Archive for the ‘School Choice’ Category

TEA Harasses Exemplary Charter School

April 17, 2012

The TEA is hard at work spending taxpayers’ money to improve the educational outcomes in Texas, NOT!

El Paso’s 900-student Burnham Wood Charter School District [is] hit hard by a [negative] report from the Texas Education Agency… [Iris Burnham, the charter school district’s superintendent,] estimates they have spent $200,000 so far defending itself against TEA charges.

Why is the charter school being attacked? Not because is has poor educational outcomes. It is simply because it is a successful charter school.

The highly regarded Burnham Wood District earned an exemplary academic rating in 2010, and a recognized rating in 2011.

But among the thousands of schools that the TEA oversees, how did they even notice Burnham Woods, a small school with an exemplary rating? It’s because of disgruntled former employees.

Burnham Wood officials and lawyers contend that TEA’s actions, prompted by complaints from former employees, have been unwarranted, over-reaching and punitive.

If this situation angers you, do something productive. Call Commissioner Robert Scott (512-463-9451) and ask him to stop this TEA witch-hunt against Burnham Woods?

Parents sue Mojave Desert school to enforce the “parent trigger” and boost quality

April 16, 2012

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/04/05/state/n152215D69.DTL#ixzz1sFUK9MHp

HISD Plans To Shut an Exemplary Charter School

April 14, 2012

A new HISD proposal would merge Kaleidoscope Middle School, a small charter academy, with Jane Long Middle School, the traditional public school that shares its campus with Kaleidoscope.

Both serve the same community: recent immigrants, low income, largely Spanish-speaking residents.

But Kaleidoscope has something its larger host school does not: Exemplary Status from the Texas Education Agency.

“Out of all the schools that are currently Exemplary, why would you shut one down?” asked community organizer Fidencio Leija Chavez, Jr. “Instead of embracing it — keeping it intact — they’re wanting to take it apart and dismantle it.”

“H-I-S-D administrators have proposed merging Kaleidoscope Middle School into Long 6-12 Middle School, which is adding grades 9-12 for the new pharmaceutical technology academy, in an effort to increase academic rigor and options for students,” read the HISD statement.

HISD wants to “increase the options for students” by shutting down the one successful option, Kaleidoscope?  That is clearly a lie.  There are two real reasons for the closure.  The first is to get rid of a successful school that is putting their traditional public school to shame.  The second is to yield to pressure from the teachers union, who want to get rid of teachers that don’t operate under the union contract.

Education reformers in Houston need to shine some light on this HISD travesty and pressure the board to “retain the options for students” who attend Kaleidoscope. 

School Reform’s Establishment Turn

March 20, 2012

WSJ Review and Outlook — March 19, 2012, 7:33 p.m. ET

The Council on Foreign Relations endorses choice and competition.

The Council on Foreign Relations is the clubhouse of America’s establishment, a land of pinstripe suits and typically polite, status-quo thinking. Yet today CFR will publish a report that examines the national-security impact of America’s broken education system—and prescribes school choice as a primary antidote. Do you believe in miracles?

American schools have several national-security duties, the report notes. First is educating workers who can keep the U.S. economy strong and innovative amid global competition, which requires skills in reading, math and science, as well as foreign languages and cultures. The U.S. also needs to produce sharp intelligence officers, soldiers and diplomats, as well as techies who can guard corporate and governmental cyber networks. And don’t forget a citizenry that understands how democracy works.

Performance on all these fronts is grim. Only a third of elementary and middle-school students are competent in reading, math and science. Compared to peers in industrial countries, American 15-year-olds rank 14th in reading, 25th in math and 17th in science. Fewer than 5% of college students graduate with engineering degrees (in China it’s 33%), and a third of science and engineering grad students in the U.S. are foreign nationals, most of whom are ultimately denied visas to stay.

The military can’t tap the 25% of American kids who drop out of high school, and 30% of those who graduate can’t pass the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery. In Afghanistan, according to one report cited by CFR, 33 of 45 U.S. officers in positions requiring foreign-language skills weren’t proficient by State Department standards.

The good news is that this grim data is helping to change the education debate, moving away from the dogma that fixing schools requires more money. Even excluding teacher pensions and other benefits, per-pupil spending today is more than three times what it was in 1960 (in 2008 dollars).

The CFR reports says this “suggests a misallocation of resources and a lack of productivity-enhancing innovations. . . . U.S. elementary and secondary schools are not organized to promote competition, choice, and innovation—the factors that catalyze success in other U.S. sectors.”

Spoken like Milton Friedman, but now endorsed by a Council task force led by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former New York schools chief Joel Klein, who is an education executive at News Corp., which owns this newspaper. The authors also include former Fortune 500 executives, leading researchers, and even Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers.

There are caveats. Beyond school choice, the task force also recommends that states adopt certain “common core” standards and expand them beyond reading and math to science, technology and foreign languages; and that Governors work with the feds to create a “national security readiness audit” of educational outcomes. The latter in particular sounds like a gimmick.

Five members out of 30—including Ms. Weingarten, no surprise—offer dissenting views with familiar complaints that charter schools can’t grow “to scale” and that private vouchers undermine the ethos of common schooling. As if failing public schools don’t undermine far more.

But the real story is how much progress the reform movement has made when pillars of the establishment are willing to endorse a choice movement that would have been too controversial even a few years ago.

What About the Kids Who Behave?

March 12, 2012

Wall Street Journal – March 10, 2012
A new Education Department study reveals disturbing sensibilities on the left when it comes to education in general and black education in particular.
By JASON L. RILEY

The Obama administration is waving around a new study showing that black school kids are “suspended, expelled, and arrested in school” at higher rates than white kids. According to the report, which looked at 72,000 schools, black students comprise just 18% of those enrolled yet account for 46% of those suspended more than once and 39% of all expulsions.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the administration is “not alleging overt discrimination in some or all of these cases,” but that’s certainly what he’s implying when he bleats on about the “fundamental unfairness” of the situation. “The undeniable truth,” said Mr. Duncan in a press call this week, “is that the everyday education experience for too many students of color violates the principle of equity at the heart of the American promise.” Of course, if racial animus toward blacks explains higher black discipline rates, what explains the fact that white kids are disciplined at higher rates than Asian kids? Is the school system anti-white, too?

The reaction to studies like this reveals disturbing sensibilities on the left when it comes to education in general and black education in particular. The data were compiled by the Education Department’s civil rights office, which probably thinks that it’s doing black people a favor by highlighting these racial disparities and pressuring schools to reduce black suspension rates. No thought, it seems, was given to whether this course of action helps or harms those black kids who are in school to learn and not act up.

The Obama administration’s sympathies are with the knuckleheads who are disrupting class, not with the kids who are trying to get an education. But is racial parity in disciplinary outcomes more important than school safety? Going easy on the students who behave badly—especially in inner-city schools where the problem is pronounced—is an odd way of advancing black education and closing the learning gap. Black kids already tend to be stuck in dropout factories with the most inexperienced teachers. Must they be consigned to the most violent schools as well?

This is yet another argument for offering ghetto kids alternatives to traditional public schools, and it’s another reason why school choice is so popular among the poor. One of the advantages of public charter schools and private schools is that they typically provide safer learning environments. So even if voucher programs in Milwaukee and Washington, D.C., and high-performing charters like KIPP Academy weren’t producing higher test scores and graduation rates—even if the academic results were no better than the surrounding neighborhood schools—parents can take comfort in knowing that their children are safer.

That might not seem like a big deal, but five students were arrested every day in New York City schools in the last three months of 2011, according to data released by the New York Police Department. The New York Civil Liberties Union subsequently issued a press release to highlight the fact that 90% of those arrested were black or Latino, which is the story that the press and the politicians ran with. Kids who attend school to learn can be forgiven for wondering why their well-being is treated as a secondary concern.

Mr. Riley is a member of The Journal’s editorial board.

Parent-Trigger Warfare

March 2, 2012

Harassment and altered documents at Desert Trails Elementary.

For over a year, teachers unions and their allies have used bureaucratic games and intimidation to fight “parent-trigger” school reform in California. Now comes evidence that they may have falsified documents.

In January, a group of parents in the Mojave Desert town of Adelanto filed petitions to “trigger” changes at their children’s failing elementary school. That’s their right under a 2010 California law, provided the school’s academic conditions are dire enough and a majority of parents support pulling the trigger. Few dispute that Desert Trails Elementary fails its students, yet last week the Adelanto school district ruled that the trigger drive lacks majority support because 97 parents rescinded their original petitions.

But based on interviews we’ve conducted and sworn affidavits we’ve reviewed, it’s clear that many parents were harassed into rescinding.

In the Desert Trails parking lot and at front doors across Adelanto, strangers confronted parents and spread untruths about the trigger drive: that it would force the immediate closure of Desert Trails, for example, or result in the firing of all teachers, or cause certain children to be expelled. Some parents heard the trigger drive was an embezzlement scheme. Others had their immigration status questioned.

Trigger supporters suspect the malign influence of the California Teachers Association. Such bullying fits into its familiar anti-trigger playbook, and the untruth squads (which generally refused to identify themselves) pinpointed parents and ginned up rescissions with amazing efficiency over merely a few days.

At least three Adelanto parents have also signed affidavits swearing that the rescission documents bearing their signatures were doctored before being delivered (in photocopied form) to the district.

“I am absolutely sure,” reads the affidavit of one mother who refused to have her name published for fear of retribution, “that I did not check any of the boxes on the form claiming that I was misled, intimidated or bribed by the Desert Trails Parents Union,” which is the group that supports parent trigger. Yet her form on file with the district makes exactly these claims—a remarkable coincidence given the district’s rule that it would honor rescissions only if they cited such justifications.

We don’t know how many rescissions were falsified; the first two cases came to light only because someone was sloppy enough to file two versions of the same parent’s rescission, one without, and one with, boxes checked. But these cases cast doubt on the whole bunch, and the onus is on the district to prove their validity. Working with pro bono lawyers from Kirkland & Ellis, the parents have called for investigations by the San Bernardino district attorney and sheriff—and soon, before any crucial documents suddenly go missing.

Some 20 other states are considering parent-trigger laws, so Adelanto’s experience is a harbinger. California passed its version precisely to give parents the ability to organize and challenge entrenched union and bureaucratic power. If those powers-that-be can get away with intimidation and tricks to preserve the status quo, then the reform is a farce.

Triggering School Reform—and Union Dirty Tricks

February 28, 2012

In California, parent power brings out the worst in the education establishment.
By DAVID FEITH

Where’s the toughest battlefield in American education these days? Certainly New Orleans and Harlem host controversially high concentrations of charter schools, while New Jersey and Louisiana boast governors who challenge teachers unions with verve. But for downright nastiness, Southern California is ground zero.

SoCal earns this dubious distinction largely because of the educational establishment’s rage over “parent trigger,” a reform that’s been on California’s books since January 2010. It’s a “lynch mob provision,” declared Marty Hittelman, president of the powerful California Federation of Teachers. Why? Because it gives unprecedented rights to parents whose children are stuck in failing public schools. If more than 50% sign a petition, they can force a school closed, shake up its administration, or turn it into a charter.

The first parent trigger was pulled in December 2010 at Compton’s McKinley Elementary School. Immediately, McKinley teachers began leaning on parents to rescind their signatures—first at a PTA meeting, then by pressuring their kids during school. Soon the school district insisted that parents validate their signatures by appearing at McKinley with official photo identification—naked intimidation of those who were undocumented immigrants and a violation of the First Amendment, said Los Angeles Superior Court. Yet the district persisted, soon rejecting every parent’s signature on technicalities that are still tied up in court a year later.

Which brings us to the latest brawl, in the small Mojave Desert town of Adelanto, 80 miles northeast of L.A. That’s where a second group of California parents recently submitted a trigger petition—for Desert Trails Elementary, where two-thirds of sixth-graders failed state exams in English and math last year. The 450-plus parents looked poised to succeed until Tuesday night, when the educational empire struck back.

At a public meeting, the Adelanto school board announced that, upon review, the trigger petition represented only 48% of parents—not the 70% that petitioners claimed when they filed last month. The loss of nearly 100 signatures, it turns out, was the result of a systematic and legally questionable pressure campaign waged against parents.

“About two weeks ago, the California Teachers Association flew in a cadre of paid operatives from Sacramento,” says Ben Austin of Parent Revolution, the liberal activist group that conceived of parent trigger and has supported the campaigns in Compton and Adelanto. “Suddenly parents were accosted in the parking lot by CTA operatives blocking cars from moving until the driver agreed to take a flier plastered with lies.” Operatives also went door-to-door across Adelanto.

Mr. Austin says many parents were told that if they didn’t rescind their signatures, Desert Trails would be closed within days. Others heard that all the teachers would be fired, and still others had their picture taken for refusing to rescind. One parent on Thursday told Parent Revolution’s lawyers that she withdrew her signature after being told that if she didn’t, other parents “were going to pocket all the money once they took over.”

In almost all cases, those spreading such misinformation refused to identify themselves. That was the experience of Desert Trail parent Jeffrey Hancock at his front door last weekend.

“They never said what organization they were with, and wouldn’t give their names. Just that they were ‘partners of Desert Trail parents,’” Mr. Hancock says. “We asked them specifically for their names because when they first knocked on the door we thought they were church people.”

Mr. Hancock adds that he and his wife were far less vulnerable to intimidation than were other parents. “Some of their citizenship is at stake—they might not be legal citizens—so it made them nervous.” He adds, “They were threatened with the INS.”

If this is true, it wouldn’t be the first time: In early 2010, Spanish-language fliers surfaced in several L.A. neighborhoods warning parents that if they voted to convert a public school into a charter, they “might be deported.”

CTA spokesman Frank Wells acknowledged that his union sent representatives to Adelanto, but he said their primary purpose was to hold information sessions for Desert Trails parents. The door-to-door rescission campaign was “parent-led,” he told the L.A. Times, and “as far as us going around and telling people to do something one way or another, the answer is no.”

Messrs. Austin and Hancock maintain their suspicions, largely because almost every one of the 97 rescinded signatures materialized over four days last week. That’s either a feat of superhuman community outreach, or the work of people whose jobs give them ready access to the names and addresses of Desert Trails families.

Whodunit aside, there’s a more fundamental question about the Adelanto rescission campaign: Was it legal? After last year’s Compton melee, the California State Board of Education published detailed regulations for the parent-trigger process. Those regulations clearly state that “parents and legal guardians of eligible pupils shall be free from . . . being encouraged to revoke their signature on a petition.” Says Mr. Austin: “The regulations are the game-changer here—they say rescissions are illegal. But we’re going to have to sue and set that precedent.” Sounds like a solid case.

Win or lose, the Adelanto experience holds several lessons for parent trigger. First, some quarters of the education establishment will oppose parent power no matter its packaging. In contrast to the Compton effort, the Adelanto trigger drive was announced publicly in advance, and parents sought to negotiate terms with district officials rather than bring in an outside charter to take over the school. This soft approach evidently meant nothing to the union.

But the Adelanto model highlights that parents in the future might be able to work around hostile unions altogether, instead exercising leverage over district officials. “At Desert Trails,” Mr. Austin points out, “parents aren’t thinking of trigger as an end in itself”—say, the path to a charter school—”but as a tool to get power to bargain. That’s transformative.”

A Second CA “Parent Trigger” Petition Blocked by School District

February 23, 2012

Parents Fail in Bid to Turn California School into a Charter

School-district officials in a Southern California town rejected an attempt by parents to convert their low-performing elementary school into a charter school, the second time an effort to use California’s new “Parent Trigger” law has been blocked.

A group of parents of students at Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, Calif., turned in a petition last month that they said had the signatures of nearly 70% of the school’s parents. Under the state’s Parent Trigger law, passed in 2010, parents can force a district to close a school, convert it to a charter-—a public school run by a nongovernment group—or replace the principal and the teachers if at least 50% of the parents sign a petition. Similar legislation was passed in Texas and Mississippi last year and is being considered in other states.

During a school-board meeting Tuesday night in Adelanto, district officials said that 97 parents had withdrawn their signatures because the parents said they were duped into signing the petition or misunderstood its intent. This left the group about a dozen names short of the bar.

The school board, by law, has given the parents 60 days to try to verify the names of at least 50% of the parents at the 650-student school. The parents say they will try again.

The effort in Adelanto was only the second time parents had tried to take advantage of the California law. A petition initiated last year by parents in Compton has been tied up in a lengthy court battle with the school district.

Teachers unions have generally opposed the trigger laws, arguing that troubled schools need more resources rather than sweeping staff changes or closing. Parents leading the Adelanto petition have said that their calls for change in Desert Trails went unheeded for years. School district officials said some of the overhauls the parents sought would be costly and difficult to implement.

Write to Stephanie Banchero at stephanie.banchero@wsj.com

Deion Sanders Takes His Game to the “Education Reform” Arena

February 20, 2012

WFAA Interview

American Federation for Children Condemns Insulting Comments From NJ Teachers Union Leader

February 9, 2012

NJEA executive director, who opposes reforms, to poor families: “Life’s not always fair”

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 8, 2012)—The leader of New Jersey’s largest teachers union dismissed the plight of low-income families across the state who are in desperate need of high-quality educational choices, saying in a recent local television interview that “life’s not always fair” while arguing against giving expanded educational options to students trapped in failing schools.

The American Federation for Children strongly condemned the insulting remarks from Vincent Giordano, the executive director of the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), which indicate a clear and sad disconnect between the daily struggle faced by thousands of New Jersey families and the anti-reform agenda held by the state’s largest teachers union.

Giordano, who according to the Newark Star-Ledger collects annual compensation of more than $500,000, dismissed the Opportunity Scholarship Act (OSA), a proposed bipartisan bill that would create a scholarship tax credit program for children in chronically failing public school districts to attend the private school of their parents’ choice.

When asked about the financial reality that prevents tens of thousands of New Jersey parents whose kids attend failing schools from sending their children to higher-achieving institutions, Giordano responded with a demeaning comment that demonstrated his organization’s unwillingness to support policies that would directly benefit children from low-income families.

“Life’s not always fair and I’m sorry about that,” Giordano said.

Kevin P. Chavous, senior advisor to the American Federation for Children, called for an immediate apology from Giordano, whose remarks represent the latest efforts by the NJEA to oppose the OSA, putting them at odds with citizens as well as both Democratic and Republican legislators.

“While it’s sad to see such a belittling and uncaring remark from one of the state’s most powerful education voices, it’s unfortunately not surprising, considering the consistent and unwavering barrier Mr. Giordano’s organization has been to education reform in New Jersey,” Chavous said. “The NJEA has once again shown itself to be appallingly out of touch with the lives of New Jersey’s disadvantaged families, whose children are in desperate need of this educational option right now.”

Giordano’s comments came during an appearance on the “New Jersey Capitol Report” this weekend. Despite calls from numerous organizations, parents, advocates, and local education groups, he has yet to apologize for his remarks, instead doubling down on his opposition to reforms that have proven to help children nationwide.

“Mr. Giordano’s refusal to apologize for his remarks once again shows he and his organization’s callous disregard for the fact that thousands of New Jersey children remain trapped in schools that do not work for them,” Chavous said. “The NJEA claims to support disadvantaged kids, yet they refuse to acknowledge that every child matters and these kids need help right now. It’s time for Mr. Giordano and his fellow highly-paid special interest bureaucrats to stop blocking educational choices that the children of New Jersey so desperately need.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.