comes to the best performers when you’re opposed to saying it for the worst?
“What I think needs to be part of reform is to expand the school year by about 2 or 3 days and have testing the beginning of the year and the end of the year to see if the child improved.”
No, the school years needs to be expanded by five or six weeks. Any teacher will tell you how much time is wasted every September reviewing the stuff kids learned in April and May and forgotten over the 12-week vacation.
No, the school years needs to be expanded by five or six weeks.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they just need to pack the extra time into the traditional school year.
What I saw was that teaching was rigorous right up until the DSTP/spring break, then they started coasting to the end of the year. And why is there always an “in-service day” in the first and last week of school?
The August in-service day is especially galling because they start before Labor Day, which creates two four-day weeks in a row.
This may add value to your discussion.
Yes, keep the 14-19 year olds inside where we can indoctrinate them all year round, versus out in the real world where they can get a job.
Very interesting post,Dave. It shows this proposal is the first stage of a planned assualt on Charter schools by the DSEA. If we needed proof, we have it now. I hope the Republicans in the house are paying attention to this. It is a clever argument even to Smitty, but it is right there in black and white. First stop the expansion of charter schools, then launch a debate to eliminate the 30 point lead we have with the public. This resolution has to be opposed.
Thanks
I call BS, noman. Teachers have been telling me this for 30 years, and research backs it up.
“Yes, keep the 14-19 year olds inside where we can indoctrinate them all year round, versus out in the real world where they can get a job.”
Doing what, Hudson, sweeping up garbage for minimum wage at a trailer park? Tell me you’re not as ignorant as that comment makes you sound.
Check out the PR firm survey the DSEA paid for. It makes quite clear the union’s position, as it was designed to work up an angle of attack on charter schools.
So glad to see how hard our teachers’ union is working to improve traditional public education — by tearing down would-be competitors.
This revelation is leaving a pit in my stomach. I have reached out for some additional information with this new information (in regards to me, it’s new).
Regardless, this whole, entire fiasco of us v them needs to come to a head and be put to bed. It’s not just the teachers, but the students, parents, and other paid staff that get the shaft over this bull shit.