State retirement systems lose billions

As if there was more evidence needed that state retirement systems are largely a sham designed for the benefit of public employee unions and that specifically undermine the long-term interests of public employees, here's this report showing that public pension systems racked up losses of more than $600 billion dollars in 2009.

Private retirement accounts lost money, too during the downturn and stock market crash of that year. But the major difference for employees is that in the private accounts, the employees have ownership, and therefore can move their investments to less volatile ones, and make up the difference with increased contributions in the future.

DNews blog focusing on charters

The DNews education reform blog "Educating Ourselves" is running a series of pieces on charter schools.

Monitoring visit at Grand County School District

I participated in a Title I monitoring visit at Grand County School District this morning. The process involves observing classrooms, interviewing parents, teachers, and administrators, reviewing financial and personnel records, and a bit more to ensure that schools are using Title I money appropriately and are getting decent results.

I only mention it because, in the charter school world, I typically am involved with parents who have specifically chosen to leave the school district and its programs. For various reasons, they've found that the district wasn't providing the education they wanted for their children. They are often a bit jaded about districts and district schools.

So it was interesting today to hear from parents who specifically chose to stay. These parents like the programs, the teachers, the help they get from faculty and staff, and the extra programs that are helping their kids be successful in school.

And that's why people who support the choice of charters should also support other choice options, from districts, to online schools, to home schools, to private schools. All parents and children deserve the ability to choose among several options which one (or ones) are right for them.

I used to use this object lesson as a teacher

When I was a teacher and principal, this was the best way to get kids to think about the effects of socialism.

About half the kids liked the idea of their grades going up. Of course, the better performing kids (the "super rich," if you will) hated it. But it only took a few more questions and scenarios to help everyone see that instead of splitting the difference between "rich" and "poor," such a system really makes everyone's grades go down to the lowest level.

Why would the A students keep studying and working so hard if, no matter how hard they worked, they got the same grade as those who didn't study at all?

Pretty soon, you don't have a "society" getting straight B-minuses, you get a class getting straight Fs.

New chair of the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee seeks reform

From a great opinion piece by George Will:

He [Rep. John Kline, a Minnesota Republican] emphatically favors “a greatly reduced federal footprint” in primary and secondary education. About NCLB, he is decorous, calling it “well-intentioned.” What do teachers in his district think? “They hate it.”

This is understandable, given Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s recent estimate that more than 80,000 of the nation’s 100,000 public schools are going to fail to meet NCLB’s requirement of “adequate yearly progress” when that is measured in testing this spring.

Duncan says 82 percent could fail, compared with 37 percent last year. Such a one-year increase would be startling, but the trend is inauspicious: 28 percent failed in the 2006-07 school year.

And success — make that “success” — might be worse than failure. NCLB decrees that schools shall achieve 100 percent proficiency by 2014, which is a powerful incentive for states to define proficiency down. The New York Times reports:

“In South Carolina, about 81 percent of elementary and middle schools missed targets in 2008. The state Legislature responded by reducing the level of achievement defined as proficient, and the next year the proportion of South Carolina schools missing targets dropped to 41 percent.”

Kline promises that the current system for measuring “adequate yearly progress” “will not exist when we are done.” And he says “we have to get rid of this ‘highly qualified teacher’ thing” in NCLB. He thinks “qualified” is shorthand for teachers processed by the normal credentialing apparatus of education schools and departments. The stress, Kline says, should be on “highly effective teachers.” He favors more charter schools — public schools operating outside union restrictions. He notes that when unions say these schools are “unfair” because “they work under different rules,” he tersely responds: “Precisely.”

Tribune story on "school funding" explains nothing about school funding

"How do schools spend your money?" That's the headline for this Tribune story that literally explains nothing at all about how schools spend money.

Instead, the article helpfully explains that school funding in Utah is "complex." Any details? No. Any information on how schools use the funding they get? No. Really, the article is just a call to raise taxes. Seriously. They mention raising taxes no fewer than seven times, and eliminating tax deductions and past tax reductions even more.

What a missed opportunity. Utah's education funding is complex--very complex, and that complexity means the dollars we do have (lowest in the country, the article points out several times) can't be used efficiently. Rules and compliance standards mean that even small programs that complexify the system are a drain on resources because districts must spend to much money on tracking and complying with more than forty separate state and federal programs. These programs individually make up only a small percentage of school funding, but I believe that complying with them takes up almost a majority of school administration expenses.

Perhaps one day I'll write about the actual problems with how schools are required to spend and track funding. For now, I'll simply say this:

Charters exist on less money per student than school districts. They have a higher per student administrative burden, because each individual charter school has the same compliance standard for perhaps several hundred students that a district has for many thousands.

Yet, while it's not uncommon, according to the picture painted by the article, to find classes in districts with 31 students or more--increasing class sizes is how districts often cope with budget cuts--most charters never see classes above 25 students.

Even with the complexity of Utah's funding system, with the heavy compliance standards that are placed on school administrators and school budgets, charters show that, with the proper priorities, schools can still focus dollars on things that matter most.

Charter news briefs

From across the country. Be sure to check out the last one--a charter converting to a tuition free private school for a year in a bid to find a new authorizer.

• The 100-school limit on charter schools in North Carolina has been lifted by the Republican state legislature, but could fall victim to a veto by Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue.
• A 27-count indictment was unsealed Thursday by the US Department of Justice revealing massive fraud and misuse of funds by the former President of the Board and former CEO of a Philadelphia-based charter school.
  
• A New Jersey Democrat in the state legislature proposes to have all charter schools approved by voters in the local school district before opening.
• After its authorizer declined to renew its charter, a Georgia charter school will convert to a private school--a tuition free private school--next year. The school's for-profit management company will foot the entire bill for the school's operation for the year, and the school will seek authorization through a new state Commission that can begin authorizing schools for starting in 2012.

Can't we all just get along?

In the midst of a discussion about something completely unrelated, the State Charter Board today veered into a discussion of the unfortunate state of communication between charter schools and school districts. If we're all in this for the kids, Charmian Tom Morgan wondered, why do charter schools see the process of notifying school districts of their expansion and building plans as checking a required and unwanted box, instead of talking to a teammate?

"You're talking about the way things ought to be," John Pingree replied, "not the way things are." Others on the board also lamented the sad fact that there is any enmity between the two models of public schools, and that we should all cooperate for the common good.

The board wasn't taking public comment at the time, but as luck would have it, I can share my contrary point of view on my blog.

Let's get the controversy out of the way right up front. Charter schools don't owe school districts anything, nor do districts owe anything back. The interests of a school, a district, or of a school system should never be a higher than our commitment to students. Getting along as different branches of a system isn't a higher priority than improving education for students. All schools (districts and charters) owe the taxpayers efficient and appropriate use of the funds entrusted to them, and owe students and families the best education they can provide with available funding.

One of the principles behind the very idea of charter schools is that competition among different models will improve the quality of those schools as parents and students choose those that perform better. If that principle is true, then efforts that undermine competition for the sake of improving central planning or getting along better will also undermine the desired goal of improving education.

Am I against good communication and good relationships between charters and districts, or charters and other charters? No. All are playing in the same sandbox, and students and taxpayers will be better served if all models of school can play nicely together.

But school districts are not entitled to any students, nor are they entitled to go back to the days when there was no competition in the public education marketplace, when a district could build wherever, draw boundaries however, and teach however they wanted without worrying about parents and students leaving for a better and more convenient option.

Remember, the result of no competition in public education was a unionized, calcified, bureaucratic system, less responsive to the needs of students and the desires of parents. Charters are here because we believe that competition and choice, for all the headaches it may create for those that compete, is a better alternative for taxpayers and children than a union-dominated, centrally controlled monopoly.

Let's not chip away at that system because of its drawbacks (which are far outweighed by the benefits) or for the cause of better relations between the adults who are paid by the system. Having schools compete will be better for students.

I got the question today...

..."What is the difference between charter schools and public schools?"

Skipping the "charter schools are public schools" response, I said:

There are three things that set charters apart:

• Charters have no boundaries. Therefore, no families are ever assigned to attend. Every family that sends a child to a charter school has made a choice, and therefore an investment, in the school. That makes a tremendous difference in the attitude, support, and outlook of families and students at charters.
• Charters are free from union and state employment rules. They can let bad teachers go.
• Charters have a one-to-one governance model, where a board and superintendent are responsible for and responsive to a single school.

The other differences between a charter and a local district school flow from these three. Do they have a different math curriculum? Any district could implement any math program (consistent with state core standards) in any school. Does a charter have smaller classes? Aides in the classrooms? That's nothing different than anything a school district could do if it chose.

In short, charters have three real advantages: choice, some critical bureaucratic exemptions, and local control. I hope that these advantages are spread throughout the system. That parents are given more choice, that schools and their leaders have more local control, and that they have more autonomy to implement innovative practices in employment, curriculum, and policy.

Back to 180 days

After two years of blanket waivers, schools will no longer be able to trim the school year back to cope with budget shortfalls, the State Board of Education decided on Friday.

"For the 2010 and 2011 school years, districts were able to cut up to five instructional days from their calendars. With less revenue coming from state and local sources, the furlough days were a way of trimming budgets significantly without making deeper personnel cuts."

West Valley Mayor tours School for New Americans

 

The cliff is here

For two years schools have known of the funding cliff that comes when all federal stimulus dollars run out. That happened for some schools last year. With my schools, we drew the funding out to provide support and stability this year also. In either case, schools will be operating next year on less money than was available this year.

Hope schools have budgeted carefully. 2011-2012 will be a financially trying year for schools that have operated too close to the margins of their operational budgets.

Lakeview gets new direction

Lakeview Academy (a client of mine--in fact I'm writing this from Lakeview, where I am serving for the moment as an interim assistant director) made a leadership change last week. The former principal, assistant, and curriculum director are no longer with the school. Here's the Daily Herald's fairly confusing take.