At the recent 'Skinny' Awards ceremony in New York, Gary Rubenstein was one of the honorees. He gave some very funny remarks, which I listened to on Vimeo/Youtube and have attempted to transcribe. (I wasn't there.)
(The humor, if you don't get it, is in how he echoes the rhetoric of the current crop of Excellent corporate Educational DEformers.)
| Legislation: | HB 165 w/HA 3 |
| Sponsor: | Jaques |
| Long Title: | AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO EDUCATION AND CHARTER SCHOOLS. |
| Committee: | EDUCATION |
| Number of Committee Members: | 7 |
| Date of Report: | 06/19/2013 |
| Committee Vote: | Favorable: | On Its Merits: | Unfavorable: |
 |
2 | 1 | 1 |
Committee Meeting Minutes:
Not Good.
At 10:23 on the morning of the House vote on HB 165, Dr. Michael Thomas, President of the Delaware Chief School Officers Association (superintendents), announced the superintendents' opposition to HB 165. It was a good letter of opposition, voicing many of the objections other public-school advocates would have voiced, had they been permitted to attend the meetings of the Governor's Working Group on Charter Schools…
This open letter is published with permission from the author, liberal high school history teacher and former professor Paul Horton of Chicago.
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education
Senate Appropriations Committee
June 3, 2013
Dear Chairman Harkin,
I was very saddened to hear that you have decided not to run for reelection as a United States senator.
This week, concerned parents of the Conejo Valley Unified School District in California held a forum about Common Core.
One of the first panelists in the video is Stanford Professor and Hoover Institute researcher Bill Evers, who shares facts, experiences, lively stories and teacher quotes that point out the absurdity of accepting the Common Core, on academic and on federalism-related issues.
Dear Bill and Melinda,
I was driving home after another long day as a teacher when I heard an interview on NPR with Charles Glass, journalist and author of The Deserters, A Hidden History of WWII.
As I listened intently to Charles bring to life the stories of these deserters - deserters who had entered into a war out of love for their country - I suddenly found myself thinking of the recent videos and letters appearing from teachers who are deserting the children and the craft they so love.
Still, state education officials say the spending shows commitment.“This is definitely showing a major investment,” said David Blowman, deputy secretary of education. “Enrollment is growing in many schools, and this money is reflective of the demand that causes.”
Perhaps you recall the hoopla that surrounded the release in late 2011 of a study by economists Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff, in which they claimed that a great teacher would produce a huge increase in lifetime earnings, fewer pregnancies, and other wonderful life outcomes. It was reported on the front page of the New York Times, where one of the authors said that the lesson of the study was that it was best to fire teachers who couldn't produce big gains sooner rather than later.
There was a whole lot going on during Tuesday night's melee between the Diamondbacks and Dodgers, so it's taking a little while for Major League Baseball officials to sort through all the video and assign the proper punishments to the proper culprits.
There will be nothing levied on Wednesday night, reports Bob Nightengale of USA Today:
MLB still is investigating all elements of the…
The tea party is wrong on the Common Core curriculum
By Jack Markell (D-Rodel), Published: June 9
Jack Markell(D-Rodel), the governor of Delaware, co-chaired the Common Core Standards Initiative.
Over the past three years, 45 states have adopted the Common Core State Standards. These objectives were developed to ensure that America’s students acquire the academic skills they need to reach their full potential. If they were to ensure that goal, then why can’t you provide us with one ounce of evidence to demonstrate that they do what you claim they do?
Yet the Common Core standards are under serious assault by the tea party movement, which argues that they were developed by the federal government [“A new battle for tea party,” front page, May 31]. This assertion lacks any basis in fact. Governor Markell (D-Rodel) fails to mention the fact that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, during the most desperate financial crisis of our lifetime, used a competitive FEDERAL grant, Race to the Top (RTTT) to entice states into adoption by awarding points for the promise to do just that. One word that comes to mind is bullying, a term our Governor knows quite well. The Common Core was developed during a year-long process by state leaders — Democrats and Republicans — along with highly respected members of the business community and people in education, including many teachers. Do you mean to tell me that well meaning state leaders, not educators, but leaders have figured out to cure all that ails us in one year? Really?
Rather than representing a takeover by the federal government, Common Core shows why states have always led in the area of education policy.Led? by bending over for federal RTTT money you mean? That’s leading? State leaders realized that we can best accomplish our goals by working together with common guidelines that allow us to raise the bar for our students and share resources without interference from federal mandates. Best line! without interference? Seriously, all the feds so is interfere: and you are their tool sir.Opponents of higher standards also argue that the Common Core will eliminate local control of a school’s curriculum. It has. This is fait accompli and a pernicious lie by our Governor to suggest it may not be. This, too, is simply not true. Lie. Previously, each state had set its own standards; now, the majority of states will have the same ones. Same = better? is this the new standard for research based in the Rodel world? Local school boards have had, and will continue to have, discretion in how to work with their schools and educators to teach those higher objectives — from the texts they use to the teaching techniques they employ. Governor Markell, then explain DPAS-II or DCAS? The difference is that the expectations for a high school junior in Delaware will be the same as in California. Well then problem solved! Are you for real with this?If the crusaders against Common Core don’t think this is important, they should speak with military families. (1,207,628 military kids are in schools, TOTAL us K-12 enrollment is 54.9MM so Miltary families = 2.199% of TTL US students, so this is clearly a TAIL wagging the dog argument being proffered by the Governor and shows how utterly disconnected he is at policy making: hanging his hat on 2.199% of the people being the reason to make policy, kinda like 8% of DE school kids in Charters driving policy to screw the other 92%) Their stories — told to support groups and educators — illuminate the benefits of having expectations for students that don’t vary by Zip code and that prepare their children for a global economy. prove value? maybe once? They talk about moving to a new state with better academic standards, and how their kids initially struggle to meet more challenging goals but ultimately flourish beyond the levels that their previous accomplishments would have suggested. I love anecdotal evidence, and so does our governor! Luckily, though opponents’ voices are loud, they are not the majority. The big lie. Jack Markell (D-Rodel) only thinks this because he does not listen to nor engage real people, he has placed himself in a bubble. The Common Core effort represents one of the few initiatives so fundamental to the prosperity of our country that it has received support from organizations as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, teachers unions, the National Parent Teacher Association and the U.S. Army. By support you mean the AFT request for a moratorium, right? And by PTA, you mean after taking a Gates grant, right?
Supporters of the standards recognize that we are in a global war for jobs, best characterized as a global war for talent. According to Gallup, 3 billion people are looking for jobs in a world that has only 1.2 billiongood jobs to offer. To compete and win on the global stage, our country’s leaders must demand more of ourselves and do our students the favor of demanding more of them. That means an education that doesn’t just produce diplomas but also gives our students the tools they need to compete with their counterparts around the world for college admission and careers.
The Common Core initiative is driven by the highest international bench marks as well as a thorough, evidence-based study of the skills required for students to attain college and career readiness by the time they don their high school graduation gowns. So show us that sir, show us how international benchmarking actually produces the results you claim, if not, then please consider stop talking about it like its true. We have maintained an intense focus on the ability of our next generation of workers to apply lessons learned in the classroom to real-world situations. In today’s economy, these skill sets are not controversial. They include “writing arguments to support claims,” “using probability to evaluate the outcomes of decisions,” “participating effectively in a range of collaborative discussions” and “making sense of math problems and persevering in solving them.” The Common Core standards will ensure that students gain these necessary skills. Ensure? Like these precepts were NOT included in previous standards or curriculum? How does CCSS ENSURE this? Please answer this question for us rather than rote proselytizing!
It’s time to focus on the difficult work that comes with effectively implementing higher standards across hundreds of thousands of classrooms. We cannot let fringe movements you are the fringe movement sir distract us from this goal, and we cannot let this moment pass. All of us who believe in the Common Core must vocally and visibly debunk the myths you mean tell more lies — and fight for a future that gives all of our nation’s children the best chance to succeed.
By Andrew Ujifusa on June 10, 2013 10:34 AM
The Maryland State Education Association, the largest state teachers’ union in Maryland, plans to seek a court injunction to stop state-approved teacher evaluation systems from being imposed on several county school districts. They plan to argue that the state has usurped what should be the districts’ power to decide, along with local teachers’ unions, which tests are included in the portions of evaluations tied to student growth.
The association, along with several school districts, say that the Maryland School Assessments (MSA) and the upcoming assessments from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) aligned to the Common Core State Standards carry too much weight in the state-approved teacher-evaluation system. They also say the system itself, slated to be fully online next year, isn’t ready for prime time, and that the department has confused districts throughout the development of the evaluation system. At least two school districts, in Charles and St. Mary’s counties, have submitted final evaluation plans that don’t comport with what the state wants.
“The refusal to include all stakeholders in these conversations is detrimental to the progress we’ve made,” MSEA President Betty Weller wrote to Maryland Superintendent of Schools Lillian Lowery in a June 5 letter.
The state, however, says it is following the requirements of the U.S. Department of Education with respect to new evaluations. Maryland education department officials also say they have given districts sufficient flexibility to decide how to use state assessments with respect to teacher evaluations, while still ensuring they are following federal and state requirements.
The districts are permitted by the state to create their own evaluation plans, but they have to fit within certain rules, such as requiring half of evaluations to be based on student achievement including test scores. If they don’t, or if their plans don’t fit those rules, the state will simply provide them with its own model evaluation plan.
The districts’ teacher-evaluation plans were originally due to the Maryland department on May 15, but the deadline was extended to June 7. A union spokesman, Adam Mendelson, said it’s unclear right now which districts or local bargaining units will join the MSEA’s quest for a court injunction, which will specifically seek to halt Lowery’s attempt to impose an evaluation system on a district. However, the president of the Education Association of St. Mary’s County, Anna Laughlin, said her association at least would join MSEA in seeking an injunction. The state union would also seek a subsequent declaratory judgment from the court stating that Lowery has no power to impose these evaluations, since their proposed evaluations meet the legal requirements.
Offers and Counter-Offers
What’s the issue? The fight has its roots in the state’s winning Race to the Top grant in 2010, which provided Maryland with $250 million in federal money in exchange for several education policy changes favored by the federal department. As part of its grant, the state promised that under the its new teacher-evaluation system, 50 percent would be based on growth in student achievement, and 50 percent would be based on demonstrated professional practice. After various discussions and negotiations, the state said that 20 percent of a teacher’s evaluation would be tied to a state assessment, specifically at the moment the MSA.
For the draft versions of both the state and local evaluation models for teachers (as well as principals), you can click on these slides from the Maryland education department from June 6.
But some districts (school districts in Maryland correspond to its counties and to Baltimore city) didn’t buy that that initial 20 percent requirement. The county districts said they should be able to determine what that 20 percent of the evaluation based on state assessments consists of. They argued only 10 percent of an evaluation should consist of individual MSA and PARCC scores, and the remaining 10 percent should be based on the individual school’s cumulative test performance, using a School Progress Index. That index, of course, lessens the weight of MSA scores from an individual teacher’s classroom. Several districts reached deals based on these numbers with their unions, and they thought this comported with the state 2010 Education Reform Act, which paved the way for Race to the Top.
Then the state offered what it thought was a compromise. In 2013-14, the district’s plan to split up the 20 percent between MSA scores and the SPI could be used. And in 2014-15, the first year the PARCC assessments are due to replace the MSA, 15 percent of an evaluation would have to be based on individual classroom assessment scores, and only 5 percent could be based on the School Progress Index. And in 2015-16, the performance index would vanish altogether from this calculation, leaving 20 percent of a teacher’s evaluation based on the PARCC assessments.
So if you’ve followed the merry-go-round of offers so far, a crucial hang-up is the School Progress Index, its weight in teacher evaluations, and whether it will remain a part of them over time.
In a reply to Weller’s letter (oddly enough with the same date, June 5), Lowery wrote of the phase-out option, “While not necessarily appropriate for all LEAs, this path may provide a suitable option to mitigate apprehension as the State begins full implementation of the Common Core Standards during School Year 2013-14.” She added that in allowing the state to offer the phase-in option for districts, the federal department showed “good faith and flexibility.”
The state will impose its own default evaluation system on those districts that don’t submit teacher evaluations that fit the state’s requirements. A spokesman for the department, William Reinhard, wrote in an email that Lowery’s letter spoke for itself and added, “This is where we are headed; this is what we plan to do.”
Essentially, the MSEA doesn’t want the evaluations to actually impact teacher ratings or personnel decisions, at least in 2013-14. But remember, the evaluations are supposed to be fully implemented in the 2013-14 school year. MSEA Vice President Cheryl Bost said the state union and the districts don’t want those evaluations to count, arguing that they’re simply not ready for prime time, and that the state’s imposition on districts violates the state’s Education Reform Act from 2010 (the basis for their request for an injunction in court). Again, the MSEA says the act is being violated because the state won’t accept the districts’ legal authority to make these decisions for themselves—essentially, the union says Maryland won’t take yes for an answer.
Superintendents Raise Concerns
Bost pointed to a report on the progress of piloted teacher evaluations in Maryland from March that was commissioned by the state department. It said there were several ongoing issues regarding the evaluations that the state should address, including the adequacy of districts’ data systems, and clarity over which decisions the state will make and which ones will be left to districts.
The report’s author, Megan Dolan, who wrote the report for the state education department and is a researcher at George Washington University, said while districts could benefit from an additional pilot year, most districts would likely be ready to fully use the evaluations in 2013-14, which seems to undercut part of MSEA’s argument about the readiness of the evaluations. At the same time, Dolan did say the evaluations’ impact on student learning in that first year would be questionable.
“We’re just not ready for full implementation of common core, full implementation of a teacher-evaluation system, and have that all wrapped up in a neat bow by the time we do evaluations in the spring,” Bost said, referring to the 2013-14 school year.
In addition to their demands for more control on teacher evaluations, MSEA says that 2013-14 should not only be a “no fault” year for the evaluations, but that the role of MSAs and School Progress Indexes should be eliminated entirely from evaluations for that year—the entire 50 percent of the evaluations based on student growth would draw on objective measures, such as Student Learning Objectives, agreed upon by districts and local bargaining units. That seems like a very significant, even bold request, given the state’s insistence (based on what they call federal requirements) about the role state assessments must play in evaluations.
An assistant superintendent for Charles County schools, Keith Hettel, said June 6 his district would not join MSEA’s quest for an injunction, but was resubmitting the plan it agreed to with its county teachers’ union that splits the 20 percent growth measure based on state assessments between the MSA and SPI. Essentially, Hettel’s district is submitting a plan it knows the state won’t like, and then waiting for the state to act. St. Mary’s County submitted a plan in which the crucial 10 percent also used results from MSA-correlated assessments.
“This whole process has not been clear. This whole process has not been fair,” he said.
The seven counties that were submitting revised plans due June 7, in addition to Charles and St. Mary’s, were Baltimore County, Cecil, Carroll, Prince George’s, and Washington. Plans from fifteen county schools systems have already been approved. Baltimore County’s superintendent, Dallas Dance, told me that while the MSAs might still be used by schools, the focus at the district and classroom level has really shifted to the common core, even though the assessments aligned to those new standards aren’t ready yet.
“Why are we evaluating teachers on old tests?” he asked, referring to the MSAs.
Waiver in Jeopardy?
If this dust-up sounds familiar, that’s because New York state went through a similar fight over exactly how student growth should count in teacher evaluations, and how much control districts should have in making that decision.
Weller also says in her letter that in future requests for waivers from the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now called the No Child Left Behind Act), the state education department should engage in a “more open and transparent process.” The new teacher evaluations are a prominent feature in the state’s NCLB waiver. Reinhard said the state wasn’t thinking about the effect of a fight over teacher evaluations on the state’s waiver.
As early as January last year, as I wrote for a different newspaper, the feds gave Maryland generally high marks on its implementation of Race to the Top, but did note some problems with the teacher-evaluation systems being developed. And as my colleague Michele McNeil wrote at the start of this year, the U.S. department expressed much stronger concern about the direction of the state’s Race to the Top program—but once again, teacher evaluations were the source of the feds’ concern. Two county school systems in Maryland, Frederick and Montgomery, didn’t officially sign on to support the state’s Race to the Top application back in 2010, and those two districts have different teacher evaluation requirements from the state.
“I wish we hadn’t signed onto it,” Laughlin said, referring to Race to the Top.
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, loves to talk up the state’s school system, ranked tops in the nation by Education Week for five years running, and the governor also has possible presidential ambitions. But this story, if it isn’t resolved, likely won’t get any ink from O’Malley’s press office.
Just got a ruling in from the Attorney General's office. The working group that met secretly in the dungeon under Woodburn, was breaking the law....
I heard it from Transparent Christina and heard Nancy has it up too...
Here is the critical piece of the reply....
"...any prior meetings conducted without adequate public notice or compliance with other open meeting requirements may have been held in violation of the Act." …
From: McConnel, Ian R (DOJ)
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:45 PM
To: Williams, Kimberly (LegHall)
Cc: Peterson, Karen (LegHall); Reardon, Allison E (DOJ); Staib, Jason (DOJ); Rogalsky, Joseph E (DOJ); Mullaney Sr, Tim (DOJ)
Subject: RE: 24 Member Working Group – Charter
Dear Representative Williams:
I write to respond to your request for informal and formal opinions from this office with respect to the applicability of Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10006 (“FOIA” or the “Act”), to the Charter School Working Group (the “Working Group”). This office, as a matter of general practice, does not give informal opinions, particularly with respect to FOIA matters, which tend to be fact specific. Nonetheless, in light of the important and pressing nature of your request, we conducted a preliminary review into the issues you raised below.
Based on the information you provided and our review, the Working Group may be a “public body” within the meaning of FOIA. 29 Del. C. § 10002. If that is the case, the Working Group was (and, if still active, remains) subject to the “open meeting” provisions of the Act. See generally 29 Del. C. § 10004. Thus, any prior meetings conducted without adequate public notice or compliance with other open meeting requirements may have been held in violation of the Act. We note however that, as a practical matter, there may be no effective way to remediate any such violations. According to your email below, the Working Group has already made its recommendation to legislators.
Of course, pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10003, you are able to submit a FOIA request to the appropriate public agencies, officers or officials to obtain any publicly available documents, and in the event you do not receive timely or appropriate responses, you may appeal and bring the matter to our attention by filing a FOIA petition with this Office in accordance with FOIA §§ 10005(b), (e).
With best regards,
Ian
Ian R. McConnel
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Delaware Department of Justice
From: Williams, Kimberly (LegHall)
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:52 AM
To: McConnel, Ian R (DOJ)
Cc: Peterson, Karen (LegHall); Reardon, Allison E (DOJ); Staib, Jason (DOJ); Rogalsky, Joseph E (DOJ); Mullaney Sr, Tim (DOJ)
Subject: RE: 24 Member Working Group – CharterThank you. I know it takes time and I am sorry for the short notice. I do appreciate you looking into this.
Kim Williams
State Representative 19th District
From: McConnel, Ian R (DOJ)
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:50 AM
To: Williams, Kimberly (LegHall)
Cc: Peterson, Karen (LegHall); Reardon, Allison E (DOJ); Staib, Jason (DOJ); Rogalsky, Joseph E (DOJ); Mullaney Sr, Tim (DOJ)
Subject: RE: 24 Member Working Group – CharterGood morning Rep Williams:
We anticipate responding to your inquiry this afternoon. Thank you for your continued patience.Ian
From: Williams, Kimberly (LegHall)
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:50 AM
To: McConnel, Ian R (DOJ)
Cc: Peterson, Karen (LegHall); Reardon, Allison E (DOJ); Staib, Jason (DOJ); Rogalsky, Joseph E (DOJ); Mullaney Sr, Tim (DOJ)
Subject: RE: 24 Member Working Group – CharterGood Morning Ian,
As you know, we go into session tomorrow at 2:00, would it be possible to have the response by Tuesday morning? I would like to be able to review your response and, if necessary, prepare before the House meets tomorrow.
Thank you for your time.
Kim Williams
State Representative 19th District
From: McConnel, Ian R (DOJ)
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 11:29 AM
To: Williams, Kimberly (LegHall)
Cc: Peterson, Karen (LegHall); Reardon, Allison E (DOJ); Staib, Jason (DOJ); Rogalsky, Joseph E (DOJ); Mullaney Sr, Tim (DOJ)
Subject: RE: 24 Member Working Group – CharterGood morning Rep. Williams:
Thank you for your email. We will review the below and respond back to you before the hearing on Tuesday.
Best,
Ian
Ian R. McConnel
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Delaware Department of Justic
From: Williams, Kimberly (LegHall)
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 11:23 AM
To: McConnel, Ian R (DOJ)
Cc: Williams, Kimberly (LegHall); Peterson, Karen (LegHall)
Subject: 24 Member Working Group – CharterGood Morning Ian,
I am requesting an opinion today from the AG’s office and I am also requesting a formal opinion from the AG’s office regarding the Appointed 24 Member Working Group that was formed to review the current charter law. The group was appointed by the Governor. The House will probably be voting on House Bill 165 (Charter) next Tuesday and it is important to have an opinion as to whether or not this Working Group violated Chapter 100.
The Appointed 24 Member Working Group was formed last year and meetings were not posted, the public was not included, and no minutes were kept of these meetings. According to Chapter 100 – Freedom of Information Act under Definitions and Open Meetings this Appointed Working Group should of posted their meeting schedule, had the publics involvement and recorded minutes.
The House Education Committee just released House Bill 165 (Charter Bill) by a 7 to 6 vote in favor of releasing. I am Vice Chair of the Education Committee and I presented my concerns to the Education Committee this week. I am extremely concerned about the Working Group and the lack of records and most importantly the lack of public input.
Here is a little background. I was on the Red Clay School Board at the time when the Working Group was meeting and we as a board were not informed or updated on the groups progress. There was a representative on the group who was to be keeping the school boards informed. After I was elected to the 19th District, I requested information from the member of this committee (12/21/12 and 1/02/13) who should have been updating the school board members, he did not return my emails and I left one voice message for him as well. I requested from a member of the Governor’s office (1/07/13) to see if she could get in touch with him and she had no luck.
Back in December (12/13/12) I sent an email requesting that I could sit in on an upcoming meeting and for an invitation to be sent to the Red Clay School District. Red Clay is the only district in the state to charter charters. I also requested an invitation by phone to attend a meeting of the Working Group after being elected and again I asked if I could bring a guest with me. This guest was from the Red Clay School Board and I was told I could attend but they did not want me to bring anyone with me to the meeting, it would not be right to open it for one and not open it for all. I know for a fact that the President of the State PTA was allowed to sit at the table during these meetings but was not an appointed member of the Working Group.
While this was going on, I spoke to Senator Peterson about the Working Group meetings not being open and asked her how I could find out if they should be open to the public. I was a newly elected House Member and needed some guidance. She sent an email requesting an opinion about the Working Group and their answer to her was yes, these meetings should be open to the public.
So now we are in the process of voting on a bill. I was told that the Working Group did not write the bill, it was written by lawmakers. We all know that the Working Group all had input. I just want to be clear, I am not against charters and I am all for charter reform it is needed, but I am also for open government. This group in my opinion was not open and should have been and I am requesting an opinion now and a formal one as well be made.
Thank you for your time and if you have any questions, please contact me at XXX-XXX-XXXX
Kim Williams
State Representative 19th District
Last week, I sent Earl Jaques, my representative and HB 165 sponsor an email that shared my concerns around charter school law reform. As you all know, I am a middle of the road advocate on the issue of charter reform and funding. I have child in a Delaware charter school and another in a traditional public school. I’m a choice parent and a feeder parent. I walk in both worlds – the utilization of choice allows me to seek placements that meet both his and her needs. Yes, I’m part of a minority – the majority of which chooses to stay out of the political fray and pray their children are receiving the best education possible – a quiet minority that neither lobbying side has attempted to court.
Earl’s response demanded a volley, so I wrote him back. His 2nd response, well, I’ll let you read it for yourself…and draw your own conclusions.
My letter – short version:
My message, Earl, is that as these reforms are brought forth in Dover, as attempts are made to even the playing field between charters and traditional public schools, safeguards must remain in place. I implore you to reconsider some of the legislation as proposed and provide amendments to protect education funding:
1. Any new streams of funding or methods of obtaining capital funding should be restricted to charters that own their own facilities or lease facilities that are state or school district owned. This will compel charters that are establishing themselves or growing to consider the state’s excess property list for their facility plans. It will ultimately help address a growing problem: a future glut of under-populated district school buildings by encouraging districts and charters to work together to serve the same student populations. You see, as more students leave traditional schools, we are creating capacity in these buildings, yet our operation costs will not decrease. It will cost the same to operate a building with 500 students as it will to operate that same school with 300 students. The facility operational needs will not change – water, electricity, sewer, those will remain the same. But, the funds won’t be there b/c they will follow the 200 who have left for charter.
In reality, if CSD were to close a traditional high school today, we would have capacity to serve the affected students in our other two high schools. Reality. The flip side – CSD will never be permitted to close a neighborhood school – our neighborhood schools are the result of a failed attempt to close schools in the City of Wilmington under Lillian Lowery’s leadership years ago. Lowery went to court and lost. This legal precedent will hurt any traditional school district that attempts to close a school regardless of the population serve.
It is these future considerations that need to be addressed along with parity for charter funding in today’s legislation. And I am sad that I don’t see this happening. We simply cannot afford to paralyze districts in order to create parity w/o safeguards.
2. Somewhere in the glut of bills and amendments, there must be a transparency bill. It is paramount that all schools adopt transparency and accountability best practices – this means recording their school board/board of directors meetings and making that content available on their websites. If a slush fund is to be established, let it be required that a charter must first utilize funds from this new pot to establish these absolute best practices before it can tap these funds for other expenses/projects.
In the absence of this best practice – are you willing to attend every charter board meeting of every charter board that wishes to utilize these funds and provide a report back to your constituents on a consistent basis regarding the fund usage? I’ll hazard to guess that you haven’t the time. Nor do the majority of your constituents – myself included. There is a bridge to overcoming this capacity gap – mandatory recordings and publication. And this new fund now provides charters with access to new funding to achieve this safeguard.
In closing, I sincerely hope that you will consider my email, my thoughts as a parent in two different worlds, both designed to prepare my children for a successful future. You sir are charged with a very precarious task – balancing the needs of students with the demands of the tax payers. Find the balance, re-establish the safeguards.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Scheinberg
tax payerRep. Jaques Response #1: (Color, Bold, and Underline by C&E 1st)
—–Original Message—–
From: Jaques, Jr, Earl (LegHall), Earl (LegHall) <Earl.Jaques@state.de.us>
To: montagnebeau <montagnebeau@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 10:18 am
Subject: RE: Charter Thoughts
Elizabeth,First the fund you are referring to is not a “slush” fund. If you attended yesterday’s public meeting you would know that it is not used for capital projects. It is connected to the Charter Performance framework, which will ensure that is used for education issues for either high-performing or high-need students. The money allocated came from the last budget numbers – NOT from the Department of Education. So this isn’t a case of taking money away from our public schools. In fact, the number one priority, according to the testimony from the School Superintendents to the Joint Finance Committee was money for technology. That money is in the budget! The Charter’s number one priority was money for this Strategic Performance Fund, which again the Joint Finance Committee granted and is in the budget based on whether the legislation passes. Since it doesn’t apply, I shouldn’t comment. However, the points you make in the first few paragraphs are done each and every year for our Colleges and Universities. We give them capital money and we don’t own the buildings. If you took the time to read House Bill 165 you would see loads of transparency and accountability throughout. I hope you are not listen to the nay Sayers who just like to yell at the top of their voice, but most of the time don’t know what they are talking about! HB 165 has been properly vetted and has loads of support throughout the education community.EarlThe Volley – My 2nd Email:
Earl,
I’m surprised by your tone. I spoke generally of charter reform and the longitudinal impact that necessitates thoughtful approach. I did not cite any bill by number, but did reference the slush fund. I’m pleased that you noted my absence from yesterday’s hearing. As a legislator whose district encompasses parts of CSD, I am certain that you are upset that you have missed all three comprehensive CSD graduations. While the hearing was being conducted in Dover, I was caring for my severely disabled daughter while preparing for my third graduation ceremony of the week – Christiana High School. Let me use this opportunity to invite you to the remaining graduations:
Delaware Autism Program today at 4 pm, Kirk Middle School
Delaware School for the Deaf today at 7 pm, DSD on Rt 4
Groves Adult High School Graduation, Friday at 7:30 pm at Glasgow High SchoolI will share that is relief to hear that this is new-found funding. I do wonder of course, how do we sustain one-time new-found funding in subsequent years? However, I am relieved to hear that you will be advocating across the board for the restoration of funds previously hi-jacked by our Gov and re-allocated to our General Fund by our legislators.
Specifically to HB 165, the well-vetted bill, the following clause concerns me greatly:
(m) The Department of Education shall administer a performance fund for charter schools, to be known as the “Charter School Performance Fund”. The Department of Education shall establish threshold eligibility requirements for applicants desiring to apply for funding, which shall include but not be limited to a proven track record of success, as measured by a Performance Framework established by the charter school’s authorizer or comparable measures as defined by the Department. The Department of Education shall also establish criteria to evaluate applications for funding, which shall include but not be limited to the availability of supplemental funding from non-State sources at a ratio to be determined by the Department. The Department of Education shall prioritize those applications from applicants that have (a) developed high-quality plans for start-up or expansion or (b) serve high-need students, as defined by the Department. The fund shall be subject to appropriation and shall not exceed $5 million annually.
The statement is a generality at best. It does not provide clarity around what can or cannot be funded, nor offer any precision of the eligibility of schools. If applicants must have a proven track record of success, then the bill precludes any new or young schools from eligibility. “Measures as defined by the Department” is very obscure, as is the “availability of supplemental funding from non-State sources.” Nor does this bill define a “high quality plan for start-up or expansion.”
I don’t see the accountability or transparency pertaining to these funds. The fact is that plans are wonderful things, they provide direction. But, if the leadership is incompetent, and we often don’t know that until the plans begin to fall apart, then the plan is just a piece a paper.
For me, this portion of the bill is simply too weak, too easy to take advantage of, and too susceptible to political persuasion.
And I no, I don’t tend to listen to the nay-sayers. If anything, I’m in the political middle where charters are concerned. However, that does not mean that I will abdicate my responsibilities as an education advocate.
I’m just saddened that you don’t seem to value my contributions.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
Rep. Earl Jaques 2nd Response:
NOTHING, NONE,NOT AN IOTA OF A RESPONSE
The testimony by the APPO District Financial officer at the House Ed Committee hearing was GREAT. Wish I had a copy of it. He did the math to show what 5 million was per Charter Student and then asked for the equivalent for each APPO kid. It was a big number.
John Kowalko
$5,000,000 available to charter schools “only” (10,438 total students of which a whopping 854 are special ed {8.1%} an additional $479 per charter school pupil.
To equal that in traditional public schools (120,591 students–17,186 special ed {14.2%}) would require $57,763,089. That’s simple math everyone and simply, unacceptably a betrayal of traditional public school students, teachers and support staff (eg. paras) by all parties supporting this slush fund inclusion in the woefully inadequate HB 165.
John Kowalko
John Kowalko
Also note the disparity in special ed numbers and the very real fact that the costs for special ed students (especially severe needs) is much higher than regular students and the ratio demand for teacher/paraprofessional inclusion in the classrooms requires more assistance (ask any real special-ed teacher like Mike Mathews). But since it is likely that one of the apologists/stakeholders/special interests supporters of this bill will say that there has only been $2million allocated for the slush fund I’ve done the math for them and that number would shrink the required match for traditional schools (to compete with level conditions) to $23,105,235 ( while still ignoring the true needs of the special ed population).
Good luck to all the special interests groups (you know who you are) in justifying that to your clients/taxpayers and members as fair and equitable.
John KowalkoJohn Kowalko
Oh by the way feel free to share anywhere since those numbers are dead solid accurate and do not even pretend to calculate how huge the real number will be when distributed to only a handful of high-performing/well-connected charters.Shameful and unacceptable comes to mind for those that would defend this type of policy.
John Kowalko
The $8.2 million, three-year program is meant to help reward and attract teachers to challenged schools in Delaware. Thirty schools were named by the state as eligible for the program, which will award a $10,000 bonus to certain teachers in these schools who meet yet-to-be-defined student test score goals set by the state.
So, we’re going spend $8.2 million to do something–we just haven’t figured out how much of it you have to do:Among the unanswered questions are what specific criteria will be used to determine which teachers will be eligible for the bonus.
Oh, and even if you sign up for the program, we reserve the right to change the rules in the middle:The state is also not committing to keeping the rules for the program the same every year because state officials want to be able to make changes based on “lessons learned” as the state embarks on this new program, he said.
There’s also, obviously, a significant amount of State intrusion and monitoring that will come along with this program. How can you tell? Try this:
It’s up to school districts and charters to decide if they wish to participate by the end of this month. If they don’t, their teachers will not be eligible for the bonus.
There are holes in this program, you have hit a few. I will list out several more.
1) DDOE selects the schools, NOT all schools are eligible. In CSD THEY have selected 7 schools: Stubbs, Pulaksi, Bancroft, Bayard, Palmer,Oberle and Glasgow SHOULD we elect to participate in what the DOE calls a “significant opportunity for your district”
2) ONLY DCAS teachers grades 3-10 are eligible, so hard working,ultra professional K-2, and 11-12 teachers who bleed, sweat and teach their guts out in the same selected building are just simply ineligible, either because they chose the wrong grade, or because the principal assigned them to a non eligible grade.
3) In the case of CSD, the criteria for selecting the schools, by the DOE is such that multiple other schools teach children with ALL and more of the same challenges, yet those teachers are also, summarily ineligible due to DDOE rule.
4) Literally, the DOE in Mr. Ruszkowski’s invitation to participate letter states, after asking for the district’s confirmation of participation: “We will provide you with more information throughout the summer about the program, including how educators are selected and any other additional policies that govern the program’s implementation”
I’ll note the complete dearth of evidence that this money will
A) retain teachers
B) promote continued success
or most significantly
C) lead to sustained improvements in student acheivement
at a minimum, it will reward past performance that is correlative, but certainly not causative.
I wonder what teachers not eligible in and out of the building that are eligible might think? I also wonder about the system wide morale impacts to the idea of a high performing professional enterprise.
May 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Also,
If a district elects not to participate, will the state make up lies, trash them in the press, and threaten to withhold the remainder of the RTTT $$?
Just askin’
May 12, 2012 at 10:04 AM