Minnesota is #1 for Charter Schools
Here’s a #1 ranking that Minnesota can be proud of. According to an annual report card report card published by the Center for Education Reform, Minnesota has the strongest charter school laws of any state. That is, charter schools are more secure here, and have a better chance of having an effect on education than anywhere in any other state.

Under the center’s framework, a strong law is one that makes it relatively easy to start and operate a charter school, and have fiscal and legal independence from school districts. Incredibly, in some states charter school applicants must first secure the permission of the local school district within whose boundaries they will operate. That’s like making Burger King ask for permission to set up a store inside a McDonalds.

Minnesota gets credit for, among other things:

• Giving charters legal and fiscal independence;
  
• Not imposing a cap on the number of charters;
  
• Allowing a variety of organizations to approve and oversee charters (in addition, of course, to the state department of education).

Despite the fact that the national charter school movement started in Minnesota, charter schools still face opposition from vested interests. In the Winter 2008 edition of Education Next, Ember Reichgott Junge describes how her support of charter schools was one factor in her loss to Keith Ellison in the Fifth District primary.

Labels: Charter schools

(permalink)

Union Industry Schools to Charter Schools: Come Join Us
Competition with charter schools for students has forced the traditional, union-rule schools to respond. Sometimes the response is outright hostility and obstructionism, such as when a district refuses to sell a surplus building to a charter school.

Sometimes the response is a little more friendly.

From the archives of draft posts that never got published, I noticed that the Boston public schools are trying to bring charter school employees back to the union shop.

Today, 550 teachers and principals in the city's 14 charter schools will begin receiving letters asking them to consider converting their schools, which are under state jurisdiction, to pilot schools, which are autonomous but fall under the Boston public school system. The letters were mailed by the Boston Teachers Union on Saturday.

I don't know what sort of reception this invitation received--when I put this item in the queue, it was well over a year ago--but I do see this as an interesting response of the traditional school systems to charter schools. At least it's better than trying to shut down those schools outright.

Where did these pilot schools come from?

Pilot schools, created in 1995 in response to competition from charters, have more autonomy than traditional schools but less than charter schools .... The school system has 19 pilot schools, which are popular among parents.

There's certainly public demand for shaking up the system:

In February, after a yearlong standstill, the system reached an agreement with the teachers union to create seven more pilot schools by 2009. Roughly 6,000 of the system's 58,600 students attend the pilot schools. About 4,300 Boston residents attend 14 charter schools.

Looks like something else for the "I ought to look into that" pile.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Ohio Charter Schools are Safe, For Now.
In Ohio, charter schools turned back a constitutional challenge. See State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn (PDF), in which the plaintiffs alleged four complaints:

(in the summation of the law firm Jones Day, which defended charter schools)

"1) [charter schools] are not part of the 'common system' of public education,
(2) render the public school system less than 'thorough and efficient,'
(3) take local property taxes from traditional school districts, and
(4) may not be supported by the state due to the fact that the schools are operated by private individuals."

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Are Public School Districts Constitutionally Protected from Charter Schools?
That's the question that is posed in Ohio, where community schools, as they are known, face legal challenges.

A challenge on the grounds of the state constitution was rejected on a close vote early last month.

See (PDF) State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

The U.S. Becoming a Nation of the Less Educated?
Is the U.S. actually becoming a nation with less education? The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education says so.

"If current trends continue," it warns, "the proportion of workers with high school diplomas and college degrees will decrease and the personal income of Americans will decline over the next 15 years."

Granted, having a BA in English lit isn't a great qualification to serve up coffee, but the Center expects that high school graduation rates will decline as well. One way of measuring the economic effect: a 2 percent decline in inflation-adjusted per-capita income by the year 2020.

Changing demographics and the achievement gap are largely responsible.

Just another reason to introduce competition, choice, and a diversity of players into the delivery of K-12 education. Private schools and public charter schools have a record of helping close the achievement gap.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Schools for Students ... or Student for Schools?
Should traditional public school districts be required to let charter school students participate in extra-curricular activities?

The Saint Paul Pioneer-Press recounts the story of a 16-year old boy who wasn't doing well in his school district. He enrolled in a charter school, and has performed well since then.

Since the charter school does not have a football team, Randall Brekke asked to try out for the team of the district high school.

They said no. The logic is appalling: "District 196 Superintendent John Currie said students should view the activities as part of the whole school experience and not drop in only for one or two."

In other words, take it or leave it, regardless of whether the academic program--allegedly the reason for a school to exist--fits the needs of the student. We're going to claim all of you, regardless of the fact that customization is the order of the day.

The system must prevail.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Entrepreneurial Schools.
The value of charter-school fundraising.

Recently I toured several charter schools. None depends solely on taxpayer support, each engages in development work, seeking volunteers and financial backing from foundations and individuals.

This is not unusual; many traditional public schools as well as public universities do fundraising. But charter schools are more consumer-sensitive than traditional public schools. There are several reasons:

One, they must persuade potential donors to actually contribute.

Two, they cannot rely on persuading a bare majority of voters to compel everyone else to pay more each day for the school's operating expenses. (Traditional public schools can place measures on the ballot, often timing them in ways as to maximize the likelihood of passage.)

Three, each family must take the active step of actually rejecting the default option of the standard school district, and actively select and apply to a charter school.

Charter schools do not operate uniformly well, no more than do all traditional district-owned schools. Yet they face more incentives to actively listen and respond to willing customers. If for no other reason, they are worthy elements of "public education."

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Doing School Choice Right.
charter schools are as different from each as regular public schools are--and by design, even more so.

They are still a relatively small element of the nation's school landscape, which means that we are still learning what works and what doesn't. One resource I've come across lately is the Center for Reinventing Public Education.

At the end of the month, CRPE will come out with a new white paper that analyzes previous studies on whether charter schools help students learn. Should be interesting.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Does Johnny Look for the Union Label?
Do teacher unions like charter schools? Not the one in Chicago, at least.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

The Union that Killed Opportunity for Children.

In an e-mail from Americans for Tax Reform, Ron Nehring writes:

------------

Will unions kill Florida's highly succcessful school choice program?

Lobbying campaign against choice successfully flipped four Republican state senators.

To the casual observer, last year’s decision by the Florida Supreme Court striking down the state’s school choice program might appear easily fixed: a Republican legislature, a conservative Republican governor, and a clear record of success for the “A+ School Accountability and Choice Program” should produce a political solution.

Not so fast.

Enter: the Florida Education Association union, the state affiliate of the National Education Association teachers union and ardent foe of anything threatening the public school monopoly in education.

Florida’s school choice program provides students attending consistently failing schools in the Sunshine State the option of attending another school, public or private, with the state picking up the tab. A total of 733 students, 90% of whom are minorities, are taking advantage of the program.

Last year in a bizarre ruling the Florida Supreme Court struck down the program, finding it violates the “uniformity” clause in the state constitution because, remarkably, students exercising their choice option are receiving a better quality education than those trapped in the underperforming public schools. As the Wall Street Journal opined this week, “As they used to say in the Soviet Union, everyone gets to share their poverty equally.”

The same ruling also jeopardizes Florida’s school choice program for 18,000 learning disabled students.

Looking for a solution, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Republican leaders in the legislature are working to place on November’s ballot a constitutional amendment that would exempt the voucher program from the constitution’s uniformity clause. All that’s needed is for 60% of the legislators in chamber to agree to place the measure on the ballot.

This is where the Florida Education Association (FEA) union, with its deep pockets and sophisticated lobbying campaign, comes in.

Over the last twenty years, Florida has reflected the trend in other southern states in a transformation from total Democrat to total Republican control of the executive and legislative branches of government – despite the best efforts of the FEA and other politically active labor unions to the contrary.

In adapting to the new environment in Tallahassee, the FEA recognized that simply because a legislature is majority Republican, the opportunity to block reforms such as charter schools and school choice still exists – if the union can successfully woo just enough members of the majority party to deny reformers a majority on any key vote.

To succeed, the strategy need not be successful in both houses – just one. In this case, it’s the Florida Senate, whose Republican majority has proven consistently less reliable in advancing education and other reforms than the more conservative House of Representatives.

With its headquarters filled with lobbyists and operatives just one block from the capitol, the FEA’s intensive pressure campaign directed at the Senate succeeded this week in blocking the proposed constitutional amendment to save the school choice program. The amendment fell one vote short of the 60% supermajority to proceed to the November ballot for voter approval. Needing 24 of 40 senators to vote in support, it garnered only 23.

What’s remarkable is the FEA’s success in turning four Republican Senators, including Republican Majority Leader Alex Villalobos, against the amendment, which was strongly supported by Senate President Tom Lee and Governor Jeb Bush.

(One encouraging sign: Lee immediately stripped Villalobos of his Majority Leader position, replacing him with the more supportive Sen. Dan Webster of Winter Garden).

The FEA’s successful lobbying campaign, and victory despite a significant Republican majority in the Senate, highlights the influence that comes as a result of the union’s power to funnel union dues directly into massive spending on behalf of anti-reform candidates in general elections.

A bill to end the practice by giving Florida teachers the right to choose for themselves whether to fund union political action died this year when Senate Republican leaders used a parliamentary maneuver to keep the bill bottled up in multiple committees while the session drew to a close.

Sen. Webster, along with up and coming Senators like Mike Haridopoulos of Osceola, show the Senate’s Republican majority continues to slowly drift away from union influence, but apparently not fast enough to save the choice program this year. Yet, Republican legislators not compromised by FEA pressure and Governor Jeb Bush continue to work on solutions to save the school choice program and prevent the 733 students in the program from being forced back into public schools which consistently fail to perform.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Happy National Charter Schools Week!
In honor of National Chater Schools Week (there's a week for everything, isn't there?), officers of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute offer a review of the authorities that grant charters to charter schools.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Why Do We Have Education Taxes?
What's our goal: the preservation of "public schools," or the education of children?

(Reprinted from the Detroit News)

Good for the voters in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, as Jeffrey Hadden notes in the Detroit News politics blog. Contracting out janitorial work, landscaping, cafeteria work, and so forth, is a smart thing for schools to do. When done properly, it can save money.

The controversy illustrates a larger problem that afflicts education today. We tax ourselves to pay for the education of minor children because we think that there is (to use a term from economics) a "public good" at stake.

But what is this "public good?" It's seeing to that the next generation receives an education in reading, math, science, and so forth. It isn't that individuals X, Y, and Z can have a job (unionized or not) in a school.

Right now, most money collected for education is distributed through local school districts, which with minor exceptions aside (charter schools, mostly), have a government-granted monopoly on where a student living in a particular house will receive his education.

Is this the only way to delivering education? Certainly not. We could, for example, give families vouchers so they can select from privately operated providers of schooling. We already use a similar arrangement in housing (section 8 vouchers), groceries (food stamps) and even higher education (state and federal scholarships and loans).

Yet anytime vouchers or even contracting out of non-instructional jobs is considered, their advocates are attacked by the school establishment as being "against public education," or even "anti-education." Now, vouchers can be criticized on several grounds, none insurmountable. But it's just silly so say that voucher advocates are against the education of the public.

Many "public schools" do a fine job for some students. But when we insist tying education money to government-run organizations, our first priority is, in effect, to preserve an institution that rather than recognize that other arrangements might better serve the ultimate goal.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Charter Schools: Less Money, More Success.
What would you think of a school that gets "at risk" kids to learn more--at a lower cost?

One kind of school that is good at this is the charter school, says the Center for Education Reform. Their 2005 survey of schools came out a while ago. Here's a link to the PDF file (18 pages total).

The press release below gives a glimpse of the report:
------------------------------------------------------

Study Shows Charter Schools Succeeding Where Others Fail
Report details Charter Schools serving more at-risk
and minority students while increasing achievement.


Washington, DC, March 16, 2006 - Charter schools are serving considerably more "at-risk" children and doing so with $2,000 less per pupil than conventional public schools, according to a recent report by the Center for Education Reform (CER). The data refutes claims that conventional public schools serve more minority and at-risk students. The Annual Survey of Charter Schools reveals a migration towards the innovative public schools, which have experienced double-digit annual growth since the mid-to-late 1990’s. Currently, 3,617 charter schools serve over a million students in 40 states and the District of Columbia.

"Year after year this survey shows the depth of education charter schools provide to children most in need," said CER president Jeanne Allen. "They are doing so with fewer resources, longer days and school years, and through the use of more focused curricular approaches, such as college prep, math and science, and core knowledge programs."

With a 60 percent median minority population and a median 63 percent qualifying for free/reduced lunch, the survey shows that charter schools continue to serve students who have been failed by the "one-size-fits-all" educational system. Charter school growth can be attributed to multiple curriculum options, smaller class sizes, and more instructional time, according to the report. Of the schools surveyed, 56 percent reported significant waiting lists, with a median of 50 students on charter school waiting lists.

Charter schools are independent public schools, designed by educators, parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs, and others who are interested in providing a quality education to children in their community. Charters operate outside the educational bureaucracy that too often stifles innovation in traditional public schools. As public schools, charters do not charge tuition or select their students.

Since 1997, CER has regularly surveyed charter schools operating in the United States. The information in the report was pulled from surveys of the nation’s charter schools compiled throughout 2005. Click here to download the report.

The Annual Survey of Amerca’s Charter Schools is available in print to the media by contacting Jon Hussey at jon@edreform.com. Print copies are available to the public for $19.95. Click here for ordering information.

# # #

The Center for Education Reform (CER) creates opportunities for and challenges obstacles to better education for America's communities. Founded in 1993, CER combines education policy with grassroots advocacy to foster positive and bold education reforms. For more information, contact CER at (202) 822-9000 or visit www.edreform.com.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Before We Kill All the Lawyers.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal decided that one way to celebrate its 100th anniversary as a law firm was to open a charter school in Chicago's North Lawndale Neighborhood.

They need for something new is obvious: 46 percent of students in the public schools in the area drop out. (Actually, that's the official rate; the real number could be higher.) The firm will donate $1 million, professional talent and office equipment over 5 years.

The school is in its first year, so we don't know how well this experiment will turn out. They've made it this far past bureaucratic obstacles, including the objections of the local alderman (if you're not from Chicago, trust me: this can be a big deal). There was also a little matter of right hand-left hand coordination of programs:

Stone and Kenner originally wanted Legacy to hold full-day pre-K classes, a curriculum that can be funded in Illinois by one federal (Head Start) and two state government programs. Stone worked for months trying to reconcile the different requirements each program had for families as well as the school, before throwing his hands up and deciding instead to offer two half-day pre-K classes.

When a law firm can't cut through the red tape .... Read more at Forbes.com (registration may be required.)

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

School District to Charter School: Hell No, You Can't Have Our Empty Building.

Debates over education policy often proceed on the assumption that the things that motivate ordinary business people--earning more money and garnering a larger market share--do not apply to the people who work in and manage public schools. But at least one school district in Michigan is showing some pit-dog business ethics.

The Walnut Elementary School sits in Lansing, Michigan. The building's owner is the Lansing School District, which closed the facility at the end of the 2004-2005 school year.

Smart management might call for the board to sell the building to somebody else, and use the proceeds to, oh, pay for some deferred maintenance in other district buildings.

And who might be interested in buying a school building?

How about the management of a charter school? Pretty obvious, don't you say?

The Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy, a charter school, would like a new campus.

The Academy tried to purchase the building from the school district. The district's response: No. Way.

In a remarkable exhibition of candor, district officials admit that they are refusing the Academy's offers because they don't like the competition that the charter school represents.

Listen to the representatives and allies of the Lansing School District:

-- "From an ideological standpoint, it might be difficult for me to swallow," the idea of selling to the charter school. -- Board member Hugh Clarke Jr

-- "'We have the first right of refusal for a charter school.' She was then asked if the district would likely exercise that right. 'Definitely.'” -- Superintendent E. Sharon Banks.

-- Banks has also said "We would like to keep it as a learning place for children to go." Yes, as long as she is in charge.

-- "I’d hate to see charter schools expanding, because they create havoc on the public school system." -- Tim Kaltenbach, member of the city council for the ward that includes Walnut Elementary.

Meanwhile, the property is sitting vacant, and as such, is already falling prey to vandalism.

Worse yet, the wants and needs of a school district are trumping the needs of education.

(The article has been taken down in the hours since I started this post. Click here for a Google cache. I have no idea how long it will work.)

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

News on Charter Schools.
A good resource for what's up with charter schools is the Center for Education Reform. Here's a sampling of some of the latest information from or through them:

The Simple Guide to Charter School Laws (PDF) gives A-F grades to states based on the autonomy they give to charter schools, as well as how difficult or easy it is to open a charter school.

Meanwhile, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools offers another look at the restrictions on charter schools. The PDF-format report Stunning Growth: The Impact of State-Imposed Caps on Charter Schools reviews one specific form of restriction on charter schools, numeric caps.

There are multiple versions of caps. The most obvious one is the number of charter schools that may operate within a state. Other restrictions include:

- The number of new charter schools that may be opened in a given year;

- For states where more than one authority can grant a charter, the number of charters that can be granted by a particular authority (e.g., Michigan universities have reached their cap of 150 charters);

- Number of students who may be enrolled statewide in charter schools;

- Percentage of students who may be enrolled statewide in charter schools;

- Percentage of K-12 funding in the state that may be spent on charter schools;

- Geographic restrictions on where charter schools may operate (e.g., in Missouri, only St. Louis and Kansas City);

- Regional caps on the number of charter schools (only 15 for downstate Illinois);

The group recommends putting sunsets on the restrictions.

The Boston Herald calls for removing some (all?) of the raising caps on charter schools in Massachusetts. As it observes, "Opponents will recycle the tired argument that it would drain traditional public schools of resources that are already insufficient. But charter schools are public schools. Artificial limits serve no purpose other than appeasing the teachersÂ? unions."

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

School Choice Bill Introduced in South Carolina.
The idea of making it easier for parents to pay for K-12 education in schools of choice is getting another hearing in South Carolina this year.

What's good is that the idea is back. What's not so good is that the size and scope of the proposal has been scaled back. Says the Charleston Post and Courier:

"Supporters pared down the original legislation, decreasing the size of the tax break for parents who send their children to private schools and directing the private-school vouchers to the most needy students: those from low-income families and those in poor-performing public schools."

Why the change? Rep. Dan Cooper, chairman of the Ways and Means committee, wants any effort to change the status quo to be limited to low-income families and students in the worst schools. Why this should be so, I don't know--e-mail from readers would be welcomed.

The greatest benefits (up to $4,500 in vouchers) would be available only to students in low-income families attending the poorest-performing schools; everyone else would have to make due with tax credits of no more than $1,000.

The Port and Courier article points out the value of media reports in propelling reform:

What changed some lawmakers' minds was the recent school documentary on ABC's "20/20" called "Stupid in America." The report featured an 18-year-old South Carolina public school student who was struggling to read.

"That opened my eyes and helped push me across the line," said Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, a co-sponsor. "American students are not stupid. We have problems in our system.

Also on the plate for lawmakers: a proposal to make it easier to open charter schools (good as far as it goes) and another one to create open enrollment in public schools (again, good as far as it goes.)

Opponents of the significant reform come through with the same old mistake of identifying confusing the desired policy outcome (an educated public) with one means (the public school as we know it) with that outcome.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Who Gets the Union Dues Your Child's Teacher Pays Out to the NEA?
Teacher unions are just another special interest. Nothing wrong about that, but it's a fact often overlooked in education debates.

The National Education Association (NEA) is one of the largest unions in the country. It's an active force in the Democratic Party, and donor to left-of-center causes. The Wall Street Journal has noted before some findings from a web site run by the U.S. Department of Labor. Today, they've got some more interesting findings (available to subscribers).

In many states, membership in the NEA is a requirement of employment. Some of the money goes for contract-related work, while some of it goes to political causes. (Members must take an extra step to stop the withdrawal of the portion used for politics.)

Some of the political spending of the NEA goes more or less directly to education, to combat any form of school choice. In such a way the union contributes to the conflation of the goal of education--an educated population--with one (dysfunctional) method of achieving that goal, the residential-based method of school assignment. Thus, the Journal tells us after reviewing the DOL web site, the NEA gave $500,000 to an anti-charter school group in Washington state, "never mind that charters are 'public schools,' albeit ones allowed to operate outside the teachers' union education monopoly."

Other donations from the NEA show the union to be simply another element of the "progressive left" -- $250,000 to a group lobbying for an increase in the minimum wage; $400,000 to another group fighting the idea of personal investment accounts in Social Security, and $40,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus, a dependable element of the congressional left wing.

Again, there's nothing wrong about employees in the same occupation banding together for political activity, even when it is far afield from the daily concerns of their workplace. But the NEA has for too long been given a pass as a disinterested source of information, an honest broker, when in fact, the interests of union officials and the interests of parents and students are not necessarily aligned.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Symposium on Education Reform
When it's not busy endorsing pot use, Reason magazine can provide some insightful material.

For example, last month it rounded up the leading lights of the market-based school reform movement. No surprise: there are some significant disagreements to be found. Here's a sampling:

Lisa Snell thinks that advocates of market-based reform are selling charter schools short:

"With close to 1 million students enrolled nationwide and more than 3,400 contracts between charter schools and their government authorizers, charter schools may be the most common example of school choice. . . . in order to have substantial growth, school choice programs need students with substantial purchasing power, and they need to be open to a larger student population."

Andrew Coulson argues that the greatest challenge for reform is the conflation of ends (an educated public) with one method of trying to get there ("public schools" as we know them):

"The greatest barrier to reform is that, when it comes to education, Americans have lost sight of the distinction between means and ends. Our state-run school system is no longer recognized as just one possible tool for pursuing universal education; it has come to be misperceived as an ultimate goal in and of itself. The term '?public education' has come to refer to both the institution of public schooling and the ideals that the institution is meant to advance."

Coulson seems to come out against all refundable tax credits, which could pose political problems for tax credits--a problem that might be ameliorated by generous caps (or none at all) for donations to scholarship funds.

Marshall Fritz wants to do away with government involvement, period, including any taxation. He opposes vouchers, calling them the biggest obstacle to his goal:

"Vouchers replace today'?s monopoly with a 'monopsony' (single buyer). Schools will have only one customer to serve--and it's not you. Follow the money." Actually, he's got harsh words for vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. Just pull your kids out of the schools, he says: "You'?ll not be paying twice for education: You'll pay taxes for the state to harm other people'?s children, but you'?ll pay only once for education--?your children's."

Williamson Evers favors decentralization and pluralism--in content, (presumably) pedagogy, and in what is the appropriate age for a child to leave school:

"We would advise a student to stay in school. Indeed, we know that finishing school and delaying marriage and babies is excellent advice for avoiding poverty. But in a framework of liberty, dropping out is allowed, even if it isn'?t advisable.

Clint Bolick says take whatever you can get:

"Given the tenacity and power of those who have a powerful stake in the status quo, freedom advocates cannot afford to oppose anything that meaningfully expands parental choice."

A market-driven approach to education will produce some losers: unions, local politicians, and schools of education.

Howard Fuller says that only the poor should receive vouchers:

"I'm not a supporter of universal vouchers. I support targeted vouchers for low-income and working-class people. People with money have always had choice."

On the other hand, thexercisedis excercised only at a significant cost in real estate commissions, moving expenses, and emotional turmoil--costs that must be borne only because we have a residential-based system of assigning students to schools.

Fuller also points out that "The people who support the status quo are much more politically powerful at this point than people who are supporting reforms such as parental choice."

True enough--but it would then be unwise to make the coalition in favor of reform smaller by denying meaningful vouchers or tax credits to the middle class.

Terry M. Moe lays out the biggest obstacle to market-based reforms, grounded in public choice theory:

"Political power is the obstacle. There are reformers who are concerned about what's best for kids, but the vested interests that arise are more concerned with protecting the status quo; thatÂ?s their livelihood. The unions in particular are extremely powerful and want to prevent any kind of threatening changes. And I don'?t know that there'?s an answer to that other than to amass power on the choice side."

Jacob G. Hornberger echoes Marshall Fritz: "No compulsory attendance laws, and no school taxes. No government involvement at all."

While I and most reforms accept the argument that government financing of at least some level of education (if not a monopoly on the delivery of it) is justified on the grounds of public goods, Hornberger will have none of it:

"If they truly believe that a free market in education would succeed, why would they feel the need to advocate welfare, which is what vouchers are, as a way to get there?"

John Merrifield says that if knowledge about economics was more widespread, there would be more pressure to change:

"The differences between political and market accountability are poorly understood, and the present system'?s failure to teach basic economic principles helps it survive withering criticism."

Chester E. Finn Jr. sees two major problems: interested adults (the education establishment) have lobbies, but children (who would benefit from change) do not, and most suburban parents (a key political force) believe, mistakenly, that all is well with their own school.

Uniting these themes, he adds is "the idea that the system's employees are experts who ought to be in charge of establishing the ground rules by which the system operates."

What's wrong with that? Nothing--except that their natural self-interest is not checked by competition, as happens elsewhere in life.

Jay P. Greene thinks what counts are better incentives, brought forth by expanded school choice, accountability testing, and merit pay for teachers.

His description of the obstacles to reform is so good it's worth reprinting in whole:

"When purchasing a service most people tend to think that they ought to be able "to choose among providers. Most people tend to think that those service providers are likely to do a higher quality job at lower cost if they have to earn business from customers. Most people believe that it is both fair and efficient for compensation in those service industries to be linked to performance. Most people believe in the desirability of choice and competition and the power of incentives--?except in education.

When it comes to education most people somehow believe that the rules should be different. We shouldn't allow choice, they argue, because people might make bad choices. Schools donÂ't need competition to perform better, they argue, they just need better resources. And assessing performance to compensate educators is fraught with error, they fear. Besides, teachers don'?t do it for the money; they do it because they love children.

These arguments for education being exceptional do not stand up to scrutiny. The government does not assign people to doctors, even though it is possible that people may choose poorly--?and health care is an area where the cost of failure can be catastrophic. And while we understand that almost everyone who works with kids, from doctors to babysitters, loves children, we also recognize that financial rewards for excellent performance inspire better service."

John Taylor Gatto, finally, calls for an end to compulsory attendance laws ("prison regulations," he says). He also fears the effects of vouchers: They will result in "a much deeper and broader reach of official pedagogy into every home and every small secular or religious group that puts together schools." He seems to endorse a model of anarcho-capitalism, where teenagers are free to be entrepreneurs rather than students.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Competition Here, But Not There.
Competition does exist in education--to a point.

Kenneth Daniels (you can tell I'm going through my piled-up e-mails and web site reading today, can't you?) points out that competition is already used in K-12 education--except where it counts.

Sports competition is big in public schools. Academic competition is big in public schools. Competition for administrative jobs is big in public schools.

The only competition our educrats hate is competition for public funding," in the form of vouchers and even charter schools.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Where Your Tax Dollars Go.
Teachers in public schools are paid for by taxpayers--who may be surprised to find that their dollars then go to left-wing political groups.

Now of course what teachers do with their own money--spend it on slot machines or on orphanages--is their own business. But in many states, membership in teacher unions is a job requirement, so some members of the public might have some interest in knowing where union funds go.

The U.S. Department of Labor is putting the screws to big unions, trying to increase financial disclosure requirements. The Wall Street Journal comments favorably on this (no surprise there). But in so doing it passes along a few NEA (National Education Association) disbursals that have, at best, a tangential relationship to the business of schooling: money has gone to Amnesty International and an AIDS walk. (Couldn't union members who value these activities donate money themselves? I've studied AI and I don't recall that group having much to do with improving education in the U.S.)

Of course the NEA has given money to groups that seek to protect the status quo (i.e., anti-school voucher, anti-charter schools.)

The Department of Labor runs the LMRDA public disclosure web site where you can download such information. The interface is a bit cumbersome, but I did find that the Florida NEA made a payment of $11,586 in 2005 to Adeco Employment Services. That would be a temp agency

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

School Choice for New Orleans.


"Until recently, Louisiana's state school board had steadfastly opposed the idea of using public funds in the form of vouchers to pay for private-school tuitions. But with New Orleans school officials yet to reopen a single building, and some Catholic schools already welcoming students, the board and the Archdiocese of New Orleans are discussing a plan to pay parochial schools to educate as many as 3,000 displaced public-school students."

The Rev. William Maestri, school superintendent for the New Orleans archdiocese, has said to his schools "Let the kids come in, we'll sort out the finances later."

This move gets children into school. It's also a smart political move: imagine children having to leave school mid-year, when a political showdown makes it clear that taxpayer dollars won't go to those schools, and the archdiocese can't afford to give away tuition any longer.

The offer is also a pragmatic one; it points out an important fact often unstated in the school choice debate: what should be the goal of public education? Is it sending children to specific schools, run through a particular arrangement (what we call "public schools")? Or should it be that children receive an education?

Another step forward: federal money being sent to the area may prompt an increase in the number of charter schools. In addition, the governor may be on board: "if Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, has her way, New Orleans will become an even bigger laboratory for school choice. Since Katrina, the former public-school teacher has issued two executive orders easing the regulatory requirements for opening new charter schools."

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Understanding the Types of Charter Schools.
Does the term "charter school" mean anything? The Thomas B. Fordham Institute suggests not, in a new publication that scopes out the range of charter schools.

In Playing to Type? (PDF file), Dick M. Carpenter II says that charter schools are not all alike; "charter" simply means that the school has some operation freedom, it does not designate its pedagogy. On the other hand, the 3,500 charter schools are not so different individually that there are no other similarities among the schools.

Carpenter sorts schools into 55 types of schools, based on each school's targeted population and curriculum. Some schools, for example, are vocational. Others are traditional, while others are progressive. (In the words of progressive advocates, their approach is that the teacher is the "guide on the side," and not the "sage on the stage.")

Meanwhile, schools are also classified by their targeted market, which includes open enrollment (anyone can come) or targeted enrollment (often but not always, at-risk students.)

So what did Carpenter find?

Traditional schools make up 23 percent of the charter school universe; progressive schools come in at 29 percent, while general schools are 29.5 percent. What are general schools? Institutions that are "essentially indistinguishable from conventional neighborhood public schools." They may operate free of some of the normal regulations that conventional public schools face, but they do not have a distinct pedagogy or targeted market.

Institute president Chester E. Finn, Jr. says that this study does not compare the types of charter schools by effectiveness. But, he promises, a follow-on report will do that by taking advantage of the types developed out in this report, called "Playing to Type."

If you're in the market for a charter school, here is how Carpenter categorized some well-known programs:

TRADITIONAL, OPEN ENROLLMENT
Core Knowledge
Edison
International Baccalaureate

PROGRESSIVE, OPEN ENROLLMENT
Montessori
Waldorf

The section of the report labeled "Descriptions of Instructional Sub-Themes" gives a brief yet helpful explanation of the different (and sometimes opposing) approaches to understanding the goals and methods of education.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Has The Private Sector Really Been Tried?
When the public sector fails time and time again to deliver quality education at an acceptable (or even very high) price, it gets ... more money. When a botched contracting out operation goes bad, the criticism falls ... on the idea of private enterprise.

The following item from Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Foundation explains how contracting out the operation of a school system can go wrong.
------------------------------


Give Choice and Competition a Chance

David W. Kirkpatrick

07.06.05

No Pennsylvania school district has been more troubled for a longer period of time than the Chester-Upland District in Delaware County. And although privatization appears to be the latest disappointment, there still are ways for the district to rebound.

In June 1994, the state took control of the district’s fiscal affairs, and set up a three-member Board of Control. Two years later a special court-appointed master, looking at special education in the district, issued a 100-page report charging the district with being “unwilling and unable to provide a free appropriate public education.” He proposed using tax dollars to allow district parents to send their children to other schools in the county.

From 1990 to 1996, the district had five superintendents and five high school principals—and the parade continues today. Even two chairmen and two members of the three-member Board of Control had left. One said of the district, “the only solution may be to dissolve it and disperse its students to other districts.”

By 2000, the state assumed complete control of the district. The Board of Control signed contracts with three private companies to run district schools. One withdrew, and a second was purchased by the third, Edison Schools, Inc. Thomas E. Persing, then-chairman of the Board of Control and a public school administrator for more than 30 years, called the district was a “failure” and said, “We cannot continue to pour the same old wine out of the same bottle.”

Recently, Edison announced that, after losing more than $30 million, and still owed more than $2 million by the district, it was withdrawing from the district’s operations at the end of last month. But although decades of failure should bring into question the future of government-owned and operated schools, the events in Chester-Upland are instead raising questions about the role of private companies in the running of public schools.

Edison suffered losses because it relied on the good faith of district management and staff and accepted responsibility without commensurate authority. The district—not Edison—retained control of such key areas as personnel, security, maintenance, and technology. Edison was unable to prevent many teachers from failing to attend professional development sessions or correct maintenance workers who wouldn’t move supplies.

The problem, to paraphrase what someone once said about Christianity, was not that privatization was tried and found wanting. It is that it wasn’t truly tried in the first place.

For an honest evaluation of privatization’s merits, one should compare Edison’s record since its 1992 founding with the sorry record of the Chester-Upland public schools during the same period. In the school year that just ended, Edison was managing 157 schools, with 250,000 students, in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The number of students were up 118,000 from just 132,000 the year before. If all of those students were in one school district, it would be one of the largest districts in the nation.

In Philadelphia, Edison runs 20 schools, and has been so successful that it has acquired two more. Edison’s Philadelphia schools outnumber the 11 in Chester-Upland, so problems there were not one of size. Philadelphia is also comparable to Chester-Upland in that students in each are predominantly urban, low-income and minority.

Teachers in Edison schools around the nation have indicated their support for the company. Letters from National Education Association members in Mount Clemens, Mich., stated that the school leaders became “visionaries,” classrooms became “rich learning environments,” and the “Edison Project has been a positive learning experience for all of us and our community.”

When asked what would work in Chester, Charles Zogby, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Education at the time Edison was brought in, said “That’s a good question. I truly don’t know.”

Here are four possible solutions:

Give privatization a real test by giving the company or companies equal parts responsibility and authority.

Try the recommendation of the court’s master in 1994 and give parents funds to send their children elsewhere.

Dissolve the district.

Build on the examples set by the successful charter schools in the district. Convert all schools in Chester to publicly-run charter schools, or convert the entire district to a charter district, as has been done in some other states.

Worthy and tested ideas are not lacking. What is needed is political courage, a rare commodity.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Give Me Some (More) Educational Choice.
Arizona has done more to promote competition among schools, and educational choice, than perhaps any other state. But the Goldwater Institute argues that there's still more to do.

-----------------------------------------
State Still Needs More Variety in Educational Choices

by Mathew Ladner, Ph.D.
August 22, 2005

Arizona students are returning to school or enrolling for the first time, providing an opportunity to take note of the expanding revolution in American education: the ability of parents to choose the best school for their children.

Parents have a growing opportunity to pick the education setting most closely aligned with the individual needs of their child, and public schools face a growing level of competition for students. Nearly a fourth of K-12 students nationwide are not attending their neighborhood public schools, opting instead for an array of public and private options. [Emphasis added.]

State legislatures have established seven school-voucher programs and six education tax-credit programs since 1990. State governments created two of these programs this year and expanded five existing programs.

These programs increase the access for parents to choose private schooling for their children.

In addition, unknown numbers of children attend public schools of choice through interdistrict and intradistrict choice and/or magnet schools.

By the mid-1990s, 1.2 million children were attending these schools. Today, approximately 1 million children now attend charter schools, and as many as 2 million students are home-schooled. [Emphasis added]

Florida has been a leading state in expanding school-choice options. Through the creation of three statewide choice programs - A+ Scholarships for children in failing schools (800 students); McKay Scholarships for children with disabilities (18,000 students); and tax-credit scholarships for low-income children (15,000 students) - Florida has led the way in the creation of school choice.

The Miami-Dade public school system recently announced its intention to create new magnet-school options as a response to the competition.

"We cannot be ostriches anymore with our heads in the sand," a district official told the Miami Herald.

"They either get on board with the changing landscape of public education, or they're going to be left behind, with no students and no teachers," a Miami teacher union official stated.

Harvard, Stanford and University of Wisconsin scholars have established that children using choice programs score higher on achievement tests. The evidence concerning children remaining in their public schools is even more compelling.

Harvard economist Caroline Minter Hoxby studied Arizona public elementary school test scores and found that those schools facing high levels of competition from charter schools made gains in fourth-grade reading four times as large as the other schools.

While choice reform continues to advance, the issue has unfortunately become embroiled in a political controversy in Arizona.

Last session, the Arizona Legislature passed and Gov. Janet Napolitano agreed to sign - and then vetoed - a significant expansion in school choice for low-income parents in the form of a tax credit for corporations providing scholarships to students to attend independent schools.

While the veto has become a heated dispute, it is important to recognize that the ultimate winners from the resolution will be thousands of Arizona children who will have the opportunity to attend a school best matching their needs as chosen by the parents.

Arizona badly needs this legislation and more like it, especially in areas where the need for options is most urgent.

High-performing public and charter schools often have years-long waiting lists, while nearby independent schools have empty seats. Despite the progress made toward choice in Arizona, desperate parents often face terrible difficulty in finding a seat for the child when a change is needed. Upper-income people fled poorly performing public schools decades ago by exercising the most common form of school choice: buying a home in the suburbs.

Giving the children of low-income families a similar chance to have their parents choose a school that serves their needs spurs public school reform and equality of opportunity, one of the few things upon which all Arizonans genuinely agree.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

California Leading the Way In Tenure Reform?
California's "Governator" is offering a step in the right direction in tenure reform. Among the changes: stretching out the probationary period for new teachers to five years and allowing schools to fire teachers for two consecutive years of bad performance.

Behind the move is a chance to increase accountability and take out non-performers. Come to think of it, how many jobs actually allow someone to stay on the job for two years with subpar performance?

The power of removing tenure can be seen in the Fenton Avenue Charter School, in Los Angeles. This charter school had previously been a unionized school, with tenure. After the school converted to a charter, its teachers had to face a whole new set of evaluations, focusing on the well-being and performance of students, not mere seniority.

The results of the change were dramatic: The school has 79 teachers. Only 7 are from the pre-charter days. The others washed up, or dropped out.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Is the 65 Percent Solution Strong Enough?
Is a 65 percent mandate for education good enough?

The idea of requiring that at least 65 percent of education dollars reach the classroom has taken off since it was popularized by George F. Will.

The idea, advocated through the organization First Class Education, is simple: too much money in education budgets is wasted in various forms of overhead. Put money into teachers who actually teach. Student improvement should go up at a minimal cost to taxpayers. Impose increased effiency on schools, and make them focus on their key function, the teacher-student interaction.

When the proposal was advanced in Minnesota, King Bananian, the chairman of the economics department at Saint Cloud State University, had a less than favorable impression. And it's not because he's in favor of the status quo. Says King:

To raise that number, one of three things has to happen: We either have to push up school district spending and devote it all to hiring more teachers; we have to give teachers raises; or we have to reallocate district spending away from support services to classrooms.

The movement is a national one, and the first time the idea hits a statewide ballot may be Arizona. Reformers at the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute aren't that sold on the idea, either.

Proponents hope the mandate will ensure that money actually reaches students. Unfortunately, those hopes are unlikely to materialize.

The fundamental problem with the mandate is that it still leaves spending, and reports on spending, in the hands of administrators. Accounting gimmicks and creative itemizing can turn almost any dollar into a “classroom dollar.” There is little reason to believe the 65-cent solution will amount to any real change in the education system.

To ensure money reaches students, a direct route is best: education dollars should follow students in the form of education grants to any classroom – public, charter, or private.

Critically, education grants foster competition between schools seeking to attract students. The competitive process naturally reduces administrative bloat, and puts the focus on student learning. Let’s spend the whole dollar and make it count.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Has the National Governors Association gone pro-school choice? The Alliance for School Choice says yes, with this announcement:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Aug. 29, 2005

Contact: Laura Devany
602-468-0900/ 602-615-8897 (cell)


NATIONAL GOVERNOR'S ASSOCIATION REPORT RECOMMENDS GREATER SCHOOL CHOICE
New Report Encourages Tuition Assistance for Private Schools


PHOENIX - A bipartisan task force of the nation's governors, has issued a best practices guide for their colleagues recommending states expand the range of educational choices available for families by embracing charter schools, virtual schools and tuition assistance for private schools.

"Increasingly, policy leaders are concluding that providing quality education options can raise student achievement and improve existing schools," states the report released this month. "Given the slow pace of achievement and graduation rate improvements, many policy makers have concluded that assisting public schools and assessing the results are not enough. These policymakers have begun giving families and students greater choices in education options."

These recommendations, which, according to the report's authors, should be considered as part of a coherent and comprehensive public education system, include offering tuition assistance for choice participation. The report states, "By providing state tax or financial assistance for students to attend private or parochial K-12 schools.... more students can access these options."

The report states that greater school choice can help meet the goals of:
* higher graduation rates,
* meet No Child Left Behind Act requirements to offer choice options,
* encourage innovation and improvement across the education system,
* satisfy parental demands for options, and
* reduce segregation by race and income.

"School choice is moving into the mainstream of American politics, as reflected by growing bipartisan support. Serious policymakers recognize that a conversation that doesn't include school choice is not a conversation about meaningful education reform," declared Clint Bolick, president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice, the Phoenix-based organization that leads the national effort to support school choice programs to expand opportunities for disadvantaged schoolchildren.

The governors who issued the report are: Janet Napolitano (Ariz.), Tim Pawlenty (Minn.), Haley Barbour (Miss.), Bill Richardson (N.M.), Mark Sanford (S.C.) and Jon Huntsman (Utah). Five of the six governors have advocated or signed bills providing private school choice options. Read the full report at: http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/EDUCATIONCHOICE.PDF.

The sixth, presumably, is Gov. Napolitano, who vetoed school choice measures earlier this year.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Go With the Third Way to Determine Cost of Education: Competition
The Salina (Kansas) Journal has published a short essay I wrote for it about price, competition, and K-12 education. I'd link to this op-ed, but it's limited to paid subscribers. (Archives, even one day old, are limited to paid subscribers, as is most of the content for the current edition.)

Here's the version that was submitted to the Journal; the printed version may have been slightly altered. Apologies in advance for the quirks in the type, which did not translate to blogger very well.

Currently there are two major approaches to determine how much Kansas taxpayers ought to pay for public schooling. Perhaps it'?s time for a third.

One approach is to ask superintendents "?How much money do you need?"? Who wouldn'?t answer "more?"? It'?s part of the human condition to want more. A second approach is to decide what schools are already successful, then ask "?What does it cost you do to this?" Roughly speaking, those were the approaches used by the consultant'?s report that the Kansas Legislature and the Kansas Supreme Court relied on in making their decisions. Both approaches were used by the Augenblick & Myers consulting firm

On the other hand, what if Kansas education needs something besides more money? What if our estimates of how much education costs are incorrect, not because of faulty math or human error, but because we do not know what the public schools would do when faced with the competition that American businesses face every day?

Any given school can report its current costs of doing business. There is a fund for teacher compensation, another for supplies, still another for administrators, and so forth. But are these the "right"? costs? Is the money being distributed among the funds in the right proportion? Are school managers getting the best results for the money they have on hand? The best way to answer those questions is to use the same logic that we use as a society in deciding the "right" amount to spend on food, clothing, housing, and many other goods and services: competition.

Under widespread competition, we have many buyers, many sellers, and the best framework for knowing the "right" price of a service. When companies face increased competition, they find ways to both reduce costs and increase quality. As Americans are exposed to increased competition from other countries, their training ground for work--?education--?must be subject to the same competitive forces.

Roughly 90 percent of Kansas students are enrolled in traditional public schools that operate in a non-competitive market: the child'?s school is determined by the family address. We need to provide more competition, through tax credits, vouchers, and charter schools. To prepare children for life in today'?s economy, and to determine the "?right"? amount of money to spend on schools, American education needs to embrace competition.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Destroying a Charter School.
Charter schools can be one part of turning around public education--if they are allowed to operate.

A school in New Hampshire has a dropout rate of 50 percent, and so some people get together to offer a charter school to meet the need. Though it operates on less than 40 percent of the budget of other schools in the state, the charter school is popular among its constituents.

The school's sole source of funding: a grant from the state, which (as happens in the state) is distributed through town governments.

So how do town leaders react to the new school? They withhold the state money, effectively shutting down the school.

The response of state officials, including the governor, the attorney general, and the state school board? Nothing.

Charlie Arlinghaus explains.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Another Government Showdown.
In the name of furthering education, the Kansas Supreme Court may order the de-funding of the state's public schools.

The court may go so far as to prohibit the state from making payments on bonds used to finance school buildings.

This controversy has several policy and political debates wrapped up into one. First of all, you've got legislative versus judicial power. How far does judicial power go? According to the Kansas Supreme Court, as far as telling a legislature what its overall level of spending is for a given government function.
A second debate is the proper level of school funding, and how that funding should be distributed. The case in Kansas is not so much about equity as it is total amount. The court wants the legislature to abide by the findings of a private sector consultant that cherry-picked some "ideal" schools and then said "These folks spend $x, the rest of you should, too."

But even "ideal" schools have their shortcomings, and basing a global budget on the operation of one or even a few schools is not a good idea. Under the current policy environment, a "choice" school may be spending $12,000 per student." But under a different one--one that, say, involves free and open competition among traditional public schools, charter schools, and privately run schools serving voucher-enabled students--the costs are likely to be not $12,000, but something less. And equally important, parents would be able to control directly through dollars, rather than indirectly through the political process, what is an optimal education for their own children.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: Schools for Students, or Students for Schools?
Over 5,400 students have left the decrepit Kansas City (MO) school district for charter schools. This article from the Jefferson City News Tribune gives a glance at parents of the students who left. Their response has been positive: [The old school had] too big of a crowd. "There are gangs and shooting and fighting all up there in that school all the time, and I don't care if they have the policemen and everything there. I'm still not happy with the school."

But most of the article focuses on the financial losses of the KC district--never mind that the district now has fewer students to be responsible for. More importantly, the tenor of the article focuses on the financial need of the district rather than the new opportunities for learning enjoyed by the charter school students.

Unfortunately, that's where discussions of school choice often lead.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: Does "No Child Left Behind" Require District Consolidation?
A state official in PA now argues that in light of No Child Left Behind, school consolidation is the next step in school reform.

Over a week ago, the Commonwealth Foundation of Pennsylvania argued that school consolidation actually costs money.

That didn't sit too well with the author of a legislative proposal to further consoidate the state's school districts. What follows is a give and take between Rep. Lescovitz and the Foundation on the question of consolidation. It's quite a charged exchange.

Rep. Lescovitz Responds to the Commonwealth Foundation Commentary on School District Consolidation Proposal

03.15.05

It has become clear to me that reading comprehension skills are lacking among select organizations in Pennsylvania. On March 11, the Commonwealth Foundation released a statement that leads me to believe they are not for quality, accessible, fair and equal education for the students of Pennsylvania. Additionally, it would seem they are for continued separation of the economic classes.

This foundation should realize that testing is here to stay, especially considering the federal No Child Left Behind mandate. Schools and teachers are now being pressured into teaching for the test rather than teaching students. The important point the foundation missed was that I am trying to create a level playing field to make sure these mandated test results are valid.

The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment test, now used due to President Bush’s No Child Left Behind, was never meant to be a standard test for evaluating and comparing schools and students statewide, but rather used for in-house evaluations of curriculum meeting state education standards. Since standardized tests are here to stay for comparing schools, a system with uniform curriculum, books and materials lends well to more equitable and measurable testing validity.

For those who missed it, the foundation’s letter voiced support for deconsolidation; which would only further dilute the validity of standardized testing. My plan would consolidate the administration, curriculum and materials of the state’s 501 school districts to 67 or less based on a county or regional structure. Although costs may be reduced with this plan, the foundation’s comments reflect they missed the true purpose. Costs per pupil, union negotiations and increasing costs for education were never a part of my proposal.

If the foundation had contacted me and read my news releases instead of fabricating the intent of my legislation, they would have learned my true intent was creating a more equitable means of evaluating education and providing more opportunities including magnet schools and greater coordination between educators.

Additionally, the foundation seems happy with unequal treatment and an endorsement of keeping a class-based system of providing education for all students. It would seem the foundation supports President Bush’s No Child Left Behind but adopts a more conservative view of the “old South’s” education system before the 1960s civil rights act – that a separate and unequal education system is good enough for all students of Pennsylvania.

No Child Left Behind has forced the need for consolidation. We can’t fit our current system of evaluating student progress into a broad federal mandate. We need a more valid means of evaluating progress and targeting where improvement is needed.

When every student has success, we all succeed.

So, yes as they said in their letter, “I’m back.” But to be honest, I never left. I never stopped working to improve education and the quality and equality of life for all Pennsylvanians. Again, if we are going to have standardized evaluations, we must have a level playing field.

####

And here's the response from the Commonwealth Foundation:
Commonwealth Foundation Responds to Rep. Lescovitz

03.22.05

Dear Rep. Lescovitz:

I welcome your response to my proposal to de-consolidate Pennsylvania’s public school districts. However, your defense of your proposal to further consolidate school districts is not based in either fact or experience.

In addition, I find it astonishing that you admit that “Costs per pupil, union negotiations and increasing costs for education were never a part of [your consolidation] proposal.” That you ignore these critical issues of importance will be very disturbing to all taxpayers, particularly given the already high cost of public education in Pennsylvania. By ignoring that which will not go away, your proposal opens the door to all kinds of unintended, but real, consequences—all of them bad.

By consolidating the “administration, curriculum and materials of the state’s 501 schools districts to 67 or less (sic)” you will, for example, produce broader district-wide collective bargaining. That will give the unions more monopoly clout. It also means public school employee wages, salaries, benefits, work rules, etc., would be homogenized across Beaver County’s 14 school districts alone, to say nothing about the 38 districts in Allegheny and 14 in Washington Counties, portions of which you also represent.

Likewise, as you admit, your proposal will serve to further homogenize the curriculum across disparate school districts. Not only are districts not all the same, but even the schools within present individual districts already have children with differing needs and abilities. My essay emphasizes that different conditions exist now, and your expanded one-size-fits-all approach will only make it more difficult to serve the needs of individual students.

Even Albert Shanker, the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, recognized that effective change doesn’t come from the top down when he said:

“It’s time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody’s role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It’s no surprise that our school system doesn’t improve: It more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy.”

So let me make clear the broad outline of the public school de-consolidation I recommend. It is based on the factual observation that private (and public charter) schools almost never have any administrative structure above the school level, and they deliver at least comparable education results. They are about one-third to one-half the size of public schools and operate at about 60-65 percent of the per pupil cost. In these schools, all the important decisions are made at the school level where the best information about student needs and teacher performance exists, and these differ widely from school to school.

Sensible de-consolidation would reduce school districts to central office management functions only, such as accounting. Monies would be distributed to individual schools on a per pupil basis. Budgets and collective bargaining would be administered at the school, not the district, level. Open enrollment would give parents a choice among public schools, with all tax money following the student. Principals would really be in charge of their schools.

You are correct when you state that “standardized tests are here to stay for comparing schools.” I would add that value-added tests are also coming for comparing teachers, which is why the PSEA continues to fight all testing.

With each school operating independently, as I propose, and parents having a choice among them, value-added test results that show how teachers and schools compare will give parents the information to make sensible choices for their children. If one school were performing poorly, as measured by the PSSA tests, parents could move their children elsewhere and take their local tax and state aid dollars with them.

Believe me, Mr. Lescovitz, parents and children voting with their feet will get school administrators’ corrective attention far quicker and more effectively than another curriculum mandate from one of your distant school district offices.

Finally, I take umbrage with your desperate attempt to defend your consolidation proposal by playing the race card and characterizing my proposal as “class-based,” like the “‘old South’s’ education system before the 1960s (sic) civil rights act,” and one that provides “unequal treatment.”

Indeed, the reality is that you and your union allies are the intellectual heirs of Gov. George Wallace, who blocked access for African-Americans into the University of Alabama, and Gov. Orval Faubus, who tried to prevent the integration of Little Rock High School in the 1950s. By blocking children from attending schools of their choice, you and other school choice opponents continue to prevent students from escaping schools that fail them.

It is my proposal that would bestow the power of public school choice on every parent and child in Pennsylvania. It is your paternalistic, top-down, homogenizing consolidation proposal that would continue to trap students in monopoly, one-size-fits-all schools, many of which are awful. The result has been a costly jobs program that produces mediocre education, at best.

Sincerely,

John T. Wenders, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Commonwealth Foundation
Professor of Economics, Emeritus, University of Idaho

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: Competition for Public Schools Weakens in Detroit.
Enrollment in Catholic schools affiliated with the Archdiocese of Detroit has declined 47 percent in the past five years, from 7,674 to 4,100.

The One result: 14 schools will close, affecting 2,241 students and 180 teachers.

Among the casualties: athletic powerhouse St. Martin De Porres and Dominican High, the last all-girls Catholic school in the city.

The schools have had a $3 million operating deficit for five years, and they carry $16 million in debt, too.

So what's up with the decline? Increased enrollment in charter schools (free of charge to parents)? Great improvements in the Detroit Public Schools?

A Detroit Free Press article cites Cardinal Adam Maida as saying that mmigration to the suburbs was to blame.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Virtual Charter School Shows Demand for Competition in Schooling.
How popular is the demand for competition in schooling? The demand for one new school exceeded the estimated demand by a factor of vie.

The Lawrence, Kansas school district set up a charter school, using materials from K12, an operator of virtual schools. It expected that about 30 students would sign up. Over 150 did.

The school is drawing students throughout northeast Kansas including Manhattan, Wichita, and Kansas City.

Thanks to the combination of charter school, virtual school model, and in-person supplemental education, parents get a combination of home schooling and public schooling, at minimal cost.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

How Much Money is Adequate for Education? Do We Know?
Last week, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature was violating the state constitution by not providing enough funding for a suitable education.

In brief, the Legislature created a committee to draw up a list of specified classes and other features that would define a "suitable" education. ("Suitable" is used in the constitution, but is otherwise undefined in that document.) Then a consulting firm was brought in and said "If you want to deliver this kind of education, you've got to spend a lot more money." The Legislature didn't do it, some school districts sued, and now everyone is talking about whether, or how much taxes will be raised.

Today's Wichita Eagle reports that support for a tax increase is weak. Instead, the Legislature may change its definition of a "suitable" education. While this will might let the state off the hook (though what the Court will say about the matter is anyone's guess), it retains one fundamental flaw of the current system: it's a top-down, "we-define-what-you-need" approach carried out by politicians in the state capitol. It's time to expand parental choice (refundable tax credits, vouchers, even charter schools, which are in a weak position in Kansas), so that families can select their own educational programs in a competitive market.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Kansas Needs More Charter Schools.
In today's Wichita Eagle, I argue that Kansas needs more charter schools.

Actually, most states need more charter schools. And private scholarship funds. And tuition tax credits. And vouchers. And simplification of the teacher training process, and ... anything that is not more of the same.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Charter Schools: Better Than You Think.
Charter schools aren't the complete solution to school reform, and some are just plain bad. But here's the beauty: a failing charter school can be shut down much more readily than a traditional public school.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy deconstructs some recent attacks on charter schools (attacks that, of course, call for returning to the old policies that lead to the creation of charter schools in the first place.)

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

The Value of Charter Schools
The nation's second largest union has tried to debunk the success of charter schools, but at least one man isn't buying the critique.

John Hood, of the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation, offers some thoughts and links to other responses to the American Federatio of Teachers.

His fundamental point is a moral one:

"The issue of parental choice in education has attracted significant debate for decades. In an odd way, however, the parental part often gets lost. There are dueling philosophies of public education, dueling assertions about the value of competition and markets, hosts of articles and studies looking at spending and achievement. But if advocates of choice are correct, then the ultimate test of educational success or failure lies with the evaluations of parents – parents who don’t necessarily share the same goals, values, situations, or respect for standardized tests."

He also raises some methodological questions that I hope to get to eventually. In short, while the AFT study suggests that charter school students would be better off in their old districts, there are reasons to believe that the comparisons made are flawed ones.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Could GED Push Inflate Record of Kentucky Schools?
With the No Child Left Behind act in place, the pressure is on for states to boost the academic achievement of public school students. This well-intentioned law may provide some unusual incentives that may lead to further regulation.

Currently, Kentucky residents who take the GED must get the permission of the district superintendent, or else be 17 or older and out of school for at least one year. (Kentucky law requires attendance through age 16).

The GED route is not encouraging. In 2002, 7,000 students dropped out of Kentucky schools. In 2003, only 54 percent of 16-18 year olds who took the GED test passed.

The 2004 session of the legislature created a "secondary GED" for those students still in school. As the Louisville Courier-Journal reports, however, "Critics said a school could use the new GED to dump low-performing students who otherwise would drag down its test scores."

There are two ways of promoting educational improvement. One, largely ignored, is to ramp up competition among schools through public school choice, charter schools, tax credits, vouchers, and loosening restrictions on home schooling. The No Child Left Behind Act makes a baby step in this direction in that certain students in the worst of schools may, after two years, be allowed to transfer to another school in the same public school district.

The other approach to improving education, the dominant approach to date, has been to spend more money on the same approaches, and tweak standards. As the controversy in Kentucky illustrates, one administrative reform often brings forth a need for another.

(The Bluegrass Institute has been a leading critique of the state's plan.)

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Whither School Choice in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin has been home to one of the country's leading programs in school choice, the Milwaukee voucher program. But the future is murky.

Writes Charles J. Sykes, "At both the state and local level, key positions that had once been held by supporters of choice and charter schools are now controlled by opponents of education reform." (His essay is available in PDF).

The increased political challenge comes even as the case for choice is increasingly validated by research. Not only have test scores increased, but economic development has been spurred by the schools of choice program.

The choice model has been dealt a blow by the malfeasance of a handful of school operators--coupled by inaction by the state's education department.

Here was a case in which government regulation could have made a positive difference. The state education department, when notified of the egregious problems with one school in particular, refused to act, even to the point of making a public statement that parents should avoid the school: "Instead of taking action against Alex’s, the DPI threw up its hands, claiming it was powerless to act." Inasmuch as the school in question appears to have been engaging in fradulent activity, it would seem appropriate for the education department to step in.

Instead of using the power it already had, the department called for increased restrictions on schools of choice. The teachers union, meanwhile, is using the few wrong-doers as a way of tarring the entire idea of school choice.

Meanwhile, the choice program runs the risk of being too successful; it could soon reach its enrollment cap.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Accountability Comes from the Freedom to Fail.
A charter school in Michigan was recently shut down by the state for its poor performance. Pity the children who put up with that experience. But many like them suffer through schools that won't be closed.

Says Brian L. Carpenter, of the Mackinac Center, "Envision a local public school that misappropriates federal grant monies, posts abysmal [test] scores and carries an operating deficit on its books. After eight years, the state finally shuts it down.

Accountability to this extent never happens, of course, in conventional public schools in which problems like the above often constitute business as usual. But not so for Walter French Academy, in East Lansing, Michigan, which on June 30th, became the fifteenth charter school in Michigan to be shut down by its authorizer since 1993 — and rightly so."

He then asks, when "will conventional public schools be as accountable as charter schools?"

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Will the Last Person in Detroit ...
Over the last 3 years, Detroit has lost more people than any other U.S. city over 100,000 in population.

During 2000 to 2003, almost 40,000 people left for better schools, safer environments, lower taxes, and more responsive government services.

Kwame Kilpatrick, the mayor of Detroit, gets high marks from a fellow politician from neighboring Oakland County. But, says L. Brooks Patterson, "he may just be rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic."

One problem Kilpatrick has not been able to overcome is the death grip that the teachers union has over education reform; it was instrumental in scotching a plan to introduce new charter schools in the city. Yet as a recent study from Ohio suggests, school reform is vital to urban revitalization.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Charter Schools Improve Student Performance.
One criticism of school choice programs is that they "skim" the best students, making any superior performance an artifact of the student body. A recent study refutes that claim.

The Goldwater Institute examined the test scores of more than 60,000 students in Arizona. The students, whose test scores for a three-year period were the basis of the study, attended 873 schools, both charter and traditional government schools.

The findings? No skimming. Charter "school students, on average, began with lower test scores than their traditional public school counterparts, and showed overall annual achievement growth roughly three points higher than their non-charter peers. Charter school students who completed the twelfth grade surpassed traditional public school students on SAT-9 reading tests."

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Charter School Loses Charter. That's Accountability.
Central Michigan University, chartering authority for the Walter French Academy in Lansing, announced it will yank the charter for the K-12 school. Without a charter, the school will have to close.

The university cited financial, academic, and management woes at the academy. The closure is a blow to the families involved, of course; some of the students had been expelled from other schools, and turned to the academy for help.

Is this failure an indictment of charter schools as a whole? Hardly. The revocation is a warning to other charter schools: get things right, or we close you down.

And the last time that happened to a government-run school was ... when?

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Is Truancy Still a Crime? Apparently, Yes
A recent movie involving truancy prompted one wag to wonder if truancy was actually still a crime. Apparently so, at least in one Michigan community.

Eight parents in remote Iron county have been charged with "failure to cause a child to attend school."

Some folks are up-in-arms about such a compulsion. I'm not one of them. For one thing, government schooling is so broken that truancy laws are, with the exception of small communities such as those in the Hurley School District (in Iron county) are virtually unenforceable.

The real scandal of truancy, of course, is the fact that vast numbers of students in some districts simply drop out. Nationally, nearly 1 in 4 students never graduates. (See this report, in PDF, from the Manhattan Institute.)

Perhaps if we allow parents greater freedom to choose the kinds of schools their kids attend (tuition tax credits, vouchers, charter schools, etc.), more would be motivated to take an interest in getting Junior to show up to class. Then again, maybe Junior would have more interest, too, once dropping out is not the only alternative to escaping the government school monopoly.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Charter Schools Popular in Minnesota, Michigan
Charter schools--taxpayer funded schools operated outside the usual management and bureaucracy of government schools--got their start in Minnesota, back in 1992. Today, roughly 2,700 charter schools across the country serve 680,000 students.

While other states have, since 1992, surpassed Minnesota in charter school enrollment, officials there are expecting rapid increases. For one thing, the scope of who may obtain a charter for a school has widened; the legislature gave that ability to non-profit groups in 2001. (Among the groups starting schools: Volunteers of America.) The president of a charter school trade group as well as an official in the state's ed department cite increased public comfort with the idea of charter schools.

This idea is certainly growing; it took until 2002 before enrollment reached 10,000. Enrollment for 2004 is expected to reach 15,000.

Meanwhile, Daniel L. Quisenberry offers praise for Detroit's charter schools in the Detroit News. "Students attending Detroit charter schools open at least six years outperformed the local traditional district in seven of 10 grades and subjects tested on the 2003 MEAPs. They almost matched the remaining three scores. What’s more, charter seventh- and eighth-graders soared past their peers by eight to 20 percentage points in each subject."

Thanks to the Michigan Education Report for the tip.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Rearranging the Deck Chairs
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick wants the State of Michigan--which took over the Detroit Public Schools in 1999, after years of mismanagement--to return control of the DPS to Detroit. Specifically, to him.

Kilpatrick deserves some credit for partially bucking the status quo-oriented teachers union when he initially backed charter schools. But he was unable (or was it unwilling) to broker an agreement that would have poured millions of dollars of private money into city charter schools.

The desire to return authority back to the city is understandable--how many suburban or outstate residents would like to see the duties of their local government school board taken away and handed to a group appointed by the state?

But such measures--the takeback, or the giveback--are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking ship of government-run schools. They may make people feel better, and perhaps actually do some amount of good. But they're no substitute for enhanced parental choice in schooling.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)