Wednesday, April 26, 2017

New Jersey School District Forced to Spend $39 Million to Support Private Education While District Runs $15 Million Deficit in Its Own Schools

Lakewood School District in New Jersey has a budget crisis on its hands--a deficit of $15 million for the coming year.  The district is forced to spend about $39 million on non-publication education.  Regardless, to make up the shortfall in the public schools, the district plans to lay off over a 100 teachers and staff, eliminate sports programs, and drastically increase class size.  In a state where the constitution guarantees students a "thorough and efficient" education and its courts have rigorously enforced this right, these cuts are troubling indeed--so much so that the state department of education has said it will not certify the district's budget as being in compliance with that constitutional mandate.  In his recent essay in Asbury Park Press, David Sciarra writes:

Lakewood’s budget crisis is nothing new. The district lurches from year to year, making cuts in essential teachers, support staff, programs and services.

The victims of this tragedy are the 6,000 Lakewood public school children. Virtually all are poor and 95 percent are Latino or black. Twenty-seven percent are limited English proficient and 15 percent require special education.

The cause of Lakewood’s budget crisis is no secret. The district must not only support its public schools but it must pay to transport 30,000 students to private schools and pay for the cost of special education for many of those same private school students.

The drain on Lakewood’s budget from non-public expenditures is enormous. The district is forced to divert nearly $13 million in funds earmarked for public school students to pay for non-public transportation. It also must shoulder $26 million in non-public special education costs.

The state has the power to fix Lakewood’s budget crisis now. It doesn’t need new laws or changes to the school funding formula.

Acting Commissioner Kimberly Harrington has the authority to restructure the budget so it provides Lakewood students a thorough and efficient education. And Lakewood’s state fiscal monitor, Michael Azzara, is empowered to override the board of education if necessary to eliminate the budget deficit.

These state officials must act. First, they must halt the transfer of $13 million in public school funds to subsidize non-public transportation. Keeping those funds in Lakewood’s budget — where they belong — will stop the bleeding and allow the district to maintain essential services to its students.

Second, they must take the operation and cost of special education to non-public school students out of the district’s hands. The state must assume full responsibility to approve and pay for special education in private schools. This would relieve Lakewood of a fiscal and managerial burden it simply can no longer handle.

Let’s face it. The Lakewood budget has become nothing more than a vehicle for funneling vast sums of public school funds to pay for private and religious schools. This must end. Private school students are not constitutionally entitled to a thorough and efficient education. Only Lakewood public school children are.

April 26, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers, School Funding | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Voucher Mania Spreads to New Hampshire: Is This a Sign That Public Education Advocates in Other States Should Brace Themselves?

That expansive voucher programs found a receptive audience in Nevada and Arizona's legislatures is not altogether surprising. When similar programs gain steam in places like New Hampshire, it is worth taking serious notice.  The AP reports that a sweeping voucher bill breezed through the state's senate.  "The legislation would allow any public school student to use roughly $3,500 in tax dollars to attend a private or religious school or use the money on homeschooling, tutoring or other expenses. It would be one of the nation's broadest school choice bills, similar to programs that have passed in Arizona and Nevada."  Fortunately, the bill has slowed up in the state house.  "The Republican-controlled House Education Committee is likely to retain the bill Tuesday, meaning it won't get a vote until next year."  The governor has also expressed reservations.

Even if this bill ultimately goes nowhere, making it this far is evidence that I underestimated the Trump administration's impact on education policy.  Given the current legislative structure at the federal level, the Secretary of Education has virtually no power to push an affirmative policy agenda.  The Every Student Succeeds Act returns the lion's share of power back to states.  Thus, my working assumption was that the Trump choice agenda would not have a perceptible effect on state policy. States disinterested in choice would ignore the administration.  States that were interested would act, but not because of anything Trump or DeVos said.
 
The quick spread of particularly expansive voucher programs, however, does not appear coincidental.  The Trump administration did not give states the idea of expanding choice, but it appears to have emboldened them to do things they otherwise would have considered not possible or worth the effort.  If New Hampshire can move a bill through its Senate, I am afraid there is a long list of other states that can go even further.
 
Stopping that agenda will require local advocates to be prepared to defend the values that justify public education and not get caught off guard by what would normally be long-shot voucher bills.

April 25, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Nevada Pushing Work Around for the Voucher Program Declared Unconstitutional Last Year; David Sciarra Calls It a Trojan Horse

Last year, advocates for public education in Nevada secured a majority victory.  The Nevada Supreme Court found that the state's voucher program violated the state constitution's provisions for supporting public education.  The program funded vouchers with money that the constitution mandates to go to public education.  The Governor has now cooked up a new plan that he thinks solves the problem, but as David Sciarra points out, the new one, as a practical matter, is not really any different.  And if it passes, it threatens to lead the state down the same path as Arizona, which I argued has placed the viability of public education in danger.  Here is David Sciarra's essay, first published in the Las Vegas Sun:

Arizona offers glimpse into threat ESA bill poses to Nevada schools

Gov. Brian Sandoval is pressing lawmakers to revive the private school voucher program blocked last September by the Nevada Supreme Court. The court ruled the program was unconstitutional because it would deplete funds earmarked by the Legislature to operate Nevada’s public schools.

The governor’s bill, SB506, carries forward most features of the prior law. Sandoval wants the per-pupil amount spent on public school students, roughly $5,700, to be deposited into education savings accounts to subsidize private and religious school tuition and pay for other private education expenses. The governor also wants vouchers for any household, even the wealthy. And like the prior law, 100 days of public school enrollment is the only eligibility requirement.

To get around the Supreme Court ruling, SB506 changes the way vouchers are funded.

The funding will not come directly out of public school budgets. Instead, Sandoval proposes a separate appropriation of $60 million over the biennium.

At that level, approximately 2,500 vouchers can be awarded each year, not enough for everyone who signed up under the prior law. So the vouchers will be given out on a first-come, first-served basis.

Lawmakers should flatly reject the governor’s bill. And they need look no further than to Arizona for the reasons why.

In 2011, Arizona enacted an ESA voucher program limited to students with disabilities. Once it got rolling, vouchers were expanded to include students in low-performing public schools.

This year, 3,200 vouchers were funded by Arizona taxpayers, totaling $49 million. The vast majority of the voucher funds are used to subsidize tuition, fees and other expenses charged by religious and private schools.

But Arizona voucher proponents weren’t satisfied. Cheered on by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Gov. Doug Ducey recently signed legislation expanding vouchers again, this time making all 1.1 million public school students eligible. To pass the bill, proponents accepted a cap of 5,500 new students per year and 30,000 students over the next five years. The cost to taxpayers and the public schools could quickly swell to over $100 million or more.

But make no mistake: Voucher proponents are already aiming to lift the caps and throw the program open to everyone.

As in other states, Arizona’s voucher law lacks accountability. Private schools don’t have to administer the same tests as public schools, so there is no way to know if student outcomes are better.

Oversight of voucher accounts is lax. A recent audit uncovered payments for groceries, games and gift cards using voucher funds.

Like those who signed up for Nevada’s vouchers, most Arizona voucher recipients are from affluent neighborhoods, according to an investigation by the Arizona Republic. As a state senator who opposes vouchers noted, the expansion of vouchers will only spur the exodus of affluent white parents from the public schools, leaving those schools to educate students of color, poor students and English language learners with less money.

And public school funding in Arizona, like Nevada, is among the lowest and most inadequate in the country.

So Nevada legislators beware. Gov. Sandoval’s voucher bill is a Trojan horse. His $60 million for vouchers is just the start.

Once voucher proponents get their foot in the door, they will follow the Arizona playbook, demanding expansion in the next biennium session. And, led by DeVos, they will not stop until they achieve their goal of taking down our public schools, without regard to the educational damage inflicted on the children left behind.

April 20, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers, School Funding | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, April 14, 2017

New Report Paints California's Charter Schools As Economic Boondoggle That Has Little to Do with Student Need, Cost Efficiency, or Quality

A new report on California's charter schools may be one of the most scathing to date--in part because it does more than examine student achievement.  Achievement studies inevitably raise methodological and interpretation debates.  More simply, it is often unclear whether the studies are comparing apples to apples.  This new study, however, filters charter schools through other more straightforward data and factors: locality need, cost efficiency, and legal compliance.  On these measures, the report suggests that California's charter school expansion is a financial boondoggle.  To use a baseball analogy, the disappointing quality of many of these schools is really just the fourth strike against a policy that should have already been called out. The report's introduction states:

From less than 200 schools in 1998, the California charter school industry has grown by more than 600%, to over 1,200 schools serving nearly 600,000 children, or nearly 10% of the state’s students. One of the sources fueling this growth is an extensive network of government programs that provide public funding or tax subsidies for charter school buildings. Over the past 15 years, California charter schools have received over $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized funds to lease, build, or buy school buildings. This report finds that this funding is almost completely disconnected from educational policy objectives, and the results are, in turn, scattershot and haphazard. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent each year without any meaningful strategy. Far too much of this public funding is spent on schools built in neighborhoods that have no need for additional classroom space, and which offer no improvement over the quality of education already available in nearby public schools. In the worst cases, public facilities funding has gone to schools that were found to have discriminatory enrollment policies and others that have engaged in unethical or corrupt practices.  

The reports key findings include:

  • Over the past 15 years, California charter schools have received over $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized funds to lease, build, or buy school buildings.
  • Nearly 450 charter schools have opened in places that already had enough classroom space for all students—and this overproduction of schools was made possible by generous public support, including $111 million in rent, lease, or mortgage payments picked up by taxpayers, $135 million in general obligation bonds, and $425 million in private investments subsidized with tax credits or tax exemptions.
  • For three-quarters of California charter schools, the quality of education on offer is worse than that of a nearby traditional public school that serves a demographically similar population. Taxpayers have provided these schools with an estimated three-quarters of a billion dollars in direct funding and an additional $1.1 billion in taxpayer-subsidized financing.
  • Even the worst charter schools receive generous facility funding. The California Charter Schools Association identified 161 charter schools that ranked in the bottom 10% of schools serving comparable populations last year, but even these schools received over $200 million in tax dollars and tax-subsidized funding.
  • At least 30% of charter schools were both opened in places that had no need for additional seats and also failed to provide an education superior to that available in nearby public schools. This number is almost certainly underestimated, but even at this rate, Californians provided these schools combined facilities funding of over $750 million, at a net cost to taxpayers of nearly $400 million.
  • Public facilities funding has been disproportionately concentrated among the less than one-third of schools that are owned by Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) that operate chains of between three and 30 schools. An even more disproportionate share of funding has been taken by just four large CMO chains— Aspire, KIPP, Alliance, and Animo/Green Dot.
  • Since 2009, the 253 schools found by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California to maintain discriminatory enrollment policies have been awarded a collective $75 million under the SB740 program, $120 million in general obligation bonds, and $150 million in conduit bond financing.
  • CMOs have used public tax dollars to buy private property. The Alliance CollegeReady Public Schools network of charter schools, for instance, has benefited from over $110 million in federal and state taxpayer support for its facilities, which are not owned by the public, but are part of a growing empire of privately owned Los Angeles-area real estate now worth in excess of $200 million.

April 14, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, April 7, 2017

Arizona's New Voucher Program Set to Become Largest in the Nation, But It Is Also the Biggest Farce

According to the AP, Arizona just passed a bill that will make every student in the state eligible for voucher.  It may become the biggest voucher program in the nation.  The "program allows parents to take between 90 percent and 100 percent of the state money a local public school would receive to pay for private or religious education. The average student who isn't disabled will get about $4,400 a year, but some get much more."  The funding mechanism and its expected cost to the state is murky.  "The original Arizona plan was estimated to cost the state general fund at least $24 million."  Now, a revised plan and estimate are supposed to save the state $3.4 million by 2022.

What is clear, however, is that Arizona's per pupil funding for public schools currently ranks 47 out of 50 states.  To make matters worse, it distributes those meager funds unequally.  The Education Law Center's 2017 School Funding Fairness Report grades Arizona's funding distribution as an "F."  Schools with moderate levels of student poverty receive only 88 cents on the dollar in comparison to schools with no student poverty.  The comparison is even worse between high poverty school districts and low poverty school districts.  In other words, Arizona spends the least on students who need the most.  

That same report also shows that Arizona is doing almost nothing to fix its low funding levels or unequal distribution.  Arizona ranks 49th in the nation in terms of the level of fiscal effort it exerts to fund its schools.  

These background facts place Arizona's new voucher program in a troubling light.  These cold hard facts show that the state is not really interested in supporting adequate and equal education for its students.  Thus, it is no surprise the state would double down and make matters worse.  If gross inequity and inadequacy in public schools does not bother the state as a general principle, why would robbing those schools of more money be a problem?  Why not just cap the state investment in a students' education, send that student to private school, and tell the family and or the private school that they need to make up the difference?  If things do not work out in the future, that is on the family and the private school.

These background facts also mean that the rhetoric of political leaders lacks credibility.  Speaking of the voucher program, the Governor tweeted: "When parents have more choices, kids win."  If one understands the facts, one understands that this voucher program is not about helping kids in Arizona "win."  It is about raw politics and continuing the longstanding trend of depriving public schools of the resources they need to succeed.  If parents in Arizona want vouchers (or charters), it is not because those policies are normatively appealing.  It is because the state has been robbing them of the public education they deserve.  Many families now surely believe they have no other realistic option.  In short, the state has created the factual predicate of failing public schools to create the justification for its own pet project of privatizing education.  The kids caught up in the mess simply do not matter.

April 7, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Choice Advocates Not Only Want More Money for Vouchers, They Want It with No Strings Attached

Ever since the Betsy DeVos was nominated as Secretary of Education, school choice advocates have been salivating over the possibility that the privatization of education would enter a new expansive era.  Last week, the USA Today interviewed some of the nation's leading advocates of school choice and vouchers who are raising new concerns.  Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute  and Richard Hess of the American Enterprise Institute warn there is a downside to this expansion: the federal government will begin to regulate private schools more.  Hess remarked "when you get a Democratic administration, an Elizabeth Warren administration, and they decide that eligible schools ... need to have anti-bullying programs and other accommodations? We will very quickly wind up and wonder, ‘What were we thinking?’”  Petrilli said many private schools would forgo the funding if they have to abide by these types of regulations.  “They just won’t participate,” he said. “And then what’s the point? You don’t have a program.”

Is this a sign of an evolving school voucher position that not only should the public fund private education, it should fund it with no strings attached?  

That choice advocates could take such a position shows just how far the ground has shifted in a few short months.  This position is incredible on any number of levels.  

First, it assumes an entitlement to public funding for private choice.  The problem is that there is no such entitlement.  If the federal or state government is giving money to private schools or facilitating private choice, it goes without saying that it has the right to regulate that money.  In fact, conditioning federal money is the real reason for giving out federal money to begin with.  The federal government knows that its ability to regulate state and private actors is relatively small.  Thus, it achieves its policy objectives by exchanging money for conditions.  We do this in everything from health care to education.  

Second, state and federal government has funded public education for the past century and a half because it is public education.  The state and federal interest in funding private education is extremely small at best.  The only interest in funding private education is to offset certain costs that might otherwise fall on public education.  In other words, there is no independent reason to fund private education.  

Third, federal funds for public schools come with a long list of conditions. Why we would condition funds in public schools but allow private schools to take them free of conditions? The only obvious rationale I see is a normative preference for private schools over public schools.  Few, however, are willing to publicly fess up to that rationale.  If they did, it would be contrary to the second point.  In effect, the justification for funding education at all would begin to collapse if we preferenced private education over public education.  

Finally, public education is premised on a set of cultural and constitutional norms--non-discrimination, fair process, equal opportunity, social cohesion, and freedom from religious coercion.  As a general principle, private education is neither premised on nor committed to any of these norms.  Without regulation, they would not accept them.  And if they did not accept them, the federal government could not in fairness give them public money.  One might even seriously question whether a new set of constitutional concerns would arise if the federal government did so.  

While the Supreme Court has upheld vouchers for private religious schools, the Supreme Court has also held that the federal government cannot achieve unconstitutional ends indirectly.  For instance, the federal government clearly cannot segregate schools itself.  Could it indirectly achieve segregation through its spending power and have private or state entities do it for the federal government?  The Court has said no.  

Of course, just because private individuals might use public money to segregate or pursue religious ends does not meant that is the federal government's design--hence the prior decision upholding vouchers.  But if we converted into a system dominated by private choice and entirely free of constitutional and cultural norms, the question of whether the government was pursuing a new impermissible design could rise to the fore.

More here.

   

April 6, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Battleground in the Fight over Voucher Expansion Opens in Texas

While Betsy DeVos has almost no current power as Secretary of Education to push vouchers, her public stance in favor of them may be emboldening state legislatures to take action on their own.  Texas has moved quickly and the battle lines are being drawn.  Even Senator Cruz is getting involved.

"I usually stay out of fights in Austin. We've got plenty of fights in Washington," Cruz said Saturday night at the Dallas County Republican Party Reagan Day Dinner. "This is the best opportunity we've had in the history of the state of Texas to pass meaningful school choice legislation in the Texas Legislature."

As Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick listened, Cruz told Texas legislators in the room to take a "bold and courageous stand."

"School choice is the civil rights issue of the 21st century," Cruz said. "Do the right thing for the kids, and the history of Texas will vindicate your courage and principles."

Teachers and religious leaders are coming out just as strong in opposition.  The Dallas Morning News reports:

Teachers and pastors on Monday rallied against the Senate's school vouchers proposal, even as its author announced the bill will be heard Thursday.

"It is a sin before God," Charles Foster Johnson led hundreds in chanting, "to make commodities out of our children and to make markets out of our classrooms."

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and GOP Senate leaders would harm public schools and impermissibly lend government support to religion if their self-styled "school choice" bill becomes law, Johnson warned at a Capitol rally organized by the state affiliate of the American Federal of Teachers union.

"Generally, the House of Representatives is holding firm," he said to teachers and school district employees who used the first day of spring break to travel to Austin for a lobby day. In the House, Democrats and rural Republicans traditionally have blocked voucher-like proposals.

"But brothers and sisters, our Senate members need a lot of help from you," said Johnson, a Fort Worth-based Baptist pastor who heads Pastors for Texas Children. It is a group of about 1,000 pastors, rabbis and imams who work to support public schools.

The polemics of this debate are troubling.  As a historical matter, major education policy tends to garner bipartisan support.  That was true of the Improving America's Schools Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Every Student Succeeds Act.  Bipartisanship, of course, does not guarantee wise legislation, but it does promote earnest discussion and compromise. Betsy DeVos's polemic positions, lack of knowledge with which to have an earnest debate, and embittered nomination may have shifted the landscape, at least in the short term.  She survived by the narrowest margins and those who side with her may see this is an opportunity to pursue an agenda consistent with her while they can.  Of course, that provokes a similarly aggressive response.  It is probably wishful thinking that the battle will be limited to Texas.

March 15, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, March 3, 2017

Are Charter Schools the Second Coming of Enron?

 

Preston Green, Bruce Baker and Joseph Oluwole have forthcoming paper in the Indiana Law Journal.  The title speaks for itself: Are Charter Schools the Second Coming of Enron?: An Examination of the Gatekeepers That Protect against Dangerous Related-Party Transactions in the Charter School Sector.  The abstract offers this summary:

 

In 2001, Enron rocked the financial world by declaring bankruptcy due to the effects of an accounting scandal. Special purpose entities (SPEs) were instrumental to Enron’s demise. Enron parked assets in the SPEs to improve its credit rating.

Enron violated accounting principles by not revealing that its SPE partnerships were related-party transactions. Andrew Fastow, who was Enron’s CFO, made millions of dollars by managing the SPEs. He also used these illegal proceeds to invest in other ventures. Enron’s gatekeepers failed to protect against this accounting fraud.

Related-party transactions are now posing a threat to the charter school sector. Similar to Fastow, individuals are using their control over charter schools and their affiliates to obtain unreasonable management fees and funnel public funds into other business ventures.

In this article, we discuss how some charter school officials have engaged in Enron-like related-party transactions. We also identify several measures that can be taken to strengthen the ability of charter school gatekeepers to protect against this danger.

This article is divided into four parts. Part I describes how Fastow used his management of Enron and the SPEs to obtain illegal profits. Part II discusses why financial sector gatekeepers failed to stop these related-party transactions. Part III shows how charter school officials are benefitting from their control over charter schools and their affiliates in a manner similar to Fastow. Part IV analyzes pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions to identify steps that can be taken to increase the gatekeepers’ ability to protect against harmful related-party transactions.

March 3, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, February 24, 2017

Washington Charter Schools Back on Trial

Two years ago, in League of Women Voters v. State, the Washington Supreme Court declared the state's charter school law unconstitutional.  The court reasoned that the state constitution requires the state to create and fund “a general and uniform system of public schools," and “the entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools.”  Because charters schools are not "common schools" and yet receive common school funds, the court found the statute unconstitutional.

The Washington legislature has since passed new charter school legislation and plaintiffs sued again.  Last week, a Washington trial court rejected their claims.

Plaintiffs raise very similar claims as in the first litigation: a) that the statute violates the constitutions general and uniform requirement (along with its funding scheme); b) that the charter law improperly delegates the authority to charter schools and deprives the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s of power.

The King County Superior Court concluded that charter schools can fall within the "the general and uniform system of public schools" and, thus, the act was permissible.  The court's support for this conclusion was largely premised on the notion that charters are public schools and credits from them are transferable to traditional public schools.  

This, however, should be largely beside the point.  It may answer the question of whether charters are public schools, but it does not answer whether they common schools or part of a general and uniform system.  To be fair, a California appellate court followed a rationale similar to this trial court several years ago in upholding a California charter statute.  But that line of reasoning would appear to be inconsistent with the Washington Supreme Court's holding in League of Women Voters.

 

A more compelling argument in support of the charter law is simply that it need not comply with the general and uniform provision.  According to the Seattle Times, the new charter schools are funded out of lottery proceeds, which would eliminate one of the major problems from the prior statute.  This fix aside, however, a major concern moving forward would be the fungibility of money.  Regardless of where the money comes from, the typical trend in other states has been to drain money from the traditional public school budget as more money goes into other education programs like charters and vouchers.

My contention has long been that the charter statute faces a far more fundamental problem regarding supervision that cannot be mooted.  The Washington constitution creates the Superintendent of Public Instruction and vest specific supervisory powers in that office.  In other words, the Superintendent is a constitutional officer that neither the legislature nor the voters can mess with, save a constitutional amendment.  In so far as the Washington legislation attempts to establish a charter school system outside the supervisory authority of the Superintendent, it is inherently and diametrically at odds with the state constitution.

February 24, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 13, 2017

Only Free Students Can Exercise School Choice

The President of South Africa offered Nelson Mandela his freedom if he would renounce violence and then remain silent upon his release.  Mandela rejected the offer, saying "Only free men can negotiate; prisoners can't enter in contracts.”  The concept of forced and unfair negotiation rings true in today’s education reform debates.  The new Secretary of Education promises to continue that trend. 

Over the past two decades, major education reforms have been forced upon disadvantaged students without the slightest recognition of the enormous power differential between the state and its disadvantaged students.  These students and their families have, time and again, been asked either to accept the deplorable state of their current education or try out some new reform—a reform that would not be aimed at deplorable school conditions. 

Public schools in the United States are demonstrably separate and unequal, and both measures are on the rise.  Take New York, for instance.  A recent report by the Civil Rights Project shows that two-thirds of African American students in New York attend a school that is ninety percent or more non-white.  Another recent study shows that in New York schools with higher levels of concentrated poverty, the state only spend 90 cents for every dollar it spends in other schools.  Nevada is even worse.  It only spends 60 cents on the dollar in schools with higher percentages of low-income students.  And the racial isolation of Latino and African American students in Nevada is among the worst in the nation. 

In the midst of segregation and inequality, education reform continues to demand that these disadvantaged communities make concessions, but state and federal government rarely, if ever, offer integrated or equal schools.  Instead, the state offers charters and vouchers.   New York has been a hotbed for charter school expansion.  Two years ago, Nevada adopted an aggressive voucher plan.   The hypocrisy of these responses is not new.  In the late 1990s, the Ohio Supreme Court declared the state’s funding system constitutionally inadequate.  A large portion of the state’s schools were so poor that the buildings were crumbling around the students.  The air in classrooms was not safe to breath and the floors not safe to walk on.  Elsewhere, schools simply did not offer parts of the curriculum because no one could teach it.  Rather than fix the problem, the state bought off its most segregated and unequal city—Cleveland.  It offered a select few in the city a way out in the form of vouchers.  Tellingly, the overwhelming majority of voucher students wound up in religious schools, but indicated they did not embrace the religion of their school.  They simply had to get out.

The rational choice of families forced to attend segregated and unequal schools is to take the charter school or voucher.  Even if that choice does not lead to better education, they cannot be blamed for trying to escape segregation and inequality.  We should, however, blame the state for putting them in this position.

In the weeks and months ahead, we need not debate the merits of vouchers or charters.  The response to the offer of vouchers and charters should be: give our disadvantage students integrated schools and equal funding and then we can talk about vouchers and charters.  Then we can talk about whether money matters.

The new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has shown no interest in fundamental education issues like this.  She proposes charters and vouchers, but has said nothing of ensuring equal funding or integration.  The sad truth is that it is not really fair to single DeVos out on this score.  Senators who narrowly secured her nomination are the same ones seeking to reverse the prior Secretary's efforts to ensure equal funding.  If DeVos does not reverse the regulations, these Senators plan to do it themselves by statute.

In one of the most poignant passages written by a court, the New Jersey Supreme offered a rejoinder to segregation, inequality, and the politics of reform aimed at other issues: “[E]ven if not a cure, money will help, and [disadvantaged] students are constitutionally entitled to that help.  If the claim is that additional funding will not enable [poorer students to achieve at higher levels], the constitutional answer is that they are entitled to pass or fail with at least the same amount of money as their competitors.”

In the logic of Nelson Mandela, only students free from segregation and inequality can exercise school choice.  Give them freedom.  Only then can they exercise choice that their more privileged peers already have.  

February 13, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Charter School Law Overview

For those looking for the basics of charter school law or to just pick up CLE credits, there is a good opportunity coming up:

Live CLE Video Broadcast | March 2, 2017
2 HR CLE (3:00 pm - 5:00 pm Eastern)
This course, presented by a nationally recognized education attorney, will provide a comprehensive overview of the laws applicable to charter schools, including general education students, special education students, and discipline.
The course is for charter school administrators and governing board members, school attorneys, parent attorneys, and attorneys in other practice areas who have an interest in school law and school choice. In this seminar, our experienced faculty will walk you through the laws that govern charter schools. Learn how to handle with issues, matters and cases involving charter schools.

Learn more / Register online...
Key topics to be discussed:
• School Choice, Charter Schools and Constitutionality
• Sources of Charter School Law
• Legislative and Case Law Updates
• Complying with Federal Laws
• Special Education and Charter Schools
• Discipline of Special Needs Students
• Avoiding Exclusionary Practices
• Navigating the Application, Approval and Renewal Process
• Accountability Standards
• Funding Sources
Presented by Hope N. Kirsch

Hope N. Kirsch is a 20+ year attorney with the law firm of Kirsch-Goodwin & Kirsch, PLLC, in Scottsdale, Arizona. She represents and advises students and their families throughout the state of Arizona in all school related matters and disputes, including IEPs, due process, discipline, bullying, and restraint and seclusion.

February 9, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Most Troubling Thing About DeVos May Have Nothing to Do with Education

Trying to get a better sense of where Betsy DeVos stands on education, reporters have descended on Michigan in recent weeks to study what has actually happened.  Jennifer Berkshire canvassed the state and took a close look at its present and past history.  The story she tells is that Betsy DeVos's charter and voucher agenda is a small part of a much bigger agenda.  DeVos' real goal is political and her real target is the Democratic Party.  The basic strategy: undermine public schools and you undermine public school teachers.  Undermine public school teachers and you undermine the biggest unions.  Undermine the biggest unions and you kill the Democratic Party.  

That is pretty somber logic, but fits well with other data points outside of DeVos.  Advocates in California, New York, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits claiming that teacher tenure violates students’ right education under state constitutional law.  On its face, their claims are plausible.  But the motivations behind those claims had relatively little to do with education and far more to do with breaking the backs of unions.  That movement had been underway in several states and when it failed, advocates come up with the idea of these lawsuits.  A major problem in those lawsuits, however, was that advocates overplayed their hands.  They let their policy preferences for how teachers should be hired, fired, and evaluated dominate their constitution claims.  In the end, their policy preferences were masquerading as constitutional claims and courts began to see through it.

I stand by that analysis, but these recent reports out of Michigan suggest that it is niave to consider these claims solely in the context of education policy.  For those funding the movement—although certainly not all those who joined it--the challenge to teacher tenure was not just about policy preferences in education.  It was about seizing political power.  

This adds troubling layer onto the nomination of DeVos.  Over the past few days, those who care about education have been shocked by how little DeVos actually knows about education.  Enforcing disability laws, for instance, may very well be the biggest job of the Department of Education.  Complaints of disability discrimination consume forty percent of the Department’s civil rights docket.  And in terms of day-to-day functioning, ten percent of more the nation’s students are in enrolled in special education, which federal law closely governs.  DeVos could not answer the simple question of whether all schools should have to comply with these laws.  Later, she tried to clear up her lack of knowledge by saying she may have been “confused” about what the law required.  In other words, she did not realize that it is a mandatory obligation of all schools receiving federal funds.  

But if we go back to DeVos’s larger agenda in Michigan, these responses should not be shocking at all. Her desire and qualification for this job may not be about education at all.  It may be about pure politics.  This fits with a fact she was willing to confirm.  Senator Bernie Sanders asked if it was true that her family has donated $200 million to the Republican Party over the years.  After first evading the question, she admitted that it was “possible.”  

The scary idea is not that DeVos knows nothing of education or event that the Secretary of Education position is quid pro quo for politic donations. Those things happen.  The scary idea is that she might use the power of the Secretary of Education to break the Democratic Party.  Parents and families of all political parties want a Secretary of Education who cares about education, regardless of whether they agree with her policies.   

January 26, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Is Texas Following DeVos's Lead on Privatizing Education Before She Is Even Confirmed?

The Dallas Morning News reports that top legislatures in the state a supporting an expansive new voucher program or what they call an education savings account:

Parents would get money to pull their kids from Texas public schools and educate them elsewhere, under divisive proposals that two of the state’s three top GOP leaders endorsed Tuesday.

Under a plan generating the most buzz, those families would get taxpayer dollars to spend on private schools, tutoring or related expenses through something called education savings accounts.

At a Capitol rally for “school choice” that hundreds attended, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick mentioned the accounts as one of two school voucher-type proposals he said the Senate would work on this session.

Gov. Greg Abbott, without elaborating on a particular version he wants, promised the audience at the rally he would sign a bill to “authorize school choice.” He also seemed to frown on a pilot program in specific geographic regions, speaking of a “right of every child from every ZIP code across the state” to pick a private or public school that is most suitable.
 
Some may recall that Nevada's education savings plan got struck down as an unconstitutional diversion of education funds last year.  I have no initial sense as to whether similar concerns would exist in Texas.  What I would venture to guess, however, is that like all things in Texas, this education savings plan would be big, which is why the Dallas Morning News seems so alarmed by the proposals.  The governor said he favors the “'right of every child from every ZIP code across the state' to pick a private or public school that is most suitable."
 
The news story characterizes the proposals as legislation that would pay parents to not send their kids to public school.  It uses this phrasing because the savings accounts do not have to be spent on private school tuition.  The savings account "can also be used for things like tutoring, therapists, home-schooling supplies and textbooks."  In other words, the state might actually pay a family to keep their kid at home.
 
For those interested, Hillel Levin has done some great legal analysis in this area.
 

January 25, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Charter School Operator Sues Superintendent for Criticizing Him, Court Throws Out Lawsuit

Baker Mitchell, Jr. runs charter schools in North Carolina.  When his application for a new one went forward a few years ago, it drew criticism from the superintendent of the local school district.  The superintendent purportedly made a lot of disparaging comments about the charter school.  Baker Mitchell then sued the superintendent for what he calls defamatory statements.The North Carolina summarized the plaintiffs'allegations:

[The superintendent said] public charter schools were “dismantling” North Carolina's public education system and that they have “morphed into an entrepreneurial opportunity.” On 4 December 2013, a video entitled “Dr. Pruden Superintendent of the Year Video” was published on YouTube. In that video, defendant falsely stated that BCS was superior to the “competition” because BCS “does not operate schools for a profit.” In that video, defendant falsely stated that BCS was superior to the “competition” because BCS “does not operate schools for a profit.”

 
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant's reference to “competition” was “clearly a reference” to the public charter schools for children of Brunswick County.
 
The second amended complaint further alleged as follows: In 2013, RBA submitted an application to the Office of Charter Schools for a new public charter school named “South Brunswick Charter School” (“SBCS”). Defendant began an “obsessive public campaign to derail approval” of the new school, “viciously defaming the character and reputation” of Mitchell. First, defendant submitted a “Local Education Agency Impact Statement” to the Office of Charter Schools on 9 April 2013 and a revised impact statement (“impact statement”) on 14 May 2013. At some time after 20 May 2013, defendant's impact statement was posted to a website maintained by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Plaintiffs alleged that the impact statement contained statements that “maligns” plaintiffs and “casts aspersions on Mitchell's honesty, character and moral standing in the community[.]” Defendant also privately petitioned at least one member of the Charter School Advisory Council (“CSAC”) to manipulate the approval process such that approval of the charter would be denied. The vice-chair of the CSAC, Tim Markley (“Markley”), “issued repeated challenges” to the SBCS. On 16 July 2013, a motion was made to approve the SBCS conditioned upon a change in the CDS Board. Markley met with defendant in the hall after the meeting and Markley was overheard expressing his regrets and apologizing for not being able to prevent approval of the SBCS charter.
 
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant, acting in his individual capacity, began submission of “a parade of documents” to the North Carolina State Board of Education (“SBE”), including copies of defamatory letters written to Mr. Bill Cobey, chairman of the SBE, expressing false allegations and his concerns about what defendant claimed were conflicts of interest between Mitchell, RBA, and public charter schools. In a letter dated 7 August 2013 to Mr. Cobey and the SBE, defendant urged that the SBE consider information regarding conflicts of interest before taking action on the application for SBCS. Plaintiffs alleged that this letter contained statements which were “false, libelous and intended to impugn the ethical reputation and character of Mitchell.”
 
 
Mitchell v. Pruden, No. COA16-428, 2017 WL 163754, at *1–2 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2017).
 
The North Carolina Court of Appeals through the lawsuit out last week.  It did not reach the issue of whether the statements were true or defamatory.  It did not need to.  It held that the statements were within the scope of the superintendent's official duties.  Moreover, his "actions were consistent with the duties and authority of a superintendent and constituted permissible opinions regarding his concerns for the approval of a new charter school."  Thus, he was immune from suit.
 
In any event, one might also criticize Mitchell for wanting to have his cake and eat it too.  A public school superintendent would have a hard time suing any member of the public for criticizing him for his discharge of his public duties.  The Supreme Court in NY Times v. Sullivan made suits by public officials for defamation and libel considerably harder. The Court reasoned that they have the benefit of self-help through the media and that the nature of their job is to be open to criticism, even when it is off-base.  If charter schools are public schools, those that run them may need to have little thicker skin.
 

January 24, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, January 20, 2017

Edushyster Says DeVos Was Playing the Long Game in Michigan

Edushyster (Jennifer Berkshire) has a new story on DeVos in Michigan.  The story opens with this:

By the measures that are supposed to matter, Betsy DeVos’ experiment in disrupting public education in Michigan has been a colossal failure. In its 2016 report on the state of the state’s schools, Education Trust Midwest painted a picture of an education system in freefall. *Michigan is witnessing systematic decline across the K-12 spectrum…White, black, brown, higher-income, low-income—it doesn’t matter who they are or where they live.* But as I heard repeatedly during the week I recently spent crisscrossing the state, speaking with dozens of Michiganders, including state and local officials, the radical experiment that’s playing out here has little to do with education, and even less to do with kids. The real goal of the DeVos family is to crush the state’s teachers unions as a means of undermining the Democratic party, weakening Michigan’s democratic structures along the way. And on this front, our likely next Secretary of Education has enjoyed measurable, even dazzling success.

Get the full story here.

January 20, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers, ESEA/NCLB | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, January 9, 2017

Are Pence and DeVos a One-Two Knock Out for Education Policy? Recent Reports Out of Indiana Suggest Yes

My recent posts have focused on DeVos and the problems she presents for public education, although I emphasize that without new legislation she does not have power to do too much.  Some new information out of Indiana regarding the education system Governor Pence has overseen suggests more trouble on the horizon and give me pause about assuming an incompetent education administration.  Pence actually has a track record of getting things done in Indiana and what he has accomplished should raise red flags for those invested in improving public education.  

Most notably is the state's teacher bonus system.  By law, the state mandated that $40 million in bonuses be handed out to the state's teachers.  I am all in favor of increasing teacher pay in ways that make the profession more attractive to new teachers and encourage others to stay.  Indiana's incentive pay, however, has two major problems.  First, it is having a very inequitable effect on teachers and driving most of the money to school systems that need it the least. Cory Doctorow offers this summary:

[The state gives] bonuses for teachers who preside over high-achieving classes. This year, the biggest payouts will go to schools teaching the richest kids in the state, while schools for poor kids will get little-to-none of the payouts.

The biggest winner in the giveaway are the Carmel Clay Schools, where 9% of kids qualify for free or subsidized lunches, where the teachers will get $2422 each. The Indianapolis district -- the largest in the state -- will give each teacher a $128.40 bonus.

Emanuel Felton adds:

Carmel Clay Schools, where just 9 percent of their 16,000 students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, will get the most— $2.4 million or roughly $2,422 per teacher. Another well-off Indianapolis suburban district, Zionsville Community Schools, where fewer than 5 percent of students qualify for the free and reduced-price lunch program, will receive about $2,240 per teacher. Meanwhile, Indianapolis, the state's largest district will receive just around $330,875, or $128.40 per educator. So teachers in those wealthy suburban districts will get bonuses nearly 20 times larger than effective and highly effective educators in Indianapolis.

Indiana State Teachers Association President Teresa Meredith calls it a "flawed" system.

"While educators at well-resourced schools performed well and received a much-deserved bonus, the educators teaching in some of the most challenging districts where socioeconomic factors can negatively impact student and school performance, were left out," she said in a statement. "We need high-quality educators to teach at our most-challenged schools, and this distribution of bonuses certainly won't compel them to do so."

Even if Indiana fixed this inequity, the performance pay has a second big problem: no evidence shows that these systems actually improve student performance.  Instead, they tend to frustrate teachers because the metrics that determine whether teachers receive a bonus are ones over which teachers have little control.  The distribution of bonuses appears random or keyed to who gets to teacher certain students.  More on these problems here.

Of course, the more obvious problem in Indiana is a voucher system on steroids that increasingly drives public funding to middle and upper income families in private schools while funding for public schools falls short.  Indiana was among the nation's worse offenders on that score in recent years.  More on that here.

All of this spells trouble.  While one could hope for an isolated and irrelevant Secretary of Education, this one, should she be confirmed, may have an ally in the White House who knows how to implement new education frameworks.

January 9, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Assessing the Effectiveness of Obama's Education Policies

Secretary of Education John King is set to give his final reflections on the work that the U.S. Department of Education has accomplished over the past eight years.  The Atlantic reports that he will release a 14 page exit memo titled "Giving Every Student a Fair Shot: Progress Under the Obama Administration’s Education Agenda.”  I would expect that it is largely a summary of the 60 page document the White House released back in May under the exact same title.  Get that report here.

The most notable accomplishments it will tout are Race to the Top, changes to the teaching profession, expansion of pre-kindergarten education, the Every Student Succeeds Act, and civil rights enforcement.  With the new administration that lies ahead,  many on both sides of the aisle will soon enough long for the one that just left and, thus, I hesitate to be critical. Nonetheless, I cannot count many of this administrations accomplishments as positives.  

An overarching theme of this administration is what I would call the econometrics and corporatization of education. I use econometrics to refer to the notion that we could precisely measure student growth and teacher effectiveness.  These notions became the basis for using extremely complicated mathematical analysis to compare one teacher to another, one school to another, and to take action against them when officials did not think the results were good enough.  

Intuitively, the approach made perfect sense--far more than No Child Left Behind's nonsensical assumption that it could force schools to make 100 percent of students proficient by 2014.  The problem is that the Obama administration's policies rested on the same fundamental flaw as No Child Left Behind.  They both assumed that standardized tests are an accurate measure of learning.  In many ways, the Obama administration made things worse because it upped the ante.  Not only would it rely on the test results, it would attempt to draw far more information and conclusions from them.  As I detail here, this approach is inherently unfair in a number of ways and produces random and unreliable results. What the Department should have done is the opposite.  Keep the tests but use them only for what they are good for: rough global measures of a slice of student learning that can serve as a trigger for further inquiry into a school (and maybe a teacher).  

Corporatization is somewhat of a rough characterization, but I use it as a proxy for the notion that schools can run like businesses and on the whole operate like markets. This notion led the Department to demand that states lift caps on the number of charter schools and resulted in an enormous expansion.  Charter school enrollments roughly doubled during the Obama administration.  While it is true that there are scores of very high performing and beat-the-odds charter schools across this nation, they are the exception, not the norm.  There is no evidence to show that a school, simply by virtue of being a charter, is likely to perform any better than a traditional public school.  Rather, the evidence shows quite the contrary.  

And even putting achievement results aside, the profit motives, potential corruption, lack of transparency, and lack of legal protection are, in fact, inherent risk in charters as currently structured.  Thus, these past several years saw a sharp spike in these problems.  What charter schools require and neither the federal nor state governments have been willing to impose are serious oversight and standards that align them with the core values of public education.  As I detail here, without that oversight and alignment, they can undermine public education itself.

Finally, the Department is quite proud of the fact that it got rid of No Child Left Behind.  I concede that is an accomplishment.  The problem is that the Department overreached so much through Race to the Top and the waivers of No Child Left Behind, that the final legislation that replaced No Child Left Behind was more about eliminating the federal role in education than it was improving it.  In that respect, the Every Student Succeeds Act is a major step backward for the students who need federal leadership the most.  That is no accomplishment at all. For a full explanation, see here.

Those critiques, however, do not mean that the Department was without success.  To be absolutely clear and reiterate what I wrote a few weeks ago, the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education has done an outstanding job, particularly in the past four years.  For the first time in a very long time, the Office for Civil Rights once again became an institution that families believed would take their claims of discrimination seriously.  The Office once again became an institution that would insist that districts comply with anti-discrimination law, regardless of the politics that surrounded doing so.  Thus, it is no surprise that the cases filed with the Department grew, so much so that the Department requested additional resources to do the work that the law demanded of it.

As we turn to the next administration, signals indicate that we will miss the Office for Civil Rights more than most appreciate now.  Whether we will miss the general Department of Education's substantive policies remains to be seen, but things can certainly get a lot worse.

January 5, 2017 in Charters and Vouchers, ESEA/NCLB, Teachers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Moody's Finds Overall Credit Quality of Charters Ranges from Investment Grade to Speculative, But Expects Sector Growth

For those who missed it, Moody's released a financial risk assessment of charter schools this fall.  The four passages jumped out at me:

  • The median rating of Moody’s-rated charter schools is Baa3, but the median credit quality of the broader charter school universe is decidedly lower.
  • [C]harter schools across the nation face unique credit challenges. Those challenges have translated into an above average incidence of defaults relative to other tax-exempt credits. The overall credit quality of this sector ranges from low investment-grade into low speculative-grade categories.
  • [W]e expect that the appetite for the education alternatives that this sector offers will continue to expand. Over time, we also expect that charter school credit quality will likely improve, with strengthening in several key areas including: academic performance reporting; the stability and predictability of per-pupil funding for operational and capital needs; available liquidity and reserve levels; transparent and timely disclosure; and leadership and management quality.

Moody's defines a Baa rating as " medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics."  The additional modifier of 3 "indicates a ranking in the lower end of that generic rating category."  The next step down from that would be a Ba rating which is defined as "speculative and are subject to substantial credit risk."

Read the full report here

December 8, 2016 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

What Betsy DeVos Does Not Know About Public Schools and Probably Assumes About Private Ones

Yesterday, Alyson Klein, pointed out that Betsy DeVos, the nominee for Secretary of Education, 

would be the first person to head the department in its more than 35-year history who hasn't either attended public schools or sent her own children to them. . . . And DeVos, a school choice and voucher advocate, sent each of her own children to private schools as well, Truscott said. . . . "She believes all parents should have access to the same choices her children had," said Matt Frendewey, a spokesman for the American Federation for Children, a school choice advocacy organization that DeVos chaired until recently. . . . She'd also be one of only a few secretaries entering the job without experience teaching in a K-12 school, or college; running a university, school system or state education agency, or overseeing public education as a governor, or governor's education aide. 

As a counter, some have pointed out that President Obama is primarily a product of private schools and has sent his daughters to private schools.  From my perspective, this counter does not help DeVos much.  First, Obama's two Secretary of Education appointment did have significant experience in public schools, which shaped their views tremendously.  Second, there are plenty of critiques of Obama's education policy to go around.  Obama's first term may have fractured support for traditional public schools more than any before, although I do not believe that was necessarily the intent.

Regardless, DeVos vision for education and her general operating principle of expanding choice are private market ideas.  These ideas, if not properly tailored to public values, are antithetical to public education itself.  As I argue here, these private ideas undermine the very justification for public education itself if pursued to their logical conclusions.  Public education is not a private commodity and it serves ends well beyond the interests of individual parents or students.  Public education, of course, would be of little good if it did not also produce significant benefits for individuals, but it also produces benefits for overall communities, states, and societies.  Hence,  we all pay taxes and all have a voice in the ends and values it should pursue.  If that balance shifts too far to individuals, it ceases to be public education and worthy of the same level of public support.  It begins to look more like housing, transportation, and other aspects of society.  In these areas, government support and regulation is more limited.  Public policy supporting them comes from a confluence of interests between the public and private, not from a public interest per se. 

DeVos' ideas threaten to move us in this direction.  Her lack of public school experience may, moreover, lead her to discount the distinction between private and public education, not out of malevolence but ignorance or naivete.  Because private choice has worked for her and those who can afford to carry its burdens, she may incorrectly assume that it will work just as well for those who are poorly positioned to carry its burdens.  Then again, maybe she is right and it is my own experience in public schools that breeds my skepticism.  I do, however, know one thing.  The educational opportunities that I received in public school and a few key decisions that made later educational success possible for me were not made by me or by my parents.  They were made by a few public school teachers who believed I could make something better of myself.  They never told me or my parents this.  They simply and quietly put me in an advanced placement class that gave me a shot and asked me to make the most of it.  In fact, on the first day of class, I raised my hand and said "I don't think I am supposed to be in here."  In this and several other ways, I credit public school for entirely altering the course of my life.  Due to my experience, I have to believe this is the ethos of public schools, when they are properly supported and structured.  

I admit that I know little of most private schools.  I do, however, place significant stock in Chris and Sarah Lubenski's nationwide study that found when comparing apples to apples, public schools actually outperform private schools.  This is not to deny the high average SAT scores in many private schools, but to recognize those high averages are a result of the high concentration of demographically advantaged students who attend those schools, not something special the private school is doing.  Students with those demographics do just as well in public schools.  They are just not as heavily concentrated there.

December 7, 2016 in Charters and Vouchers, Federal policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Charter Schools Fail on Massachusetts Ballot

The issue of charter expansion in Massachusetts has raised cutting edge issues over the past year and a half.  Initially, plaintiffs filed suit, seeking to use the state education clause to argue that the state was obligated to provide more charters in light of its failure to provide an adequate education in its regular schools.  That theory built on much of the flawed thinking in California, where a trial court had struck down teacher tenure as a violation of students fundamental right to education.  More recently, the higher courts in California rejected that tenure theory.  In Massachusetts, however, the theory regarding charters migrated into the political domain and was offered as leverage against legislators who opposed charter expansion.  With no victory there, the issue moved to the voters.

On November 8, 2016, Massachusetts voters roundly rejected the expansion of charters.  Initially number showed a large margin of 62-38.  The New York Times reported that those favoring expansion had spent $26 million to promote the measure. Opponents spent $15 million.  The president of the Massachusetts Teacher Association said it was a victory for public education in general: “We held the line. . . . Money can’t buy our public schools.”

Given the flaws in the litigation claims, one would expect the same result there, although it may be slower coming.  These types of suits, however, are becoming more and more prevalent.  

 

 

November 10, 2016 in Charters and Vouchers | Permalink | Comments (0)