New Super named

Greetings from sunny Seattle. It's gorgeous here on a 5-acre lot full of old growth trees. If Washington had charter school's I'd be tempted to buy the lot next door.

I'm out of earshot, but not out of touch, thanks to Comcast at the sister-in-law's. So, I see the (unsurprising) report that Larry Shumway has been selected as the new Superientendent of Public Instruction.

I know of no way to judge people except by their observable actions and personal interactions. Here are some of mine with Mr. Shumway.

I first worked with him in 2007 when he was writing the State Board rule on implementing vouchers. He was personally opposed, of course, but wrote a pretty good rule, and made changes to it that I suggested. I found him to be professional and willing to follow laws and rules, even when he didn't like them. In our meetings together, he never advocated, but explained how he read the law and how that applied to a rule.

The rule never took effect because of the referendum and the Board's refusal to start the program in advance of it. Could Shumway have known that, and that's why he was so easy to work with on this? I choose to assume good will, professionalism, and honesty, which is borne out by further interactions.

Just several weeks ago I worked with him again on the issue of charter student participation in extracurricular activities. Here he said some enlightening things. He expressed frustration at districts excluding charter schools. He likened it to a car dealer refusing to allow a test drive for a person who bought their last car at a competing dealership. He thinks districts should see charter students as potential customers and treat them that way, allowing them to "sample" the district product as a way to win them back. I like that philosophy. While he and I disagreed over how broadly the law was written, his interpretation was reasonable based on the language of the statute.

On the other hand, he also made it clear that he is a "neighborhood public school guy." Nothing wrong with that--I'm a charter school guy, but think that traditional public schools are just fine and provide an education that works for many students.

I hear rumblings of nervousness from some charter folks about his appointment, but I must say that my own experience with him show him to be a reasonable and professional advocate for public schools. We'll see how that works in practice on choice, reform, local control, and innovation issues come up, but if he is willing to advocate for public charter schools as well as his preferred neighborhood schools, we'll be fine.

Laws that impact charter funding

In a slow state of news for charters (schools is ending for the year--that seems like a "malls are crowded" story at Christmas), there were two significant stories this week. Both have to do with laws that affect charter school funding.

The first is the dismissal of a lawsuit that "angry education officials" (Amy Stewart's words) filed over the education Omnibus bill of 2008. One part of that bill (SB2) allowed a portion of local district revenue to follow students when they leave to attend a charter school. The dismissal probably removes the threat that a judge would throw out that part of the law, and throw charter school funding into chaos. The supporters of the lawsuit are planning to appeal, a move the Tribune supports.

The other is on the national level. Education Secretary Arnie Duncan said that "States will hurt their chance to compete for millions of federal stimulus dollars if they fail to embrace innovations like charter schools" (a quote from the newspaper, not the secretary).

Having arbitrary caps on the number of charters or limiting the innovations they can bring to the education system will hurt the whole system, not only because a monopolistic system will calcify and stagnate, but because it will lose out on key funding to expand new programs.

Regulating inputs instead of measuring outcomes

In an innovation-limiting move, the State Charter School Board last week voted to require that all charter schools be accredited, and to limit their choices of accreditation options to only one. Now, charter schools will have to pay for and comply with the same bureaucracy-run stamp-of-approval board that accredits traditional public schools.

Now schools that are currently investing their money and energy in becoming recognized by another national education group (like Core Knowledge or International Baccalaureate) will have to double down to meet the exact same rigmarole that applies to district schools.

There's a principle of life being ignored here: if you want to see different outcomes, you need to have different inputs. This move limits the choices that schools can make about what schools can be, and therefore limits the range of programs outcomes we can expect from the charter movement, one of whose goals is to provide innovation and choice to Utah families.

New Governor

Charter schools saw huge growth and funding increases under Governor Huntsman. Charters are now absorbing about 60 percent of public school enrollment growth, and are near parity when compared to the funding of traditional public schools. Thank you Governor Huntsman.

That said, Soon-to-be-Governor Herbert has more of a philosphical grounding for his support of Charter Schools and education reform in general.

While Huntsman's term has been good for charters, I see the news that Herbert will be the new governor as good news for the movement.

No layoffs at Jordan

For those of us watching for tips about what districts are doing to cope with budget cuts, Jordan's information has been slow in coming. Both sides of the "old" Jordan have been so taken up with the split that they haven't been able to release information about their won budgets for next year.

Today, the DNews reports that Jordan (the west side) is planning no teacher layoffs. The district expects to eliminate positions through attrition (retirements and resignations). Unknown at this point is how salaries of teachers and staff will be affected, particularly by the potential reduction of professional development days.

Unionizing charter schools

Headline in the The Detroit News: "If you can't beat 'em, ruin 'em."

"The goal is to hold the charter schools to the same standard as traditional [public] schools."

If that's the case, charters will get the same results. You can't have innovation and improvement in outcomes, if you don't change any of the inputs.

That's why charters (and all schools actually) need waivers from one-size-fits-all rules, freedom to manage and govern schools locally, and accountability directly to parents.

What they don't need is regulations, labor contracts, and higher costs.

Layoffs and cuts in Jordan

The Jordan School District faces higher levels of funding reductions than most districts this year because of the district split. They are not only facing cuts in state funding, but also large reductions in local revenue because they are losing their largest property tax base--the southeast bench of Salt Lake County.

The most interesting sections from the Tribune story on how they may handle the cuts:

"Layoffs are imminent in Jordan School District, which is looking to reduce district-level staff next year by the equivalent of 122 full time employees."

"Teachers will be held harmless from job cuts...[but] are looking at a week's cut in pay because the Legislature wiped out paid professional training days."

Bad headline

The Utah Taxpayers' Association, a very charter friendly group, has an article in their most recent newsletter about the difference in "funding" for charters and district schools.

Surprise! Charters spend about ten percent (about $800) more per student than districts.

The problem comes in the headline, "Are Charter Schools Overfunded vs District Schools." The problem is that the article isn't about school funding, but about expenses. Charters are and continue to be funded by taxpayers at a lower level than district schools.

So if charters receive less funding, how are they spending more? Is that even worse? Are charters spending themselves into the ground? Are they the federal government, spending freely and not worrying about debts passed on to future taxpayers?

No. In fact the answer is simple: charters are growing fast (charter school absorb about 60 percent of the public school enrollment growth in Utah) and building new buildings. The Taxpayers' analysis looks at expenses incurred in a given year, and the purchase price of a new building counted all at once skews charter numbers higher.

For example, if three charter schools use tax exempt bonds to purchase their buildings this year, that is about $30 million. By having that "expense" in a single year, the overall charter per student "expenses" increase by about $1,000.

Looking more closely at the data reveals that charters are spending $1800 more on construction than districts. Why? Because charters are growing ten to twenty percent per year.

If you remove construction, which causes charter numbers to be skewed, and also food service and transportation, which causes district numbers to be comparatively higher than charters, then you end up with these expenses per student: Districts--$5913; Charters--$5137.

These numbers leave out the big costs of facilities, but does give a sense of how much more efficiently charter schools operate. In fact, operational costs for charters are about 15 percent lower than districts.

Over the last few years as more and more charter schools have been able to purchase their buildings, charters have spent more per student than districts, but that additional spending comes in the form of debt service to finance the facility. Charters remain funded lower and have a lower operational cost than district schools.

Don't think outside our box AT ALL!

Again, the state board of education has hypocritically denied local control. John Hancock Charter School's request for a waiver from the counselor ratio (which would force this small school to hire .11111... of a school counselor) was denied by a State Board of Education that consistently complains about the legislature interfering with local control.

How bad is it? Members of the Board want charters treated exactly the same as all other public schools. "'If charter schools want to be schools they have to abide by the rules. They need to do what the other schools do,' said board member Denis Morrill."

"Board member Carol Murphy said, 'I don't see a good reason not to have a counselor.'" That's good, Carol. Substitute your judgment for the considered reasoning of the parents and administration actually at this school.

Ignoring the charter law that specifically allows for and encourages waivers for charters, and intends that charters be incubators of new educational models, the SBE wants charters to just be any other public school.

At least the SBE's old mantra was "Think outside the box, just stay in this slightly bigger box." Now it's "Don't think outside our box at all!"

Royal treatment

Rockwell Charter High makes it in the news for their Charter School Week event with the Queen's royal guard.

**UPDATE**
A longer story with more pictures ran in the Daily Herald.

Could Granite High pull a Canyon Rim?

The Granite Board of Education voted to close Granite High School yesterday, shuttering a 100-year-old high school that served students who "failed to thrive elsewhere."

A few years ago when Granite closed Canyon Rim elementary, that school reopened as a charter school. Granite could do the same either by writing a new charter with a waiver to open without waiting the two years normally required for new schools, or by its staff voting to convert to a charter.

Ironically and funny...

I'm not being critical of district schools. This happens everywhere; I just happened to be driving by and saw this. It's always ironic when schools misuse grammar so publicly.

Less money, more reports

Schools will have to compile new reports on how budget reductions were made, and will be asked (required eventually?) to make long-term reductions part of their plans, since federal stimulus money is likely not available next year.

See story on State Board action here.