The Chalkboard: 12/01/2010

Friday, December 31, 2010

Education Funding Hostage to Pension Costs

On March 30, 1999, the Dow Jones Industrial Average breached 10,000 for the first time. Eleven years and nine months later, the Dow hovers just below 11,600, less than 16 percent higher. The Nasdaq technology index breached 5,000 in March 2000; today, it's little more than half its peak.

This long-term "bear" market matters greatly to education finance, and more broadly, the financing of public services. That is because public employees, including teachers, are commonly members of guarantee benefit pension plans, which means as retirees, they receive a set level of payment based on years of service and their highest salary levels. Most public employees in New York contribute little to their pension plans thanks to pension "sweeteners" granted by the state legislature at the behest of the government employee unions, especially when the economy was growing.

With the economy having soured in recent years, and the stock market remaining stagnant, pension fund investments have had paltry returns, which requires state and local governments and school districts to make up the shortfall by paying higher payments from taxes to meet the actuarial demands of their pension plans to "guarantee" the promised benefits.

Higher Retiree Costs Divert Funding from Students

As pensions cost more, education funding gets diverted from salaries and classroom needs to meet the expenses of current and future retirees. That pressure is becoming ever greater as school districts and localities face even higher property taxes to meet growing pension obligations. A Syracuse Post Standard article this week describes this growing, unsustainable problem.

Last year, the state legislature made a feeble attempt to control pension costs for new employees by creating a new retirement tier ("Tier V") that requires greater employee contributions, though it maintained the guaranteed benefit structure. New such tiers are required since the New York State Constitution prevents the state from lowering existing retiree benefits.

Pension Reform A Certainty - Details Matter

Andrew Cuomo, who becomes Governor at the stroke of midnight tonight, has committed to creating a new pension tier, but it remains unclear whether he will propose to continue guaranteeing benefits, or whether he will try to change to a 401(k)-style contribution system, which is now the private sector norm, and thus scrap the high-cost guarantee system for new public employees.

The public employee unions have vowed to fight any such change in pension benefits, even though all current employees would be unaffected. This obstinate stance by the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) and other groups, expressed to the Post Standard, is folly and self-defeating, since it failure to lower pension costs will financially hurt their own member teachers' ability to increase salaries and meet education needs of students.

Pension costs are clearly at a breaking point for state and local governments, especially here in New York, and this will be on the front- burner of Gov. Cuomo's fiscal agenda. The half-measures of the past haven't ameliorated the problem, which now becomes his (and the public's) worsening problem.

Peter Murphy

for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26

Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Out-smarting Smart Money on Charters - Last of a Series

The Chalkboard concludes its series that responds to and refutes the criticism leveled by the Smart Money blog against charter schools as part of its series on "10 Things;" in this case that charter schools allegedly "won't tell you" or don't want you to know. The first six accusations (falsehoods, actually) have been addressed previously, on The Chalkboard over the last three weeks, and this post responds to the last four items in concise fashion.

Marketing to Students

Number 7 appears to criticize charter schools for marketing techniques to attract students; for example, by mentioning ubiquitous ads from the Success Charter Network in upper Manhattan, and schools in Colorado and Louisiana that gave out gift cards and cash to students. Now, coming from a subsidiary of Dow Jones, Inc., Smart Money's criticism is odd. One of the central tenets are charters is that student families have a choice to attend (or not attend), which means charter schools must attract them, starting with being quality schools. If well known and successful organizations and companies must still advertise, certainly charter schools also must. Furthermore, private schools and colleges use financial incentives to attract students, why not charter schools?

Student Attrition

Number 8 asserts that charter schools can "push" students out "if they don't perform" but then provides no evidence of this practice -- zero -- which makes this attack all the more crass. Instead, it cites KIPP schools that do not backfill vacant seats in grades when students leave during the school year, which is a very different practice than "pushing" students out the door.

School districts have long criticized certain charter schools for alleged student turnover, which is hardly unique to that sector since school districts also have student turnover. Students depart from school for a variety of reasons, including their families moving away. However, charter schools are schools of choice, which means families can send or remove their students, unlike a zoned district school with no other choice options. Moreover, charter schools also have far less social promotion than school districts, which by contrast, advance too many students who are not at grade level competency. That causes attrition in charter schools from families who object to their students being held back, while the district will "advance" them regardless.

Raising Private $ for Public Education

Then there is Number 9 on the Smart Money blog list, that charter school success allegedly "can be bought." The evidence presented is that of the Harlem Children's Zone network of schools, headed by Geoffrey Canada, who has raised millions of private dollars to support public charter schools (something school districts do as well, but omitted by the blog). One of the hilarity's of this factoid by the blog is that HCZ is more the exception than the rule for charter schools; that is, the vast majority of the nation's 4,000 charters do not raise money this way. The reality is the opposite: charter schools get far less money than district schools on a per pupil basis, virtually without exception in every state - a salient disadvantage to charters that Smart Money fails to acknowledge.

Serving Low-Income Students

Finally, the tenth item on Smart Money's blog list raises the issue that "teachers can only do so much." This assertion is true enough, but it's unclear why it's on the charter list. The blog then quotes the garrulous charter school critic, Diane Ravitch, as public education's latest excuse-maker by reiterating that family income is the "single biggest predictor of student performance."

Unmentioned is the fact that charter schools have primarily located in low-income areas to better serve students with this very disadvantage to help them overcome. Since income levels will forever vary widely among student households, and since public funding has limits, the choice and innovation brought by charter schools are an essential--though not the only--ingredient to improving public education for students, especially those from low-income areas and who are at a disadvantage compared to students from more affluent areas.

Much more can be said to challenge Smart Money's 10 Things list on charter schools, but hopefully enough has been mentioned to illustrate how vacuous and erroneous its attacks have been.

Peter Murphy

for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26

Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

A Taste For What's in Store on Property Tax Cap

Last week, The Chalkboard discussed the property tax cap proposed by soon-to-be Gov. Andrew Cuomo and some of its many implications for state and local finances, including the need for concomitant state mandate relief on local governments and school districts to ease their spending pressures.

Mandate relief is a long spoken of topic in the state Capitol that never goes away since so little has been done by the state in this regard. That's because state mandates which require localities to spend money are in effect for the benefit of some (usually large) group and therefore not easily repealed.

One of the many beneficiaries of state-imposed mandated spending on localities and school districts are the labor unions, a coalition of which spoke out strongly last week to oppose the Cuomo property tax cap. New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness lashed out at the tax cap idea, claiming it would "decimate" services that are relied upon by the public. "Decimate" is certainly debatable, defined in Webster's as "to destroy or kill a large part of".

Unions Will Oppose Lower Spending

What is not debatable is that fiscal retrenchment at the state and local level--with, or without a tax cap--is going to continue and to a greater degree with a new governor having to deal with a $9 billion-plus budget gap and who is four years from his own re-election. That will mean fewer public employees can be kept on government and school district payrolls. As school districts continue to lower spending, charter school funding also will continue to drop in more areas of the state.

This labor coalition group is backed by the state's largest public sector unions, including SEIU 1199, which organizes hospital and health care employees; the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) representing many state and municipal government workers; and our old friends, the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT). These organizations can run very expensive television and radio ad campaigns, and we can expect more highly-charged vocabulary on the airwaves in opposition to Cuomo's tax cap and other proposals for state and local budget reductions.

New Governors Face Large Budget Gaps

Almost every new governor in the last 35 years entered office facing a huge deficit, going back to Hugh Carey (1975), Mario Cuomo (1983, and after re-election, in 1991), and George Pataki in 1995. The hue and cry from opponents of budget cutting are predictable, but it won't ultimately prevent the lower spending medicine that will be applied, especially in the first year of a new administration. Only Eliot Spitzer, in 2007, faced the opposite: booming state revenues from which he spent lavishly, with a 10 percent increase in his first and only budget as Governor. This unsustainable pace contributed to the built-in structural deficit that Gov. Cuomo now must deal with, even as he promises New Yorkers relief from high taxes.

60 Percent Vote to Exempt from Cap

Will Cuomo deliver on his property tax cap and cut the budget? I suspect he will, similar to the way Pataki did when he cut spending in 1995 in absolute terms with a lower budget than the prior year, while also cutting income taxes substantially to fulfill his own campaign promise. The labor unions that oppose the new Governor will try to exact some compromises on the details of the Governor's tax cap (similar to Pataki reducing the size of his income tax cut plan). Moreover, property tax cap opponents have an "out" at the local level as Cuomo's plan provides the option for a school district or local board to vote by a 60 percent majority to be exempt from the tax cap in a given year. For many school, town and village boards with five members, 60 percent is actually a simple majority.

The imminent budget and tax battles in the Albany state Capitol will get loud, interesting - and all too familiar in the weeks and months ahead.

Peter Murphy

for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26

Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Property Tax Cap Will Necessitate Tangible Mandate Relief for Localities

Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo wasn't merely offering campaign rhetoric on capping property taxes. Insider accounts are that he is in heavy pursuit of his proposal to limit annual property tax increases to 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. The New York Times recently provided an account of this development as the Cuomo administration takes shape to assume office on January 1st.

The New York Ed Reform Blog also provides a valuable discussion of the property tax cap's implications for local finances, particularly on education funding, along with some background and history on this high-profile policy issue.

A property tax cap is viewed as deadly by school districts and local governments, including counties, all of which blame the state government for causing property tax levies to increase via state mandates. Labor unions also hate this idea, including the teacher unions, heath care workers (SEIU), transit workers, CSEA -- you name it. A proposal to limit local revenue is understandably viewed as limiting their chief source of funding for their members. Local school property taxes alone have been increasing annually by nearly 7 percent on average; meaning that a 2 percent or inflationary limit would sharply curtail this revenue source, even as state aid is expected to remain flat, at best, for next year (which is basically the Regents' proposal).

State government mandates on school districts and localities do indeed drive up costs and, therefore, property taxes. Among the largest examples are Medicaid costs shared by county governments (and NYC); and prevailing wage requirements and ever-sky-rocketing defined-benefit pension guarantees borne by all local governments and school districts. The Cuomo campaign acknowledged much of this mandate problem, and pledged to lower state costs on localities, though details were more scant.

Regents/State Ed Call for Mandate Relief for School Districts

The new Governor will have to address such cost-drivers as he pushes his property tax cap proposal. He can start by demanding from every state agency a list of mandates imposed on localities and proposals to scrap them, along with the implications for doing so. This is a familiar subject for bureaucracies since they have day-to-day familiarity. The state Board of Regents this week mentioned mandate relief "which could address" requirements for special education, middle school, seat time, and planning and reporting (emphasis mine). This proposal, if one could call it that, is buried on page 19 of its state aid proposal for the 2011-12 school year.

"Which could address"? This is no time for the Education Department and Regents to be skittish with such brief mention of this important issue. Instead, they should be diving into the details of genuine mandate relief rather than this speculative dipping-of-the-toe routine.

No doubt the teacher unions and many legislators would object to repealing many state mandates (which is why they remain on the books), but the education funding retrenchment and imminent limitations on local taxing demand a serious state push to lower education costs. A great place to start would be to review the plethora of recommendations from the New York State School Boards Association's 2008 report on mandate relief. Just as SED and the Regents boldly led the state's agenda in pursuit of Race to the Top funding last year, they are exactly the entities to lead on ways for school districts to lower expenses to cope with the coming property tax cap.

Tax Cap Certain - Debate on Details

As the Ed Reform Blog points out, the stars are aligning for a property tax cap deal in 2011, with a new Governor's substantial political clout, a strongly supportive electorate, and a more willing legislature. This is in sharp contrast to 13 years ago when then-Gov. Pataki's school tax cap proposal, with higher limits, was never seriously considered by the legislature, which bowed to pressure from the teachers unions and education establishment.

No doubt the unions, school boards and education associations will be pushing back this year on any limits to their local revenue, just as municipal organizations like the New York Conference of Mayors have begun to do this week (NYCOM also issued a compelling mandate relief agenda). While a property tax cap has been thwarted in the past, the issue today is not whether a property tax cap will exist, but what final form it takes when (not if) it is enacted by the legislature. Keep in mind, the state Senate already passed a tax cap bill on a bipartisan approval last August; and the Assembly, led by Speaker Sheldon Silver, will be more accommodating of the new Governor, compared to the current, outgoing one.

School districts and charter schools will have to prepare for ongoing funding limits, and the incoming Cuomo administration and the Regents need to push for concomitant mandate relief.

Peter Murphy

for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26

Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Charters Scrutinized Over Money by Smart Money (4th of a Series)

In Smart Money magazine's blog series "10 Things," charter schools are attacked with series of claims based mostly on anecdotes, the result of which is to paint a broad negative brush. The Chalkboard set about to refute these attacks on charters, particularly with respect to New York where we are based. The first three installments are here, here and here.

Number six of Smart Money's "10 Things" claims that charter school operators believe "we don't have to tell you where your tax dollars are going." This is absurd on its face.

Charter schools are both academically and financially accountable. New York's charter law, for instance, requires charter schools to operate in an "educationally and fiscally sound manner" and the government overseers of charter schools are charged with examining the records of any and all charter schools. These provisions are common to any charter school law in the country, and they are rigorously enforced in New York as charters are subject to extensive accountability and transparency requirements.

Charters Face Detailed Financial Oversight

The State University of New York, for example, has detailed financial oversight of and reporting requirements for charter schools, which can be viewed here; along with the state Education Department, which has its financial audit and oversight protocols here. In addition, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers provides a range of technical assistance and guidance on financial oversight and practices to both authorizers and schools (here).

Charter schools in New York and probably every other state also are subject to freedom of information requirements, which would include school finances and contracts; and are subject to open meetings laws. In addition, charter schools in New York can be inspected by the school district in which they are located.

NYCSA Lawsuit Against State Comptroller Audits

The Smart Money blog did reference the successful lawsuit by the New York Charter Schools Association (and the NYC Charter School Center) to block the New York State Comptroller's office from auditing charter schools, as though to demonstrate the blog's specious claim about charter school finances. At least the blog allowed me to counter this claim by explaining that this lawsuit was about state constitutional jurisdiction over who conducts audits of charter schools, and not about auditing itself, which can be done by duly authorized agencies (see above).

This lawsuit against the Comptroller is explained in more detail here and here, the upshot of which is that New York charter schools have more than sufficient financial oversight by other state agencies (whose oversight of charters is in fact subject to Comptroller audits) and the New York State Constitution circumscribes the Comptroller's powers, which the state's highest court reaffirmed in our lawsuit.

A charter school, like any school district, government agency, private contractor or community organization, can misbehave by mismanaging public funds, which is the whole purpose of having such extensive regulatory oversight so as to minimize the possibility and act swiftly should it occur. No charter school operator or advocate would defend any financial irregularities or cover-up; nor should charter schools be accused by Smart Money's blog of being indifferent to financial oversight or furtive about their stewardship of public funding since there is no systemic basis for such.

Peter Murphy

for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26

Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Monday, December 13, 2010

Implementing School "Turnaround" Risks Paying for More Failure

Last week the state Education Department announced that it designated 67 schools as "persistently lowest achieving" from having very low percentages of students meeting English and mathematics standards for several years. Such designation requires each school to implement a "major intervention" plan to improve student academic outcomes.

Schools will be provided up to $6 million over a three-year period as part of the federal Race to the Top grant awarded to the state to implement one of four intervention strategies: turnaround, restart (which includes converting to a charter school), closure or transformation. Each of these strategies is outlined in the Department's announcement, with the first three having some teeth: that is, turnaround, restart and closure, each to some degree hold the adults in the school building accountable for the poor results of the students. As such, staff and leadership can be replaced to some degree.

School "Transformation" Model a Ruse

The so-called "transformation" model is where this whole intervention strategy could fail, since this option does not amount to even a wrist-slap and has the perversity of rewarding districts for failure - and reinforcing it. Districts that opt for this approach merely have to implement a "rigorous and equitable evaluation" system and provide "ample professional development," after which they could remove staff. How and when this unfolds remains inchoate and shallow.

Two of the 67 persistently lowest achieving schools are located in Albany: the district's only high school, and Hackett Middle School. From reading the Albany school district's own press release on these schools being given such dubious designation, they sure don't seem worried about accountability and radical change. In fact, Albany will have even more money to spend from both the Race to the Top grants and a federal magnet fund grant of $9 million for Albany High School. If ever there is an example of throwing good money after bad, this is it.

Putting Teeth Into Turnaroud

Last year, state Commissioner of Education David Steiner and his team got the state Board of Regents to approve an impressive package of reforms to implement as part of its federal Race to the Top strategy to improve schools. The challenge State Ed now is to give this new intervention program real teeth and accountability to get better student outcomes, rather than acquiesce to the the same promises to improve under new school district and union rhetoric. That should mean forcing school districts beyond this toothless "transformation" model of spending more money on the same people using cosmetic school design changes, all under the same union contracts - and that's the rub.

The dirty little secret in all of this is that absent real accountability, including changes in staff and work rules in the union contracts (which also should include paying bonuses to successful teachers), this intervention program will produce little if any tangible improvement for students, and more millions of dollars will go to waste.

A start would be to force school district intervention plans to reflect the one implemented in Central Falls, Rhode Island, where the superintendent of schools fired the entire high school staff, which subsequently forced adoption of significant contract changes. This oh-so-rare superintendent prevailed (and even had the support of President Obama).

That should be tried here in New York, if students in persistently low-performing schools are to be the priority over the adults and the system.

Peter Murphy

for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26

Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Friday, December 10, 2010

Smart Money Blog's Religious Negativism (3rd of a Series)

The Smart Money magazine's blog on "10 Things" that charter schools supposedly "won't tell you" seems to read nastier each time I review it. This piece is so slanted that The Chalkboard has undergone a series to refute it, this one being the third. (The first two are here and here.)

Number five of the 10 Things claims that some charter schools have "found a loophole" in the doctrine of "separation of church and state" that supposedly bans religion in public schools, and that charter schools around the country have been established by Christian organizations, as well as Hebrew and Arabic groups.
Why, Heaven forbid!

Last I checked on the U.S. Constitution, there is nothing prohibiting people with common religious background to establish a charter school, and to attempt to prohibit such would be discriminatory. Indeed, there are public schools all over the U.S., district and charter, that incorporate religiously-based themes in curriculum which pass constitutional muster and therefore do not "cross the line." Perhaps the biggest misnomer from critics of religious influences in public schools, including assertions by the iconoclastic Diane Ravitch, cited by Smart Money, is that they know where the constitutional "line" is drawn.

Constitutional Boundaries between Religion & Public Schools
The U.S. Supreme Court in the last 47 years has issued a series of rulings that set forth the constitutional boundaries that define the allowable use and presence of religion in public education beginning with the famous 1963 case, Abington v. Schempp, that prohibited state-sponsored religious practices in public schools. This decision also acknowledged that "one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization;" and that "the Bible [and other religious texts] is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities...when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education."

If there is any "blurring of the line" between separation of church and state, you can blame the Supreme Court itself, since case law provides for such blurring (perhaps because the well-worn phrase "wall of separation between church and state" is not in the U.S. Constitution). This was evident in a more recent cases where the Court held that it has "long been recognized that the government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment (Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida, 1987). In other cases the Court affirmed that schools can offer optional courses of particular interest to a religious faith and allow student-initiated religious activity during the school day, among other accommodations that were established in the Equal Access Act of 1984 by the U.S. Congress.

The U.S. Department of Education provides detailed guidelines for "Religious Expression in Public Schools" which effectively sets the boundaries of permissible and prohibited activities set forth by Supreme Court case law. This document also was created with the input of a variety of religious and public school organizations, including the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the American Jewish Congress. These guidelines, as well as state-specific case law such as New York's "Blaine Amendment" to its state constitution, are what governs charter school authorizers and school districts in the process of approving and monitoring public schools.

Accommodating Religious Freedom
With this backdrop, charter schools have indeed been used by religious organizations to establish programming that remains within constitutional boundaries, most recently with the conversion of seven Catholic schools in D.C. in 2008 (six now remain); and other Catholic schools in Indianapolis, Miami and in the state of Texas. The Catholic archdiocese of Brooklyn has sought to convert several of its schools to charter schools, with the support of New York City Mayor Bloomberg; and, while this plan is constitutional, it would require a change in the state's charter law to permit such conversions of private schools to charter.

Building on these trends, a recent report by the New York Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability outlines a series of ways by which charter schools could be used by financially-struggling Catholic schools to provide an educational option as these religious schools face closures. This report also provides useful background and discussion of the constitutional boundaries--both federal and state--between religion and public education.

The bottom line in all of this is that religion can and does have an appropriate place in charter and district public schools, consistent with Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. And, the teaching about religion, as advocated by Boston University Professor Stephen Prothero in his best-selling book, "Religious Literacy," would expand student knowledge in many intrinsic and practical ways. With proper governmental oversight, there is no valid reason to wax paranoid of, or discourage, religious influences in public education, including in charter schools.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
Twitter.com/petermurphy26
Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

The Freeze Attempt Melts: Charter Funding Remains at 2010-11 Rates

The 2009-10 state legislature closed out its remaining business late yesterday afternoon when the Senate gaveled out and adjourned for the year; the Assembly already did so last week. Though a number of bills were passed, including an appropriation bill to spend $607 million in new federal education funding for school districts, neither house acted on Governor Paterson's proposal to cut charter school funding to levels in place in the 2008-09 school year.

The legislature's inaction on this bill this month, which was a repeat of the August special session, effectively kills the effort to cut charter funding to levels from two years prior. Accordingly, charter schools are owed the current-year, 2010-11 payment levels which are calculated by the state Education Department based on each school district's operating expenditures.

Of course, the annual effort to unfairly cut charter school funding could resurface next month when the new legislative session begins, so this fight will continue. But, with half the school year nearly over, this funding "freeze" has properly remained expired.

School Districts Play "Reverse Robin Hood"

Most school districts, including Albany and Buffalo, have refused to pay these legal amounts in the vain hope the legislature would retroactively impose a funding cut on charter schools, which then would allow the districts to pocket the additional funding previously belonging to its resident charter students. The irony (dare I say, greediness) of this school district approach is they receive state aid for every charter student and they already spend more money per student, as much as 30 percent more, yet still wanted to roll back charter funding by two years.

Simply put, charter students are not typically viewed by school district administrators as the same as students within the four walls of a district building, even though both charter and district students are in the public school system, and may even live in the same dwelling. Because most school districts hold this view, most have been in full throttle to take from one who starts with less funding (the charter student) and give more to the other who already has more (district student). Call it the reverse Robin Hood approach to charter funding.

Teacher Union Sought to Cut Charter $

The state teacher union and at least one of its front-group allies also were seeking to cut charter school funding this past week, as they have for the last two years, particularly lobbyists for NYSUT; and the Alliance for Quality Education (except for charters), led by the loquacious Billy Easton. Every teacher working in a charter school--especially those who pay NYSUT dues--should be reminded of NYSUT's never-ceasing effort to cut charter school funding, which was again on full display at the state Capitol in the last week. Teachers who pay union dues to NYSUT are fueling the union's efforts to take money from them so it can flow instead to district teachers. It's that stark.

A better approach for NYSUT, and for all advocates of public education, would be to seek more funding for school districts and equal funding for charters, rather than trying to financially harm charter schools. An example of this approach was achieved in 2007 when the legislature enacted "transitional" school aid for districts who lose students to charter schools, which has since provided Albany, Buffalo and other districts millions of dollars more in state funding.

State Ed. Role

Nearly half-way through the current school fiscal year, school districts are out of excuses for not paying in full for their resident charter students. It's also not enough for the state Education Department to intercept the state aid payments for any recalcitrant districts; rather, the Department needs to require districts to comply with education law, and preclude the need for intercepts.

The charter funding "freeze" hasn't just melted. It's evaporated. This outcome was life and death for charters since their funding already is heading south due to its formula tie-in with decreasing school district spending that will continue.

Peter Murphy

for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26

Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Not-so-Smart Money About Charter Schools & Special Ed. (2nd of a Series)

The Chalkboard began yesterday to refute the Smart Money blog's attempt to discredit charter schools in its series "10 Things," that charter schools supposedly don't want anyone to know. Now, Smart Money skewers just about every consumer sector this way, including district schools, graduate schools, landlords, plumbers, 529 college savings plans, the pet industry, and bunch of others; so, charter school supporters should at least not feel singled out.

Smart Money's glib attacks on charters, sprinkled with some caveats, may say more about Smart Money's approach to perpetuating canards and anti-charter talking points than about the charters themselves. Yesterday, The Chalkboard refuted the first three of the "10 Things," and much more could have been said. We move onto another, that mother of all attacks: special education.

Students with Disabilities

Smart Money cites "studies" by the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Colorado's "Education and the Public Interest Center" to claim that charter schools don't serve enough students with disabilities, and counsels out such students with regularity. Not a tinge was raised in the blog about the veracity or political agenda of the Mass. teachers union -- which happens to be anti-charter school, or the pro-union, softer anti-charter bent of the University of Colorado's EPIC center at its School of Education. Smart Money simply accepts without curiosity the anti-charter "research" at face value.

Special education issues are way more complicated, which we cannot exhaust in one place. For starters, it is well documented that urban districts in particular have tended to over-subscribe students to special education programs, which generates funding and fuels the provider industry and burgeons staff rosters. The New York State Education Department has researched this problem in school districts (e.g., Albany), and New York Governors of both parties have sought to reign in the practice. In fact, Governor Paterson has proposed legislation, which has the support of the legislature (though not yet approved), to direct the state Education Department to examine special education placements in school districts and make recommendations for policy changes.

Another central factor in inhibiting charter schools from serving more students with disabilities is the lack of funding equity with school districts, primarily from lack of facilities funding. Charter funds that could be used to hire more special education staff are instead needed to pay for facilities. Still another factor driving special education populations is control: school districts through committees on special education, not the charter schools (in New York and other states) determine the placement and services of students with disabilities.

Then there is the sound educational practices of charter schools that also tend to reduce special education populations by mitigating the labeling of students with a disability, including having smaller schools with longer school days and more reading and literacy programming; and more disciplined school cultures, all of which contribute to fewer students with literacy and behavioral issues that driving disability placements.

Charter Advocates Support Special Education

Steps can and should be done to encourage and equip charter schools to serve more students with disabilities, which have been proposed and supported by charter school advocates, but resisted in the legislature. For example, in New York, charter schools have sought to contract with regional co-operatives ("BOCES") that provide special education services to school districts throughout upstate New York and Long Island, yet BOCES are prohibited by law from contracting with charters. Charter schools also have proposed to form their own co-operatives, which was approved by the state Senate, but was opposed in the Assembly.

All this is to say, charter school critics should not be so quick to attack on special education issues, considering the many problems and concerns with district special education, nor should reputable publications regurgitate them without balance.

Peter Murphy

for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26

Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Monday, December 06, 2010

Smart Money Blog on Charters Not So Smart (1st of a Series)

The Smart Money magazine blog posted another subject in its debunking series, this time on charter schools, with its "10 Things Charter Schools Won't Tell You" (here). This magazine repeats a number of criticisms of charter schools, which are not exactly obscure or unknown since they come straight from the usual charter school critics, mostly the teacher unions and certain university circles.

The blog at least reported some counter-arguments and more favorable perspectives on charters, including some proffered by me.

Charters Outperform District Schools

Importantly, as a national blog, Smart Money addressed charter schools on a broad, national level, rather than on a state by state basis. This context matters greatly since the 40 states (plus D.C.) with charter laws vary greatly in quality, which affect the kind of school that can be operated. In addition, data for many charter schools reflects early returns rather than a sufficient length of time to judge their effectiveness.

The blog cites the national study by CREDO at Stanford to judge most charters supposedly don't outperform district schools. Smart Money did mention some contrary studies but omitted that this study actually excluded several states, including New York. CREDO did a separate study of New York City's charter schools, and found highly favorable results in contrast to its national research.

Teacher Certification (Yawn)

Smart Money blog also claims in its subheadings that charter school teachers "aren't certified," and "keep quitting," which are flat wrong on both counts. Indeed, charter school teachers have lower percentages of certified teachers, but all public school teachers, charter or district, must be "highly qualified" pursuant to federal law. That charter schools in many places have greater flexibility around state certification requirements is a good thing, and broadens the pool from which they can hire instructors. New York's charter statute allows for up to five teachers or 30 percent of a school's faculty (whichever is lower) to have alternative teaching credentials in lieu of state certification. The efficacy of the traditional certification process itself is dubious, which renders this anti-charter school argument of little worth.

Teacher "Turnover"

In terms of charter school teachers "quitting"; well, they do generally have higher turnover than district schools, to which I say: so what? Teachers in district schools are protected by tenure laws, and teachers in suburban districts have less turnover than urban districts where most charter schools are located. Since charter schools generally have greater ability in hiring and firing personnel, it's natural that turnover would be higher. Again, this is a positive thing since charter schools need not tolerate low-quality instruction protected by rigid union contracts and tenure. Charters also are accountable for improving instruction for children in order to be renewed, and cannot afford to keep employees that cannot improve student learning.

Committed, quality teachers deserve the very best we as a society can do for them and they need not worry about tenure and other anti-accountability measures since their job performance is their job security -- which is the way most of the rest of the country's workplaces operate. That inadequate teachers can remain teaching students indefinitely is an injustice that is tolerated in public education, and something President Obama himself criticized as part of his Race to the Top program to increase school quality and accountability. It's also encouraging to hear New York City's soon-to-be schools chancellor, Cathie Black, sharply criticize tenure. Her private sector background will add this needed perspective in the public school system.

There is much more to say about the Smart Money blog on charter schools - stay tuned.

Peter Murphy

for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26

Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Will School Districts Finally Obey the Law?

More than five months into the current 2010-11 school fiscal year, most school districts with charter school students have continued to pay for their students at old rates applicable to the 2008-09 school year, which were frozen by the state legislature until they expired last June.

Charter Students are Due 2010-11 Payment Levels
Charter schools are now owed higher student payments for 2010-11 - higher, it must be emphasized, based on higher school district spending previously fueled by state aid increases and federal stimulus funding. Now that state and federal aid is being cut-back, Gov. Paterson, the state teacher union (NYSUT) and school district officials sought to short-change charter school funding, which, all the while, remains far below the school districts' funding.

During its second "extraordinary" session called by the Governor, the effort to cut charter school funding back to levels from two years ago has - again - gone nowhere in the state legislature this week. School districts now are without excuses, as several--particularly Albany and Buffalo--refused to pay charter schools hoping the legislature would cut their funding retroactively. No such luck.

State Ed. Dept. Must Step Up
It's also past time for the state Education Department to ensure that school districts stop short-changing charter students who live in their own district boundaries and to whom they have this legal financial obligation. While indications are that several resistant school districts will finally comply, following the legislative session, some may hold out. Until the Department enforces the law, districts like Albany's are likely to remain obstreperous toward charters, considering their overall belligerence in recent months.

One real frustration in this charter funding debate is the incessant carping by school districts of having to pay for their own resident students attending another public school of choice -- putting, in effect, "the system" over the individual child. How will charter funding affect school districts?, I kept being asked. How much will it "cost" districts?

Inequality in Charter Funding Affects District Students
The real question is what effect does cutting charter funding have on district students attending charter schools? Such students are "the district's," too.

The debate on charter funding is set too often in terms of its effect on the school districts, and often overlooks the fact that districts far outspend charters, get state aid for their charter students, and levy property taxes on the homes and apartment buildings of charter families. Even more overlooked is the effect on the charter students themselves. Why, in fact, should charter school students be further shortchanged so that students in districts get more?

Should a student like Maria Ijaz be shortchanged by her school district? Miss Ijaz, a sophomore at the Albany Leadership Charter High School for Girls, has a letter published in today's Albany Times Union that reminds us about the personal nature in having a choice of a public charter school, and the intrinsic value of having a quality education to prepare for one's future. By contrast, she reminds us that such is not the case in her parents home country of Pakistan.

In case anyone was curious, this letter to the editor was not a classroom assignment; I'm told Miss Ijaz did this on her own initiative as part of her after-school student political club. Would that a few more adults working for the school district and legislature had her insight and perspective.

We will know soon enough whether those adults at the Albany City School District--in the persons of board president Dan Egan; Superintendent Ray Colucciello; Business Manager Bill Hogan, and talking head Ron Lesko--will continue to treat their resident students like Miss Ijaz, and the other 2,000-plus district charter students, as second-class citizens. Will they finally get funding justice from their own school district?

This is personal.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard

Twitter.com/petermurphy26
Facebook: Chalkboard Nycsa

Home
NYCSA

Most Recent Posts