May 2012 Archives

A bunch of Southern states have rewritten their laws in recent years in the hope of encouraging charter school growth. But a new report suggests they can do a lot more to ensure academic quality and adequate oversight—while also taking steps to make sure that charters are given access to a sufficient pool of public funding to succeed.

The report, released this month by the Southern Regional Education Board, says states need to set clearer goals for charters on a number of fronts. State laws and policies should:

• Set firmer guidelines for charter school authorizers—whose identities and numbers vary by state—on how they should be reviewing charter school performance and making decisions about renewing or revoking their contracts;
• Track the enrollment effects of all public schools, paying particular attention to whether charters "skim the highest-achieving students or cause racial re-segregation in public schools." Charter authorizers should be required to track and analyze this data or engage academic researchers to do it;
• Require that charter contracts include "meaningful measures of academic performance," which are reviewed periodically; and
• Ensure that if smaller authorizers don't have the ability to fulfill various oversight duties, that the state step in and find ways to help them, such as by capitalizing on the kind of leadership that larger authorizers can provide.

The report also says states should address funding disparities for charter schools, including policies that provide them with lesser amounts of per-pupil funding than traditional public schools, and inadequate funding for facilities. (Charter advocates often complain they're not competing on a level playing field with regular public schools on those fronts.)

While some Southern states cited in the report have taken action to help charters find facilities, states need to develop "appropriate and adequate funding streams" to reduce existing disparties, the authors say.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:45 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Are charter schools siphoning students from Catholic schools?

A recent analysis out of New York examines that question and reaches a provocative conclusion: that the growth of charters is a "significant and growing factor" in declining Catholic school enrollment. Abraham M. Lackman, the president of Praxis Insights, an education and government consulting organization, and a former top staffer on the New York state Senate Finance Committee, says that competition from charter schools, and broader demographic trends, are hurting Catholic schools—and that the losses among the church's schools are likely to become more severe in the years ahead.

In his analysis, Lackman examines movement of students across traditional public schools, charter schools, and Catholic schools in New York in an attempt to show who's gaining and who's losing. Over the past decade, Catholic school K-12 enrollment in New York has declined by 96,000 students, or 35 percent, he finds. At the same time, the number of students served by charter schools jumped from about 4,000 to nearly 55,000. A similar trend is playing out nationwide.

He concludes that an overall demographic trend—namely, reductions in the number of relatively young students—accounts for 28 percent of the loss of enrollment in Catholic schools; migration to traditional public schools accounts for 42 percent, and migration to charter and other schools (typically, other privates) accounts for 30 percent.

In many communities, particularly urban areas, Catholic and charter schools are competing for the same students, Lackman explained in an interview. Some families are drawn to charters, he says, because they have many of the same qualities as Catholic schools (an emphasis on discipline and a structured learning environment, for instance), with an important, added attraction: charters are tuition-free. The losses at Catholic schools are compounded when their enrollments decline to a "tipping point" at which point they can't survive financially and must shut their doors, he says. When that day comes, families are forced to seek other options, usually traditional publics or charters, Lackman says.

Lackman presented his preliminary findings at the National Catholic Educational Association this spring, and he plans to publish them in a full paper soon. In addition to having worked in the state legislature during the late 1990s, at a time when New York was clearing the path for charter schools, Lackman also served as New York City's budget director under then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. He is now a scholar in residence at the Albany Law School.

His analysis seems certain to provoke a strong reaction among supporters and critics of school choice. One of the main questions surrounding charters since their inception two decades ago has been the extent to which they would provide a viable alternative to traditional publics. Would charters serve as innovative models for school improvement, which could compel traditional publics to improve their performance? Or would charters simply drain students and funding away from traditional publics, regardless of whether the new models outperformed the norm? Debates over those questions rage on.

Lackman's conclusion would suggest that charter school growth pose a threat to the financial well-being of another, major player in the school-choice arena: private, religious schools. Private schools, of course, are viewed as an important choice option among many policymakers, mostly political conservatives. Creating and expanding private school voucher programs has become a centerpiece of many Republican governors' and lawmakers' agendas over the past few years.

The pressure on Catholic schools from charters will only increase in the future, Lackman predicts. If the number of charter schools in New York state increases to 460 from 180 by 2020, as he projects, Catholic school enrollment will decline by an additional 28,000 students, he says.

"They cannot compete, in my opinion, with the charter school movement," said Lackman, of Catholic schools.

Lackman said he supported charter school growth during his time as a legslative staffer, and he says he still does, though he would like to see states find a way to "level the playing field" for private schools forced to compete with charters. At the time charter schools were created in New York, "the whole debate was about bringing choice to education," he recalled. "Nobody thought about the impact charter schools would have on private schools, and Catholic schools."

Diane Ravitch, an education historian who co-authors a blog for Education Week, picked up on Lackman's research and warns that if Catholic schools simply attempt to copy the charter school model to survive, they will lose their identity, and families will lose an important educational option.

"As a supporter of both public education and Catholic education, I have a solution to the dilemma," she writes. "Public money for public schools, and private money for Catholic schools. Just think of the billions that have been poured into charter schools for a tiny percentage of the nation's students (is it 4 percent now?). Imagine if the same money—or even half of it—had been devoted to building a foundation for the future of Catholic education. We would then have a far better public school system, free of the internecine battles over resources between public school parents and charter parents. And Catholic education, which serves its students so faithfully and so well, would be preserved for future generations."

On Choice Words, a blog of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Kathleen Porter-Magee says Lackman overstates the impact that charters are having on Catholic schools. The church's schools have faced a growing number of financial pressures for years, she writes. Many of them can no longer rely on nuns and priests to teach, for instance, and must hire lay people who bring higher costs.

"To be sure, the emergence of urban charter schools has given poor parents more choices—and, frankly, more affordable choices, since many simply could not afford to continue to pay the even very low tuition that Catholic schools required," she writes. "But closing charter schools—or preventing the opening of more—will simply not turn the tide in favor of urban Catholic schools. The best, or perhaps the only, way to save Catholic schools is for Catholic leaders—lay and religious alike—to make the commitment we need to keeping these schools alive. And in the meantime, closing or limiting charter options will only further limit the options available to urban parents who desperately crave better choices for their children."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

North Carolina would become the latest state to offer tax credits in support of vouchers, if a proposal to reward corporations for their gifts to help disadvantaged students attend private schools becomes law.

The measure, which has both Republican and Democratic sponsors, would give tax credits to corporations that contribute to "scholarship funding organizations," which in turn provide vouchers for students. The total statewide amount of the tax credit initially would be capped at $40 million, and expand over time if enough tax credits are claimed.

Nine states currently offer tax credits for school vouchers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Tax credit programs were the subject of an extensive probe by the New York Times this past week, which reported that some of those programs were not targeting needy students, as they had claimed they would, and cited irregularities in how private-school scholarships were awarded to schools, and families.

The authors of the North Carolina measure say it would "pay for itself" as state and local governments realize "the savings in the difference between the scholarship amount and the average state and local payment," according to a statement released by House Majority Leader Paul Stam, a Republican and bill sponsor.

The legislation will "open the door for parents to explore educational options available to their children and select the choice that best fits the needs of their family," argues Stam.

Students would need to be enrolled full-time at a public school during the previous semester to be eligible, or they would have to have to be entering kindergarten or first grade. Families with annual household incomes up to 225 percent of the federal poverty level (about $50,000) would be eligible, and scholarships would top out at $4,000 per year, per student.

Republicans, in many cases with little Democratic support, have made a sustained push to create or expand voucher programs over the past two years, efforts that were helped by big gains the GOP made at the state level in the 2010 elections. The North Carolina legislation, however, counts a pair of Democratic state representatives, William Brisson and Marcus Brandon, as prime sponsors. Republicans control both chambers in North Carolina's statehouse, and they have feuded often on education and other issues with Gov. Beverly Perdue, a Democrat, who is leaving office after this year, having decided not to run for re-election.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Superintendents, principals, and teachers talk about it. Many of them say they'd like to see a lot more of it. And federal law, in many districts, requires it.

It's parent engagement—the goal of trying to help parents become more involved in the academic life of schools. Many researchers, policymakers, and school officials believe drawing parents and other adult caregivers into schools, and encouraging them to become more informed about curriculum, school activities, and students' academic progress, is crucial to promoting student achievement. Yet many schools and districts struggle to engage parents in meaningful ways.

On June 21st, at 2 p.m., Eastern time, Education Week is hosting a webinar designed to help school officials, parents, and others learn more about the challenges that come with parent engagement, and about strategies that can help schools overcome those barriers. You can register here. Karen L. Mapp, of Harvard University, and Steven Sheldon, the director of research at the National Network of Partnership Schools, at Johns Hopkins University, will offer their thoughts—and then answer questions from our online audience.

If you're new to the topic, here's an Ed Week story I wrote a few issues ago, which provides background. So mark your calendars, and submit your questions.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

On Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney unveiled his agenda for the nation's schools. It's a document that focuses extensively on expanding school choice—its centerpiece is probably a proposal to allow parents to use federal anti-poverty and special education funding for private school vouchers, as well charters and online courses. (See my colleague Alyson Klein's overview of the full plan.)

I recently took another pass through Romney's proposals and looked in more detail at his vision for school choice. A couple takeaways and tidbits:

• Voucher recipients using federal funds would be required to take state tests.

Romney's plan says that to "ensure accountability," students who use federal Title I and spec-ed funding to attend private schools "will be required to participate" in state testing systems.

Requiring that voucher recipients, or private schools accepting voucher students, take part in the same state tests as public school students is controversial in some quarters of the private school choice community. Critics say those mandates infringe on the rights of private schools. Others, however, see the requirements as a way to set standards for voucher programs and provide families with valuable information on whether the private schools available to them are up to snuff. Romney apparently finds this argument to be a convincing one.

Even so, the lack of consensus on mandatory testing in voucher programs is evident from looking at policies across states. Nine out of 17 voucher programs require some form of testing for voucher students—either state or national norm-referenced tests, according to the the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, an Indiana organization which supports private school choice. Three out of 10 tax-credit scholarship programs require one of those forms of tests.

• Access to vouchers could vary by state.

Romney says he would work with Congress to overhaul the law to allow federal funds to be used for vouchers. But his plan also makes the proviso that students would be able to use that money for private school costs "if permitted by state law."

Presumably, Romney's team is here referring to the restrictions in some state constitutions—known as "Blaine amendments"—that bar or impede the use of public money for religious schools or institutions. It's unclear whether other state laws could prevent states from signing up for the Romney voucher plan. (I've contacted Romney's team for clarification.)

• "Open enrollment" policies would vary by district.

Romney wants to require states receiving federal Title I and spec-ed funding to increase access to online education, expand charter schools, and adopt new open-enrollment policies. Open-enrollment policies—basically, allowing students to transfer to districts outside where they live, without restriction—are in place in 17 states, according to one recent count.

But open enrollment has also been opposed by some districts, which see it as a loss of local control over their schools. (See a story I wrote last year that looks at a debate in Michigan about open enrollment.) Some state laws allow districts to turn away students for various reasons, including concerns about overcrowding. Romney's plan says that states would be required to adopt open enrollment policies to allow students to transfer to school systems outside their boundaries if the alternate districts "have the capacity to serve them."

Given Romney's focus on school choice, it's probably fitting that the foreword to his policy is written by former Florida Jeb Bush, a Republican who was a major champion of vouchers during his two terms in office. (See a related item on Politics K-12 on the past praise that Romney and Bush have directed at Obama on education issues. They strike a decidedly different tone in the pages of Romney's new policy document.)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:31 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney unveiled a series of education proposals Wednesday, which cover a lot of ground but are heavy on private-school choice, as my colleague Alyson Klein explains over at Politics K-12.

Romney wants to allow parents to use federal Title I and special-education funding to pay for a variety of school options—including private school costs, meaning vouchers. And on that point, the contrast between Romney and Obama, who opposes private school vouchers, is quite sharp.

While many Republicans have praised Obama for his support for charters, linking teacher and administrator evaluations to performance, and other education policies, the president has shown no interest in redirecting public funds to private school choice. He recently rankled Congressional Republicans, for instance, by proposing to cut off funding for the District of Columbia voucher program.

Mike Petrilli, an executive vice-president at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and former top education official in George W. Bush's administration, finds a lot to like about having federal dollars follow children, for public and private schools, as he explains in an online essay. But Petrilli's less fond of mandating that states offer a list of choice options in order to receive federal Title I and spec-ed funding. Those top-down mandates from Washington rarely work the way they're supposed to, writes Petrilli, who cites the problems in administering the No Child Left Behind Act as an example of why they don't.

The title of Petrilli's essay sums up his view: "The Romney education plan: Replacing federal overreach on accountability with federal overreach on school choice."

Education Sector's Anne Hyslop offers a different perspective. She praises pieces of Romney's proposal but says it wrongly assumes that choice—rather than polices for turning around low-performing schools and helping struggling students—will act as a cure-all.

"By using choice as the only mechanism to improve school quality, a child's success will still depend on their ZIP code and family background," she writes, adding: "For these students—the ones left behind in dropout factories and chronically low-achieving schools—what is their future? Romney's education plan would continue the standards and assessment movement, but drop the accountability. States and districts would not have to intervene in any ineffective schools to address low achievement, high dropout rates, or large achievement gaps. And that's unacceptable."

But Rick Hess, of the American Enterprise Institute, finds much of Romney's blueprint appealing, particularly its emphasis on school choice, education innovation, and increasing the number of school providers. Its "pluses are real and substantial," Hess writes on his Ed Week blog. But he also says parts of Romney's plan sound too prescriptive, and like not much of a departure from the the policies of the current White House occupant:

"Especially in K-12 schooling, where 90% of the money is provided by states or localities, it can be tough for conservatives to talk about addressing our educational challenges without seeming to imply that every idea requires new federal funds or programs. Romney's plan is far less explicit on this score than he'll need to be. This is doubly true given that some of his talking points, such as his promise to drive down college tuition, imply grand new vistas of presidential authority. And Romney's proposal to require states to lift charter caps, embrace open-enrollment, and adopt expansive approaches to virtual schooling in order to qualify for federal aid is practically Obamaesque as far as expanding the federal reach when it comes to state education policy."

In an interview Wednesday, Petrilli told me that the GOP candidate's emphasis on promoting transparency, rather than accountability, in judging school performance, represents a "milestone" and perhaps the clearest sign yet of the overall Republican party's decisive turn away from its one-time support for the No Child Left Behind Act.

The NCLB law was approved with bipartisan congressional support and signed into law in 2002 by President George W. Bush, a Republican. But over time, Republicans in Washington have grown increasingly weary of the law's tough sanctions and accountability measures, particularly amid complaints about federal overreach in education, Petrilli noted.

"The Republican party has officially moved on from the No Child Left Behind era," said Petrilli. Increasingly, GOP backing for the law looks like "an historical anomaly," he said.

"We're seeing a return to federal education policy, circa 1998," he told me. "There are no prominent Republicans at the federal level arguing for accountability and intervention in failing schools" through measures like the eight-year-old federal law.

Another Romney proposal—to create incentives for states to adopt open-enrollment policies and eliminate caps on charter and online schools—is potentially significant, if implemented in a tough-minded way, Petrilli said. Many states and districts, at least on paper, have open-enrollment policies to increase school choice, though school systems often resist accepting students from neighboring districts, citing concerns about overcrowding or loss of local control. Efforts to compel districts to accept students often meet strong resistance, particularly in areas where there are significant numbers of GOP voters, Mr. Petrilli said.

"These are very contentious programs, and they've very unpopular with Republicans—particularly suburban Republicans," Petrilli said.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A coalition of advocacy groups is making a push to collect enough signatures to place an item on the ballot this fall to allow for the creation of charter schools in Washington state.

Three of the organizations immersed in the effort are Democrats for Education Reform and Stand for Children, both of which are active in many states and districts around the country; and the League of Education Voters, which seeks to improve schools in Washington state.

Their chances rest on doing a lot of work in a short amount of time.

To place an item on the statewide ballot in November, the groups need to collect 241,000 signatures from registered state voters by July 6, according to the Washington Secretary of State's office. Unlike ballot items in some states, the would-be Washington measure is not just a couple lines of text; it's girded by a detailed, 40-plus-page proposal setting the parameters for the establishment of charter schools in the state over time. The measure would create a relatively modest number of charter schools, 40, over a five-year period. The language that eventually appears on the ballot will be a brief description of the measure, said David Ammons, a spokesman for the Secretary of State's office.

Washington is just one of just nine states that do not have laws allowing for charter schools, according to the Center for Education Reform, a Washington group that supports those independent, public schools, and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. The others are Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia.

The public has not been kind to pro-charter ballot items in Washington state in the past. Ballot items to establish charters were shot down by state voters in 1996 and 2000, and again in 2004, when the public overturned a charter school measure that had been approved by legislators.

But backers of the plan believe public sentiment has shifted to their side, said Chris Korsmo, the chief executive officer of the League of Education Voters. Supporters of the measure plan to enlist volunteer and paid signature-gatherers, and they expects other advocacy groups and education activits to lend their support in the weeks and months to come, she said.

"Once the voters have an opportunity to see what these schools can provide, they'll support it," Korsmo predicted.

Judging from its reaction, the Washington Education Association, a teachers' union, has a dim view of the ballot-item-for-charters idea.

"The charter school cha-cha returns," reads a message on the organization's web site.

"What part of 'no charter schools' do the people pushing to destroy public education refuse to understand?" it asks. "An initiative was filed today to, guess what, bring charter schools to our fine state. Three times voting them down not enough? Washingtonians, please pay attention. If you don't sign this, it won't get on the ballot."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Tax credit scholarships have taken hold in a number of states, where they've been touted as effective options for allowing needy children stuck in failing public schools to move to private schools using money that would otherwise have wound up in the state treasury.

But today, a New York Times story takes a look at those programs and finds that some of them aren't operating in the way they were sold to the public.

Specifically, the Times says that some of the programs are apparently making tax-credit-funded scholarships available to families who not only aren't poor, but whose children are already attending private schools to begin with. In Georgia, for instance, parents of private school students are being encouraged to "enroll" students at public schools, in name only, in order to receive access to qualify for private school scholarships.

The story also cites examples in Georgia of private schools and programs that administer the scholarships working in concert to decide who will get them—"in effect limiting school choice for the students themselves," as the Times puts it.

A number of voucher programs limit eligibility to impoverished families, and the programs' ability to increase educational opportunities to disadvantaged students has long been one of their key selling points. But in Georgia, families of all incomes are receiving tax-credit-funded awards from some scholarship-granting organizations, a practice which gives the private schools they're attending a steady source of income. The newspaper reports:

And although [the program] prohibits donations designated for a specific student, some students are benefiting from the donations of relatives and friends.

Hanaiya Hassan, whose daughter attends Hamzah Academy in Alpharetta, Ga., said she had saved $5,000 by asking four friends to donate to a scholarship organization with money earmarked for her daughter's school. "If you collect four people for $2,500, then one of your children is free," she said.

The friends were awarded a tax credit. Depending on their tax bracket, some donors could actually come out ahead by filing for a federal charitable deduction as well as the state credit.

The Christian Heritage School in Dalton, Ga., circulated a flier for the 2011-12 school year titled "TUITION BREAKS FOR CURRENT FAMILIES!" It stated, "The scholarship tax credit is so vital to CHS that the school is encouraging all parents to participate in the program and enlist at least two others to do the same." Participating families would get a 10 percent tuition rebate and a $250 bonus. The rebates would be doubled or tripled depending on overall participation.

The school has discontinued the rebate program, its controller said.

As the story points out, some voucher programs have been ruled unconstitutional by state courts, when they've been found to have improperly directed public funds to religious institutions, meaning private sectarian schools. Tax credit scholarships have offered an appealing alternative to this prevailing legal uncertainty, because the money never goes into the public treasury, creating less risk of losing a court challenge.

Whether the Times story leads lawmakers to rethink their support of tax credit programs—or increase their oversight—remains to be seen.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A charter school operator in Arizona is bringing its reputation for high academic expectations, and high test scores, to the nation's capital.

The BASIS Schools, Inc., which has drawn widespread attention and praise for its work running a group of schools in Arizona, will open its first school outside the state this fall, in Washington, D.C., in a renovated building not far from the National Mall.

The BASIS model is built on a demanding curriculum, one that its founders say is set to match the academic expectations of higher-achieving countries than the United States. The school requires students to pass comprehensive exams in different subjects to advance between grades. And it puts a big emphasis on building students' personal responsibility, encouraging them to develop organizational skills and study habits early during their time at the school.

The school's eastern migration offers the latest recent example of high-scoring charter operators looking to move beyond their current locations. A California-based organization, Rocketship Education, is headed to Milwaukee, and another based in the Golden State, has its eye on Tennessee.

BASIS was featured in a 2009 documentary, "Two Million Minutes: A 21st Century Solution," which warned of the consequences of what the filmmakers saw as the United States' mediocre educational standing, and touted the BASIS schools as model for others to follow. (See Education Week's coverage of the film.)

The school was founded in 1998 by Michael and Olga Block, who opened the first BASIS school in Tucson and now operate six campuses in the state. Michael Block is a former professor of economics and law who has consulted numerous organizations and institutions, including the World Bank; Olga Block taught economics at a university in the Czech Republic.

BASIS' reasons for coming to the District of Columbia were both practical and symbolic. Compared with many states and jurisdictions, the District gives charter schools a relatively strong degree of freedom in curriculum and staffing, Block explained in an recent interview. BASIS is looking to expand beyond Arizona and the District, into other states, and when it does, it's likely to choose states where charter laws offer similar latitude, he said.

"It's the nation's capital," Block said. "This is one of the best environments for charters, anywhere. ... This is an important enterprise for us."

How tough is the BASIS curriculum? Students begin taking biology, chemistry, and physics as separate subjects in 6th through 8th grade. When schools reach maturity, students must complete Algebra 1 by the end of 7th grade. They take Latin in 5th and 6th grades. They also get a heavy dose of art and music.

It follows that one of the biggest challenges the school faces in the District is preparing new students whose academic foundation is shaky for what BASIS requires, Block said. The program has already been staging after-school tutoring sessions for incoming children and families in the city, classes that are voluntary, but encouraged for students entering in the fall.

About 26 percent of the students at BASIS' Tucson campus are Latino or African-American, according to a recent Washington Post academic ranking. Many of the students who will attend the new school in the District will come from impoverished families, Block told me. But the school has also drawn interest from wealthier families from across the city, he added, some of whom have said they are dissatisfied with the children's experiences in private school education and want to give BASIS a shot.

The charter school in the District will start by serving 450 students in grades 5-8; it will have 700 students though high school when it reaches full capacity. School officials say they have had hosted information sessions about the school in public libraries and other settings across the city to try to pull in families from as many neighborhoods and economic backgrounds as possible.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A national organization says it is launching a "charter school initiative," aimed at protecting teachers and other employees within that sector who may feel pressured to join unions.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, whose mission is to fight "coercive union power and compulsory unionism," says it will take more active steps to provide charter school employees with legal counsel and general advice on how to resist efforts to compel them to join organized labor groups.

The foundation, which is based in Springfield, Va., has no problem with teachers and others at charter schools who decide willingly to become union members, but it wants to fight efforts to strong-arm employees into signing up, said spokesman Anthony Riedel.

As part of its efforts, the legal defense group is promoting a series of documents which it says are meant to enlighten charter school employees about their rights.

How common is unionization in the nation's charter schools? Data collected by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools in 2009-10 sought to bring some clarity to that question. The NAPCS research showed that:

⚫ 604 charter schools—about 12 percent of the nation's total—have collective bargaining agreements with teachers' unions. About 10 percent of the charters that opened in 2009-10 were affiliated with a union, the organization says.

⚫ The vast majority of unionized charters, 76 percent, are affiliated with the National Education Association, while just 11 percent are associated with the American Federation of Teachers, and 12 percent were linked with both.

⚫ Roughly two-thirds of unionized charters in the country are bound by state law to the current collective bargaining agreements in their local districts.

⚫ California, Ohio, and Wisconsin have the largest number of unionized charter schools, and 55 percent of unionized charters operate in those states.

⚫ Almost 82 percent of unionized charters opened in the last decade—between 2000 and 2009, according to the NAPCS.

The legal foundation sees the growth of the union footprint over that time period as evidence of unions' commitment to expansion, Riedel said. After looking at the NAPCS data, I wonder if some of that growth can simply be attributed to new charters opening in states and districts where they're bound to allow unions, by law and by contract. Your thoughts?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A one-time treasurer for a number of Ohio charter schools has been charged with embezzling more than $470,000 in federal funds from those schools over a six-year period.

The U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of Ohio on Thursday accused Carl W. Shye, Jr., of having defrauded a group of charter schools, in a case that authorities said was based on a joint investigation by state and federal authorities.

The case was triggered by Ohio Auditor of State Dave Yost, whom federal officials said last year noticed a pattern of financial irregularities at schools served by the treasurer, then notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation. After combing through the charter schools' finances, investigators issued 62 "findings of recovery" spanning a period over the past 10 years, totaling $1,012,490, said Carter M. Stewart, the U.S. Attorney who announced the case againt Shye.

The schools involved in the case included the former George Washington Carver Preparatory Academy, in Columbus; the former Legacy Academy for Leaders & the Arts, in Youngstown; the former NuBethel Center of Excellence and New City Community School, both located in Dayton, federal officials said.

Public schools, including charters, receive federal funds through a variety of channels. The case against Shye, 57, put forward in a one-count "bill of information," does not spell out what types of federal funds are alleged to have been embezzled, identifying them only as grants, contracts, subsidies, and other types of monetary aid.

Embezzling from programs receiving federal funds is a crime that carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, with a fine of up to $250,000, plus three years of supervised release. The feds are also seeking a forfeiture of $472,579.90, the amount they said they could trace "the gross receipts Shye obtained" through his alleged crimes.

"Carl Shye has run amok with taxpayer dollars for a decade, but his run ends today," said Yost, the state's auditor, in a statement. "I am proud to see the culmination of countless hours of work and the strong partnership between the auditor of state's office and law enforcement to stop this crime against the public."

The case comes at a time when a number of charter schools across the country have come under scrutiny from either the public or authorities for alleged financial irregularities, involving accusations of conflicts of interest and the misuse of funds. (See my colleague Jason Tomassini's recent roundup of some of those charter school woes on Marketplace K-12.)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:09 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As their legislative session draws to a close, Missouri lawmakers have approved a measure that would open the door to the growth of charter schools—currently confined to Kansas City and St. Louis—to districts around the state.

The legislation, approved by the state's House of Representatives earlier this week by a vote of 99-54, now goes to Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat. A spokesman would not say if the governor will sign the measure into law.

This appears to have been another busy year on the charter school front in statehouses. Michigan Gov. Rick Synder, a Republican, this week signed into a law a measure to expand cyber charter schools. In South Carolina, Republican Gov. Nikki Haley gave her blessing to a bill that allows higher education institutions to authorize charters. Not all the state-level efforts to spawn charters fared that well. Efforts to create or expand charters floundered in Alabama and Mississippi, as my colleague Andrew Ujifusa recently reported.

To date, Missouri law has allowed charters in St. Louis and Kansas City because of those districts' low academic performance. The legislation would allow charters to expand to other districts that lose state accreditation, and to districts that are provisionally accredited. In districts that have not been saddled with those designations, charters could be established if they are backed by local school boards

The Missouri legislation has made its way through the Capitol on the heels of the state deciding to close a group of charter schools in St. Louis that had struggled academically and financially. That decision sparked controversy in the community among those who said the options for students seeking to transfer from those schools were unduly restrictive.

The measure also would create new oversight of charters, including the provisions that allow the state to audit charters. The state board of education would be required to evaluate charter sponsors, and the measure would give the board the power to order corrective actions, including removing a sponsor's oversight. It also establishes new requirements for charters to report on their academic performance, finances, and operations.

"Missouri's charter school community welcomes the increased-autonomy-for-increased-accountability bargain that is at the heart of the charter school model," said Douglas Thaman, executive director of the Missouri Public Charter School Association, in a statement. "Missouri's charter schools work tirelessly every day toward a high quality public education for students from very diverse backgrounds."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:20 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Last weekend, "60 Minutes" aired an insightful story on an influential Turkish Islamic cleric named Fethullah Gulen who has founded about 130 charter schools in 26 states in the United States.

Gulen's name is evidently widely recognized in his home country, though he's largely an anonymous figure here, despite the relatively wide reach of his educational model. As the story explains, Gulen's overall philosophy would not seem to be one to rouse anxiety among culture-warriors uneasy about Islam's place in the United States, or our country's schools. Gulen is well known for preaching tolerance, interfaith dialogue, the importance of education—and, apparently, the importance of making money.

Some of Gulen's schools, such as those belonging to the Harmony chain of schools in Texas, have a reputation for strong academic performance, and school officials say they have long waiting lists. His overall message to his followers, as the CBS story explains, is that "to be devout Muslims they shouldn't build mosques; they should build schools; and not to teach religion, but science." In sermons on the Web, Gulen has said: "Studying physics, mathematics, and chemistry is worshipping God." The story explains that in the late 1960s, he recommended that middle-class Turks learn from the West and embrace its money-making ways: "If you don't seek ways to be wealthy ... that is a sin in the eyes of God."

The "60 Minutes" crew looked for Gulen in Turkey, but ended up finding him much closer to home—in Pennsylvania, where he apparently has a home, in the Pocono mountains. He did not make himself available for an interview.

The segment also explores some of the more controversial aspects of the Gulen schools, such as the accusation that teachers at the schools are arriving on visas obtained on false premises, for subjects where there is not a strong need. "60 Minutes" found that some teachers arrived on visas to teach English, not higher-need subjects like math, as backers of the schools have claimed. The program also interviews an Ohio teacher fired from one of the schools, who says that some of the schools' employees are being asked to give back a portion of their salaries, evidently to the operators of the schools. (In the story, Gulen school officials denied that claim.) See the transcript of the show for more details. (Video of the segment is below.)

Ed Week readers will remember that the state of Tennessee recently approved a law that limits the number of workers on foreign visas who can be employed by charter schools. Readers can be the judge of whether the story on Gulen schools bolsters the case made by supporters of that law, or undermines it.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:33 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Students attending a cluster of Los Angeles schools overseen by the charter operator Green Dot significantly increased their test scores and persistence in school, and took more challenging courses than comparable peers, a newly released study has found.

The schools were part of what was originally Alain Leroy Locke High School, an academic low-performer located in an impoverished neighborhood in the south part of the city.

With permission from the Los Angeles Unified School District, Green Dot took over the school in 2007 and began its transformation into a series of smaller charter schools.

The study, conducted by researchers at UCLA's National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, known as CRESST, compared Locke students entering 9th grade against demographically similar students from the same set of feeder middle schools who ended up attending different high schools. Two cohorts of students, one of them entering the Locke schools in 2007 and another, larger group entering in 2008, were compared against against peers in other schools.

Green Dot students in the first cohort outperformed the comparison groups in persistence through high school and college-readiness rates—as judged by their completion of a set of courses used in California public university admissions—as well as in other areas of academic performance, albeit in a more scattered way.

But students in the second cohort had a much stronger showing, significantly outperforming their counterparts on a number of state test score measures, as well as in remaining in high school over time, and in taking and passing challenging courses, in subjects such as Algebra 1.

The results for the second cohort of Locke High School students are particularly significant, given that those teenagers were more fully exposed to the Green Dot academic model over time, said Joan L. Herman, who led the study team as director of the research center at UCLA.

"The full takeover of the school did not occur until Cohort 2," Herman said in an interview. "Cohort 2 is the better test. ...The consistency of the findings surprised and impressed me."

One of the main criticisms of charter schools is the suspicion that some of them screen students and select those who are easier to educate, and that they push out the students they don't want over time, essentially leaving them a population that is more likely to succeed.

But the UCLA researchers found that the Green Dot schools at Locke that they studied had a positive impact on student achievement while serving a student population that was both similiar to what existed at the school prior to its tranformation, and similiar to the control group of nearby schools they studied.

"There is no issue with cherry-picking or selecting kids," Herman said. "Kids are persisting more in [the Locke family of schools], and they have more kids staying in school."

Green Dot operates 18 charter schools, which include 14 high schools and four middle schools, in Los Angeles, with a focus on serving impoverished communities. The charter operator's model is based on setting high expectations for students, creating strong parent involvement, directing a significant amount of money to the classroom, keeping schools open on extended hours, and maintaining a safe learning environment, among other areas of emphasis.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 6:20 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Obama administration has issued a policy clarifying that charter school authorizers have the power to shut down low-performing charters, despite the overall freedom from stiff penalties that federal officials have offered states under waivers of the No Child Left Behind Act.

In an addendum released this week to the original waiver guidelines, the U.S. Department of Education said that authorizers' rights to not renew or revoke a charter will overrule any separate process that states awarded waivers establish for dealing with academically low-performing schools.

"A charter school authorizer retains the authority to close a low-performing charter school under the time frames and according to the performance expectations in its charter contract and under state law," says the department's fact sheet, released May 7. The identification of a charter school as a low-performer under a state waiver plan "should not be used as evidence to delay or avoid closure if the school is failing to meet the terms of its charter contract.

The document also gives charters flexibility to develop their own teacher and principal evaluation systems, as long as they adhere to a number of standards.

The Obama administration announced last year that it would offer states waivers from the most onerous provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. States had to agree to adopt college- and career-ready standards, and craft guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation, which were to be linked to gains in student achievement. States were also offered an escape from the law's sanctions for not making yearly academic progress, if they agreed to create new accountability systems, which included plans for improving their lowest-performing schools, called "priority" and "focus" schools. The administration's waiver guidelines said states' plans for turning around the lowest-performing schools should adhere to a number of principles, such as redesigning school schedules and holding administrators and teachers to higher standards for improvement.

Eleven states have been granted waivers from NCLB so far, and an additional 26, plus the District of Columbia, have applied for that flexibility.

The new language describing the waiver rules for charters pleased the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, which had voiced concerns that the original NCLB flexibility guidelines would allow continually underachieving charters to avoid closure or other penalties imposed by states, districts, or other entities overseeing those schools.

The concern was that low-performing charter schools could tell authorizers, in effect, "you can't close me," before the timelines described for improving schools in a state's waiver plan played out, said Greg Richmond, the president and chief executive officer of NACSA. His organization believes there are "still too many poor-performing charters, and authorizers need to be closing more of them."

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools had similiar concerns, reasoning that under the waiver process, states "would feel pressure to leave a charter school open," said Todd Ziebarth, a vice president for the organization. The new clarification from the department helps put those fears to rest, both he and Richmond said.

The department's fact sheet also addresses another concern of some charter school advocates: that the NCLB waiver requirements for teacher and principal evaluation would restrict charters' ability to manage their staffs effectively.

The department's new addendum says that states' waiver plans can give charters flexibility to develop evaluation systems that "do not necessarily adhere specifically to the [state's] guidelines," if charters meet a number of requirements. Specifically, states must demonstrate that all their charters are "held to a high standard of accountability through a strong charter school authorizer system." One such standard is that states use student achievement as the most important factor in determining whether to revoke or renew a school's charter.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:53 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Guest blog post by Jaclyn Zubrzycki

On Wednesday, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal signed a bill that will give a tax rebate to people and businesses that make contributions to fund the state's private school voucher program. State Rep. Katrina Jackson, a Democrat, responded with a bill that turns the idea on its head: House Bill 1106 would offer rebates to people and businesses that donate to public schools, especially those with low scores on the state's accountability system.

The bill passed the state's House of Representatives unanimously on May 7, and is scheduled for a hearing in the state Senate's revenue and fiscal affairs committee on Monday. But Jackson and her supporters fear that the bill may not make it into law even if it passes the Senate. Gov. Jindal recommended an amendment to the bill that would require it to be funded through House Bill 1, over which the governor has line-item veto power.

Jackson said that this proposal leads her to fear that the governor would veto the program even if it's approved by the legislative bodies. "The private school bill did not have a cap, and it didn't have an amendment requiring it to be funded through House Bill 1," she said in an interview. No House member backed the amendment.

HB 1106 would offer rebates to public school donors on a sliding scale, depending on the academic performance of the school that's donated to. A donation to a school district with a ranking of F would lead to a 75% tax rebate, a donation to a school with a D to a 50% ranking, and so on (the full plan is laid out in the text of the bill). In order to be eligible for the rebate, donations would need to be directed at programs like tutoring or at technology needs that directly impact the academic performance of the school.

"When you push money out of school," Rep. Jackson said, "your books or technology may not be not purchased based on a per-student basis...you have to have resources sufficient for those needs." Even with the voucher program, she said, "public schools will be with us, and we have to support them in a way that they'll survive." Jackson worked as a teacher before becoming a lawyer.

The bill has a $10 million cap, which Jackson said was due to state's "tough" financial situation. The private school voucher rebate program, which will go into effect during the 2013-14 school year, does not have a cap.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:29 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A bunch of conservative-leaning states have approved laws to create or expand private school choice. Lawmakers in another thoroughly red state, South Carolina, want their state to get into the act.

A Republican-sponsored bill that was heard by a Senate committee earlier this week allows nonprofits to provide scholarship funding for private school tuition and other costs to disadvantaged students, as well as to students with disabilities. The measure also would award tax credits to individuals that contribute to those organizations.

In addition, the measure would give tax deductions to families to cover costs equal to what they're spending on private school—up to a cap of $4,000 per child, per year, according to a recent version of the legislation posted online. The bill also would establish a small deduction, $1,000, for families seeking to have children attend a public school district other than their own. The measure is backed by South Carolina Superintendent of Education Mick Zais, whose director of legislative and public affairs testified in support of the bill at its committee hearing this week.

"The school choice debate isn't about public schools versus independent schools, or brick-and-mortar classrooms versus virtual classrooms," Zais said in an e-mail. "The debate is about what type of school and classroom best meets the learning style and needs of an individual student. School choice is an important step towards transforming the current education system to a student-centered model that provides a personalized and customized education for every student."

Despite the recent run of voucher bills becoming law in states across the country, the battle to establish private-school choice in South Carolina has been an uphill slog, acknowledged Sen. Larry Grooms, a Republican who is sponsoring a version of the legislation in his chamber. He attributes that lack of traction to a failure to muster at least some support from Democrats, though he also says some GOP lawmakers have not been supportive. While the tax-credit legislation has been approved by the full House this session, its chances are dicier in the Senate, said Grooms, where opinion is more divided. The lawmaker, who has sponsored several private-school choice measures over the years, believes support for the those options has increased, albeit gradually.

"Every time you take a sledgehammer to a rock, you make a little crack," the senator said.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's new, much-touted school choice program has suffered an early setback as one of the state's highest-achieving school districts has said, no thanks.

The Zachary Community School District, a 5,300-student system outside of Baton Rouge, has reversed an earlier decision and chosen not to accept students from academically struggling public schools, citing concerns about absorbing new financial costs and overburdening its teachers and schools.

The superintendent of the district, Warren Drake, told me in an interview today that his worries about the financial burdens of the program have largely been mollified, following a discussion he had with Louisiana State Superintendent of Education John White. But Drake added that he and other district leaders had heard enough objections about putting new burdens on teachers, lack of space in the schools, and other challenges to decide not to take part in the program—at least not next year.

"There are a lot of unknowns," Drake said. "We're crowded, and the teachers have a lot responsibilities on them right now."

Zachary school board members had initially decided last month to accept 30 students from the low-performing schools through the choice program, which was signed into law by Jindal, a Republican, on April 18. But soon after that, board members became concerned that the law's funding mechanism would not be sufficient to cover the costs of absorbing new students.

Those concerns drew an immediate answer from White, the state schools chief, who today issued a press release offering a point-by-point explanation of the funding system. He said that students who transfer from academically low-performing systems will bring their full share of state funding with them—equaling a total of about $8,500—not just a portion of it, $4,000, as Zachary district officials seemed to believe, the superintendent said. The funding provided with be the total amount of local and state funding associated with each child, White explained, and districts accepting children don't lose anything.

"Our state's top-performing school district did a courageous thing by agreeing to accept students who right now do not have the quality choices Zachary community members enjoy," White wrote. "The board's reversal of that decision...was based on false information."

Louisiana's choice program creates a new, statewide private school voucher program with relatively loose income-eligibility requirements and room for potentially strong growth over time. But another part of the program—the one debated in the Zachary district—allows students who are in C, D, or F-ranked schools to apply to attend A or B schools. When there are more applicants than slots at A and B schools, admission is determined by lottery.

Drake noted that the Zachary school district accepted about 300 new students in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and that service did not fall off. Initially, district officials wanted to take part in the new choice program, reasoning that "we had to help, even in a small way," Drake said.

But in the weeks that followed, resistance to the program emerged from the community, he said. Residents have supported the school district through relatively high taxes, the superintedent said. Some had feared that service would slip and classroom crowding would increase with the addition of new students next year, and possibly for years after that, if more students came on board. Drake noted that district officials are also worried about overburdening teachers who will be absorbing major policy changes, including the adoption of Common Core academic standards and a new teacher-evaluation system, in the time ahead. He left open the possibility the district could join the choice program in the future.

"We will continue to explore ways to help students in academically unacceptable schools where possible," he said in a statement, "but at this time [we] are responding to requests from the community not to participate in this program."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A nationwide survey released by a pro-voucher group finds strong support for private school choice among mothers, though they also give relatively high grades to their local public schools.

The "Moms and Schools Survey," sponsored by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, shows that 71 percent of mothers polled said they agreed or strongly agreed with the following statement: "Some people believe that school vouchers or scholarships should be available to all families, regardless of incomes and special needs." Just 24 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. The percentage was similar among non-mothers, with 69 percent agreeing, and 26 percent disagreeing.

At the same time, however, a strong percentage of mothers polled—62 percent—gave either A or B grades to their local public schools, about 10 percentage points higher than non-moms surveyed. That finding isn't necessarily unusual; in polls about educational quality, it's common for Americans to bemoan the overall quality of public education— while saying their own schools are doing just fine. Twenty-two percent of moms gave their local public schools a C grade, and 12 percent deemed them worthy of Ds or Fs.

By comparison, 51 percent of mothers polled said they would give A or B grades to the private or parochial schools in their areas, while just 9 percent gave those schools C, D, or F marks. (A fairly large percentage, 39 percent, said they either didn't know the answer, or indicated the question didn't apply to them.)

Why focus on the opinions of mothers (other than having a poll pegged to Mother's Day)? Because mothers "tend to be the primary decisionmakers within families regarding schooling and educational matters," the Friedman Foundation says. "Their views, as a group, tend to go under-reported."

Another survey question asked what type of school mothers would sent their children to, if they could choose the one that would give them "the best education for your child." The largest number, 45 percent, picked regular public schools as their first choice; followed by 37 percent favoring private schools; 8 percent choosing charter schools; 7 percent picking home schools; and 1 percent, virtual schools.

Critics of vouchers will no doubt question whether the results would have been different had the parents polled been presented with different questions in a different context. I'll let readers examine the survey and make their own judgments. The poll was conducted by Braun Research, Inc. It was based on a nationwide sample of 803 adults, and additional interviews were conducted to obtain a nationally representative sample of mothers of school-aged children. The margin of error was 3.5 percentage points for the national sample and 5 pecentage points for the sample of mothers. Inteviews were conducted by phone, and lasted an average of seven minutes.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Obama administration has been a strong backer of charter schools, having prodded states to allow their growth through federal efforts such as the Race to the Top program. This week, the president is touting charter schools' merits through a favorite, and typically symbolic act of White Houses past and present: issuing a presidential proclamation.

The proclamation, offered during National Charter Schools Week, calls on "states and communities to support charter schools and the students they serve." It says:

Whether created by parents and teachers or community and civic leaders, charter schools serve as incubators of innovation in neighborhoods across our country. These institutions give educators the freedom to cultivate new teaching models and develop creative methods to meet students' needs. This unique flexibility is matched by strong accountability and high standards, so underperforming charter schools can be closed, while those that consistently help students succeed can serve as models of reform for other public schools.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:58 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Many Catholic school principals are struggling to keep up with the myriad financial and administrative demands placed on them, according to a new report, which recommends that they be given more focused duties—and that they form a nationwide association to press their policy concerns.

Those findings are included in a survey of about 1,700 Catholic primary school principals, which was directed by the Mary Ann Remick Leadership Program at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana. The results of the survey are soon to be released by Information Age Publishing, program officials say.

Today, many Catholic principals are forced to "exercise a type of triage over their jobs, attending to what is urgent right now and often neglecting strategic goals and long-term plans," according to a summary of the findings that accompany the survey. While administrators "are dedicated and faith-filled," the authors say, "they are often frustrated and overwhelmed in their ministerial positions. If they are to continue to succeed in their important roles, they will require support from church leadership and serious, ongoing professional development, designed to meet their growing and changing needs."

The principals reported that the issues they are most focused on in their schools are financial management and marketing, followed by promoting Catholic identity, enrollment management, and long-range planning. The emphasis on finances and marketing is almost certainly a reflection of the pressures that principals feel to attract new students and families, explained Rev. Ronald J. Nuzzi, senior director of the Remick leadership program, who worked with other faculty on the report. The Remick leadership program provides coursework and degree programs for aspiring Catholic school administrators. Many of its students are teachers who hope to move into administrative positions, Nuzzi said.

When asked about the biggest area of need or challenge they faced, the greatest number of principlals, 1,030, said enrollment, followed by financial management, 930; development, 463; marketing, 277; capital improvements, 229; maintaining affordability, 194; technology, 186; Catholic identity, 147; academic quality, 124; and long-range planning, 99.

Principals end up having to juggle a range of activities, the survey found, which range from fundraising and encouraging alumni to become more involved with the school to overseeing renovations of aging buildings, to trying to explain the value of a Catholic education at a time when many potential families may be concerned about the costs of private school tuition.

The report offers a series of recommendations, one of which is the creation of a national association of Catholic primary schools principals, to advocate for those administrators' needs and help them speak with a more unified voice on policy issues. Such advocacy, the authors say, could include taking positions on vouchers, tuition tax credits, or overall school choice, where too often, "Catholic school principals are silent." Another recommendation is to change how Catholic schools are governed, so that many financial and development duties are put "in the hands of a properly educated advancement professional, not an educator." In addition, the authors see a need for a more organized and comprehensive professional development system for Catholic school principals.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A controversial measure that caps the number of foreign workers on visas who can be employed in charter schools will become official policy in Tennessee, as Republican Gov. Bill Haslam has allowed it to become law without his signature.

Backers of the proposal, which was approved by Tennessee's GOP-dominated legislature, have said it will help protect jobs in charter schools for Tennessee teachers.

But the measure's critics say it has a xenophobic slant, and will brand the state as a place that is hostile to foreign workers, or foreigners generally.

The law says that charter schools cannot rely on non-immigrant foreign workers on H1B or J1 visas for more than 3.5 percent of their workforce in any given year. It also says that charter schools controlled by "foreign nationals" or those being investigated by the government for "questionable use of non-immigrant foreign worker visa programs," cannot be approved.

In a statement on the measure, Haslam said his state needs to focus on "attracting the best and brightest to Tennessee," and presumably, to its schools. The governor said he was comfortable allowing the bill to become law, because the language on hiring is "permissive and not mandatory," and "does not adversely impact the state's momentum in education reform."

But he also said he had legal concerns about the measure.

Haslam said he would request a formal opinion from the state's attorney general on whether it is constitutional. He said that it is important that local school districts "fully understand the implications of this law and their decisions about granting charter school applications."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Educators and policymakers have for years debated the academic performance of charter schools, when compared against traditional public schools. Now a new report focuses on charters' financial performance—and concludes that many well-known charter school networks spend more money than comparable, regular public schools.

The report, released by the National Education Policy Center, examines charter schools' spending, as measured by their 990 filings through the Internal Revenue Service, and other state and local data. It focuses on charter school spending in three states: New York, Ohio, and Texas, over a three-year-period, from 2008-2010.

But the findings are being strongly disputed by one of the charter operators cited in the report, KIPP, whose spokesman called its cost comparisons a "fiction" and said it does not present charter and regular public school expenses consistently, or transparently.

The report concludes that the charter school networks studied in New York spend more per pupil—in some cases, a lot more—than nearby traditional public schools that serve similar populations and grade levels, regardless of the size of school. Achievement First schools, the authors say, spent about $660 more, or 5 percent more, than the regular publics; Green Dot spent as much as $1,500 more, or 11 percent more; and Success Academies spent an additional $1,000, or 7.7 percent more. KIPP spending was significantly higher—33 percent, or $4,300 more per pupil, than comparable traditional public schools.

One of the takeaways from those cost comparisons, the authors argue, is that the costs of scaling up these charter schools can be high. Reproducing the models for relatively small populations—200 to 1,000 students—may be feasible, if private or philanthropic donations help cover costs. But if the same services are to be provided for 10,000 to 50,000 students, "philanthropy may no longer be sufficient," they write.

The findings were similar in Texas, where by the authors' calculations, spending by a number of charter school networks, including KIPP, was significantly greater than traditional public schools in the same city, as determined by their IRS filings. But in Ohio, charters consistently spent less than traditional public schools—anywhere between 10 percent and 30 percent less per pupil, the report found. But the authors say they suspect that the IRS data "does not provide a complete picture" of charter spending in Ohio, because the federal estimates are strikingly different from available state data. Overall, however, the authors say a clear picture emerges:

"These findings, coupled with evidence from other sources discussed earlier in this report, paint a compelling picture that 'no excuses' charter school models like those used in KIPP, Achievement First, and Uncommon Schools, including elements such as substantially increased time and small group tutoring, may come at a significant marginal cost."

"Marginal cost" is in this case the cost associated with implementing the charters' various educational and operational strategies.

The authors of the report said they focused on the three states because of the availability of financial data, and because they are home to charters operated by major nonprofit management organizations. The report's lead author is Bruce D. Baker of Rutgers University. The NEPC, based at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has published a number of studies over the years scrutinizing and, in some cases, questioning the performance of charters and schools and virtual education options, in comparison with traditional public schools. The NEPC says that its report was produced with funding from the Albert Shanker Institute, an organization established in honor of the late teachers' union leader, and the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, which is supported by the National Education Association and teacher union affiliates.

Officials at KIPP—officially known as the Knowledge is Power Program—said the report fails on several counts.

In New York, the charter operator says, the report lumps significant costs that are unrelated to schools into the per-student figures, such as the KIPP Through College support program, which serves graduates of the schools. Similar costs are not counted on the traditional schools' side, KIPP says.

In Texas, the figures for KIPP are also misleading, the charter operator argues. The majority of the KIPP schools included in the report were in "hyper-growth" mode at the time, which was driving up their per-pupil costs, said Steve Mancini, KIPP's national public affairs director, in an interview. But those KIPP schools were being compared against "fully mature" schools, whose per-pupil costs were lower and more stable, he said.

An official from another charter operator, Achievement First, seemed to have a similar response to the analysis.

"The research appears to take into account start-up costs for our schools," spokesman Mel Ochoa said in an email. "But Achievement First operates public charter schools at an average per-student cost equal to or less than its host public school districts in New York and Connecticut."

KIPP officials also noted that their schools in Texas did not have access to free or low-cost facilities, as regular public schools do. That means they have to use operating dollars to pay debt service, and secure facilities. Traditional publics, Mancini said, do not face comparable hurdles in that area. (In some cases, he said, KIPP officials could not discern from the report how per-pupil expenses at districts and charters are being calculated.)

Rather than offering an apples-to-apples spending comparison, "it's like the district schools are an apple, and KIPP is an apple tree," Mancini said. "The spending gap between KIPP and the districts is a fiction."

On Thursday, KIPP released a statement detailing what it sees as the report's shortcomings.

Baker, the report's primary author, disputed the idea that KIPP's growth would significantly inflate or distort its per-pupil spending. And he says that districts, like charters, have major expenses for maintenance and construction of buildings, and the issue does not undermine the findings. He added that his research on KIPP's college program would not "substantively change" estimates of KIPP's spending in New York.

"Indeed, the comparisons can never be perfectly apples to apples given differences in the governance and finance of these schools," Baker wrote in an email. "But I believe we have gone to great lengths to provide the most reasonable possible comparisons, and we have documented the heck out of what's in and not in each comparison."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 6:25 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican who recently won approval of a major private school voucher program, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who's been stymied on that front, are a couple of the top-draw speakers this week at national gathering of supporters of expanded school choice.

Earlier today, Christie addressed attendees the national policy summit of the American Federation for Children, which supports private school vouchers and has played an active role in backing legislative proposals on that front around the country.

Christie hit some familar notes, such as depicting the state's leading teachers' union, the New Jersey Education Association, as backward and obstructionist. He cited a litany of woes affecting schools in New Jersey's disadvantaged communities—including high dropout rates, dismal test scores, and the need for remediation when many students reach college—and said publicly funded vouchers should be an option for families with children stuck in failing schools.

The New Jersey governor wants lawmakers to back a voucher measure, the "Opportunity Scholarship Act." But he says he'll need some Democrats, whose party controls both legislative chambers in his state, to get behind it, for it to have a chance. As governor, Christie has proposed a pilot voucher program for disadvantaged students in academically low-performing districts. (In Louisiana, Jindal oversaw the passage of a large-scale voucher measure, albeit under favorable political conditions: he had the backing of a GOP-led legislature.)

Christie said Republican should be proud that elected leaders of their party are continuing to fight for private school choice. While saying "I don't want to make this partisan," Christie argued that many Democrats representing New Jersey's cities, in opposing private school vouchers, were not acting in their constitutents' best interests.

"I say this in urban communities all the time," the governor said. "You continue to vote for these folks, and put them in office, and they continue to not addess the needs of your families and your children."

You can catch Christie's full speech below:

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I recently wrote about an analysis of Michigan's education system that concluded that charter schools—contrary to what some of their backers claim—spend more on administrative costs, and less on instruction, than traditional public schools.

But you didn't really think that would be the final word on the subject, did you?

This week, a consultant writing for a charter school association takes issue with that claim, put forward in a study released by the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. In a blog post written for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Larry Maloney argues that the authors' research does not present a true comparison of administrative spending in charters and traditional publics, particularly in urban areas, such as charter school-rich Detroit.

The debate matters, because it speaks to one of the critical questions about charter schools—whether they do a better job of cutting through the so-called educational bureaucracy and administrative clutter in schools and direct more money to the classroom, where presumably it would have a greater impact on instruction. Many charter school backers say such schools can—and often do—act as efficient models for delivering education, while others say those claims are overblown.

Maloney, the president of Aspire Consulting, LLC, says that spending patterns for charters and traditional publics in urban areas tend to differ significantly from states as a whole. Detroit charters, for instance, receive less funding than traditional district schools. In fiscal 2011, for instance, Detroit public schools averaged 14 percent more in per-pupil revenue than charters, says Maloney. But when it comes to per-pupil spending on instruction, Detroit charters are spending more of the dollars available to them than traditional publics do, writes Maloney. That's consistent, he says, with patterns across other cities.

It's true that charters do outspend traditional publics on administrative costs—$722 per-pupil for charters, to $641 for traditional publics—but only when costs are measured a certain way, Maloney argues. He explains that urban charters must pay relatively high wages to attract talented administrators, and, if those schools have fewer students over which to spread that cost, a per-pupil analysis will show that they have higher administative expenses. But when it comes to other administrative cost categories, such as general administration or business administration, Detroit schools log lower costs than traditional publics, the author concludes. (See the chart, below.) Aspire Consulting is based in Washington, D.C., and its clients include foundations, think tanks, and universities. It is neutral on charters, specifically. It has conducted research on charter school funding for the pro-charter Thomas B. Fordham Institute, among others, and is currently analyzing spending on those schools in Detroit.

Detroit schools, adds Maloney, have taken steps to hold down costs in their administration: 86 percent of them had no salaried business manager on staff in fiscal 2011, relying instead on consultants and contractors to perform those duties.

The earlier study by the national center "is a point in time indicator alone," for judging administrative and instruction spending in charters, contends Maloney, who says that researchers need to consider that funding and spending "will vary within a state's largest cities where many charters provide services."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:50 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend