The Charter Blog

January 31 2007

More Progress on Charter District Plan in Georgia

Fight Brewing in Indiana Over Charter Funding

Barbara Streisand Gives 10K to Minnesota Charter School

KIPP Gets $14.6 Million Grant

30 Jan 2007

Spitzer's Speech

Strong Words Demand Strong Follow Through ...

Charter supporters across the country - especially those of us in New York - were thrilled to hear NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's first major speech on education yesterday. First, the big news:

... in my upcoming budget, I will propose to raise the charter school cap from 100 to 250.

Thanks to some schooling from NY Charter School Association President Bill Phillips, I know that the Governor's budget is where things REALLY happen in NY politics. Suffice it to say, the former governor never made lifting the charter cap a "critical" part of the his budget, and Spitzer's move bodes well for lifting the cap (though there will be no celebrating until it's done ... the New York Times reports that there were audible "boos" from the assembly at this announcement).

Now, I would be satisfied if Spitzer had stopped there, but he said some other things specific to charters that brightened my day:

Charter schools make other public schools compete, which is why many strong school administrators welcome their presence ... But if charter schools are going to be sustainable and expand beyond a tiny percentage of schools in the state, we need to fix a number of fundamental problems: First, we must fix the funding formula for charter schools ..."

This isn't Charter 101. Sustainability? Equal funding? Competition? Folks, this is Advanced Topics in Charter Schooling. Well-played, Governor Spitzer ... his speech included both the recognition that, implemented correctly, charters have the potential to drive excellence throughout systems of schools, and that in order to do so, the funding formula must be changed to level the playing field.

JC

**Addendum from Bill Phillips: "[The former governor] did put raising the charter cap in his budget ... he did that because the “other things” in the budget, say for instance state aid for school districts offer great negotiating leverage. This also holds for other items like Medicaid ... [but] he decoupled charters from the high-leverage items when he received pressure.

Comment »

January 29 2007

Gov. Spitzer Calls for More Charters, Reforms

Prince Charles Visits Harlem Charter

29 Jan 2007

Changes Coming for NCLB?

Highlights of the Bush Administration’s “Building on Results: A Blueprint For Strengthening The No Child Left Behind Act”

Last week, the Bush Administration released its blueprint for strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act, which is scheduled to come up for reauthorization this year. Although short on details, it provides an outline of the Administration’s priorities for reauthorization.

Charter School Proposals

In the blueprint, the Administration pledges to augment public charter school options in the following three ways:

•In order to enhance charter school availability and performance, the federal charter school program would now support all viable charter applications that can improve outcomes for students.

•Charter schools would have a greater degree of flexibility to use their grants in executing planning and startup activities.

•Local decisions to reopen schools identified for restructuring as charter schools would be allowed, even if state law limits the number of possible charter schools within that state.

We expect more details to emerge in the coming weeks about these proposals. Once they do, we’ll share them with you.

More General Proposals

There are several other parts of the blueprint that affect all public schools, including public charter schools. We’ve pulled out some of the most significant ones below:

•Testing: States would continue to assess students in reading/language arts and math in each of grades 3-8 and once in grades 10-12. A 95 percent student testing participation rate would still be required.

•Disaggregation of Data: The disaggregation of student achievement results by certain subgroups (race, ethnicity, English language proficiency, disability, and socio-economic status) would still be required.

•Growth Models: For those states with well-established assessments and robust data systems, growth models would be permitted in their overall accountability systems.

•Students with Disabilities: States would have the option of assessing a small group of students with disabilities based on alternate and modified achievement standards.

•English Language Learners: States would be allowed to include a provision in their accountability systems that recognize schools making significant progress in moving English language learners toward English language proficiency.

•High School Graduation Rates: By no later than 2011-12, all states would report school-level, disaggregated results of their four-year cohort graduation rates in state accountability calculations. In the meantime, all states would report district-level disaggregated results of these rates in state accountability calculations.

•Additional High School Standards and Tests: States would develop by 2010-11 course-level academic standards for two years of English and math. By 2012-13, states would administer tests aligned to these standards and publicly report the results, although these results will not be part of state accountability systems.

•Accountability for Science Results: The reauthorized law would incorporate an expectation that all students achieve proficiency in science by the 2019-20 school year.

•School Restructuring: The menu of actions authorized under restructuring would commit these schools either to make substantial changes in staff or to reconstitute the schools’ governance structure, except in special circumstances (e.g., when a school is in restructuring status only because of the performance of one subgroup). Consistent with state law, the reauthorized law would permit operation of a school in restructuring status to be turned over to an elected official such as a city mayor, in addition to a state education agency as allowed under current law. As previously mentioned, local decisions to reopen schools identified for restructuring as charter schools would be allowed, even if state law limits the number of possible charter schools within that state.

Comment »

January 26 2007

MI Charter Top Performer on State Tests

26 Jan 2007

Denver Pays Bonuses for Higher Enrollments

The Denver Post reveals today that Denver Public Schools will be paying a bonus to schools that attract students back from charters and other non-district schools. There are myriad reasons to hate this news, but I will give you three:

1) According to the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's 2002-2003 finance data, Colorado charters receive 27% less funding per student than the average traditional public school. This practice of paying bonuses heightens the inequity by putting an additional premium on students reclaimed from charters, reinforcing the idea that the education of a student in a traditional public school is worth more than that of his/her charter peer.

2) This disproportionately benefits schools wtih enrollment cushions, namely schools that have the room for more students. It does not help the already overcrowded schools in the more disadvantaged southwest part of Denver. Even though the money might be appealing to these schools, it is not nearly enough to cover the added costs of taking on students.

3) So, let me get this straight. In an era in which we are supposed to care more about student achievement and delivering results for our children, the Denver Public Schools system has taken the bold step to reward schools for something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with educating children, but rather reclaiming lost revenue for the school district? Bravo, Denver.

JC

Comment »