Gates pushes charter compacts
Sac City, San Jose districts urged to consider
The Gates Foundation is making a pitch to Santa Clara County and Sacramento to join the next round of 12 to 15 school districts and high-performing charter schools nationwide that agreeing formally to collaborate. The Foundation is offering $100,000 in negotiations money, plus the possibility of receiving several million dollars to carry out the terms of their compact. But the driving force, Gates Deputy Director Don Shalvey told school board members in San Jose, should be mutual interest – a willingness to work together for their students’ benefit.
If they agree to the idea, Sacramento City Unified and a handful of districts in Santa Clara County, together with the Santa Clara Office of Education, would join Los Angeles Unified as the only participants from California. Last December, Los Angeles joined districts in Baltimore, Denver, Hartford, Conn., Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Nashville, New Orleans, New York City, and Rochester, N.Y., in signing compacts.
Gates’s hope is that districts and high-performing charters – a term left to each locality to define – can work through their suspicions and conflicts. In the Los Angeles compact, charters agreed to share admission and retention data and to enroll more English learners and students with disabilities. Critics have charged charter schools with discouraging special needs students from applying.** LAUSD, in turn, agreed to provide charters with access to low-cost loans that districts and charters are taking, because the state is delaying billions of dollars in payments owed to schools.
As an example of an effective compact, Shalvey cited Denver, which has promised to provide facilities to every high-performing charter as they become available. Charters, in turn, pledged to support the district in closing poorly performing charter schools. But for the most part, Shalvey acknowledged, there has been more talk than action in the months since the compacts were signed.
Shalvey suggested that districts and charters could work together in creating Common Core lesson plans, common data systems, and measures of teacher effectiveness in subjects not covered by standardized tests. High-performing charter schools’ test scores don’t currently count in districts’ accountability measurements. Making that happen is one incentive for working together, he said. Sharing best practices is another.
A former San Carlos School District superintendent, Shalvey is co-founder of Aspire Public Schools, the largest group of charter schools in California, and remains the co-chairman of its board of directors, and so has a special interest in California charters. He is particularly interested in Sac City because of its location in the state capital, where a compact would be visible to state legislators and their staffs, many of whom send their children to local schools. San Jose is becoming a magnet for effective charter schools, including Rocketship Learning, KIPP Schools, Summit Preparatory, which will open two high schools in East San Jose, and Downtown College Prep, which is also opening another high school. Districts in the city by and large have been antagonistic or ambivalent to charters (the largest district, San Jose Unified, just approved only its second charter in a decade), while the county office has approved many on appeal. A compact could create a meeting of the minds.
One district that has embraced charters is Franklin-McKinley, a small elementary district whose students are largely Hispanic and Vietnamese Americans. It has two charter schools now, and Superintendent John Porter is working cooperatively with Rocketship to launch two more. But the district has a declining enrollment, Porter said. “We want to be financially responsible and told other charters, ‘Please let us stabilize financially.’”
But other than Rocketship, charters may not care about the district’s plight and press ahead anyway, he said, implying a compact could attract more charters to apply.
Shalvey had no direct answer for Porter. Under state law, districts and county offices are not allowed to consider financial impact on a school district as grounds for denying a charter.
Shalvey said that districts or regions that sign compacts could apply for several million dollars to implement them. An example might be money to renovate a school for a charter, which would then repay the district on the loan.
** However, some researchers have raised the possibility that charter schools are meeting the needs of special education students without labeling them as such. Macke Raymond, director of the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford, suggested this might be the case last week during a panel discussion at the Education Writers Association conference.
Given that Macke Raymond’s argument is a pretty lame attempt at excuse-making (I hope the education writers did their jobs and questioned her aggressively and sharply), the fact that charter schools notoriously underserve special education students is a major reason that districts tend to be unenthusiastic about charter proposals.
The fact that charters drain away students and resources from financially-struggling districts is another one, as the Franklin-McKinley discussion demonstrates.
Would it be responsible for school districts to strike deals that harm their existing schools in those and other ways? Rhetorical question.
All responsible education advocates should also be objecting to allowing Bill Gates — a non-educator with no qualifications in education — to set education policy just because he’s a rich guy.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
P.S. Enjoy a selection of satirical charter schools names on Twitter, #charterschoolnames — HOPE (Helping Our Pockets Enlarge) Academy, for example.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It’s in some ways stunning and in other ways not-at-all surprising that nearly 20 years after California passed legislation authorizing the opening of charter schools, we are just now discussing how districts and charters can work together. The education community has fallen into the trap of positioning charters as an alternative public school system and then arguing either for or against their efficacy or even the need for their existence. Part of the original mission of charters was to serve as laboratories of reform that could develop new ways of improving student achievement. Those new methods that proved successful could be replicated in the broader system. Unfortunately, we haven’t come close to fulfilling this vision.
The lack of trust, fight for dollars and obsessive protection of narrow interests has sabotaged this original intent. There are a number of good people throughout California who are setting aside preconceived notions and working to implement sound policies on behalf of California’s school children, regardless of who came up with the idea. Unfortunately, these few are being drowned out by the many that are encamped behind their battle lines. Successful partnerships are far too few in number. It is my fervent hope that, at some point, the courage of the few will inspire others to look beyond soundbites and their own narrow interests and realize that the vast majority of people involved in public education simply want a system that works for all of California’s children. We must learn to trust each other, set aside ego and put children first.
By the way, Macke Raymond is far from an apologist for the charter community. Her national charter school study in 2009 concluded that there were serious issues in terms of quality that the charter community needed to address. I have worked with her before and, while I believe it is fair to challenge research methodology, it is simply wrong to say that she is an excuse-maker for the charter community.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In an article published in May 2010, “The Deception of Charter Schools”, I wrote: ” Publicly funded private schools are an oxymoron. Charter schools play on the idea ‘that parents can have something resembling private schools and have the …government pay of it’. The carrot of charter schools appears sweet in the short term until local elected jurisdictions are destroyed. Then the long term deception will manifest itself. Clues surfacing , i.e.,an annual summit of tech leaders calling for an education czar to ‘redo existing regulations’.(4/19/10) So much for the prospect of undoing regulations through charter schools.” Workforce development to provide worker bees for needs to be determined by global corporate iterests?
Now it appears Bill Gates is appointing himself untitled “czar”, or acting in keeping with Silicon Vally tech leaders suggestion, to be catalyst to “redo existing regulation”.
It hasn’t taken many years for th the propaganda used to sell the idea of charter schools being autonomous, publicly funded schools, sans the regulations and mandates with which regular public schools must comply.
Carolyn Grannan is right in saying “all responsible education advocates should object to allowing Bill Gates…to set education policy.” So should every other responsible citizen, including the host of misguided political conservatives who have bought a bad idea with the nice sounding euphemism called “school choice”.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
From this story, it’s tough to discern real benefits from these “compacts”. It looks like an attempt for charters to behave more like district schools while preserving their advantages of flexibility and independent oversight. Ditto the merger between ICEF and Alliance — are we seeing a trend here?
Chris points out above : “Part of the original mission of charters was to serve as laboratories of reform that could develop new ways of improving student achievement. Those new methods that proved successful could be replicated in the broader system”. The onus here is on the *charter* to demonstrate that the advantages they have been provided created scalable, replicable practices. That’s the compact that would make a difference.
In our area we have a charter school that serves at-risk students. They have been in a constant cycle of reflection and adaptation, honing in on the best practices demonstrating the greatest impact for kids. They have kept up a steady dialog with the district (we share trustees) resulting in specific changes within district schools. As a result, the kids they serve have changed over time and the cycle continues with new innovations for the kids they have now.
On the other hand, there is another charter school that serves high performing students. Other than parent participation (required by contract), there are few innovative practices in place that are scalable or replicable. After a score of annual reports, they have yet to identify an innovation from their “laboratory”. To many, it appears their model is segregation by race, socio-economic status and parent education. Understandably, their relationship with the district is far bumpier.
Same district, different relationships.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
A few points:
Thanks, Chris, for your note about Macke Raymond. Her CREDO report of last year on charters is cited as definitive research by charter critics, since it showed that only 17 percent of charter schools outperform district schools. (When you look at the breakdown for California charters, it’s a much more complex story.) Her observation regarding special education students should not be dismissed out of hand, even if not yet backed up with formal research.
Don Shalvey made an interesting comment at the session with school board members. He acknowledged that only a small percentage of charters are doing truly innovative work in education (Rocketship is an example) — which is not to say they aren’t doing things exceptionally well. In some cases, they are. However, the pressures of standardized testing — API, CST, NCLB — have no doubt forced many to conform and be less experimental. Shalvey hopes that closer ties between charters and districts will enable charters to move toward the original purpose, as laboratories for experimentation, offering lessons to districts. The compact could be the vehicle.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I agree that it was principled of Macke Raymond to release and defend the CREDO study that Chris Bertelli mentions (she took heavy fire from her own side for it).
But in this case — in the quote cited here — she is weaseling and excuse-making to beat the band.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Nicely stated, Chris. If we could only break from the “us vs. them” mentality long enough to collaborate on solutions that truly benefit students and society. While I am suspicious of the ultimate intent of the Gates Foundation, this proposal seems innocuous enough and more importantly a step towards setting the stage for the charters to fulfill their original mission.
John: Is their proposal / compact publicly available? If not, maybe you could ask them to share it with your readers?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Dave: There is no link on the Gates website to the compacts. There may be one on each district’s site; I don’t know. Gates mailed me some of them, for Denver, New Orleans, New York City, Nashville and Rochester. I’m having trouble uploading them. If you or anyone else wants copies, e-mail me: John@svefoundation.org.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
What the below listed section of Education Code states is that unless the Charter School declares that it will provide services to the children with special needs AT THEIR SCHOOL that THEY ADMITTED, the school district (section (b) below) becomes responsible to educate these children with special needs…that means staffing, equipment, legal costs, everything; all for whatever the SELPA provides for the child. Districts do not even receive the regular revenue limit to assist them in providing these services.
Almost no charters take on this expensive service, it always falls to the authorizing District. So Mr Raymond’s suggestion that charter’s do not identify these children as special needs demonstrates the arrogance of the research world without any experience in the K-212 environment.
47641. (a) A charter school that includes in its petition for
establishment or renewal, or that otherwise provides, verifiable,
written assurances that the charter school will participate as a
local educational agency in a special education plan approved by the
State Board of Education shall be deemed a local educational agency
for the purposes of compliance with federal law (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act; 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.) and for
eligibility for federal and state special education funds. A charter
school that is deemed a local educational agency for the purposes of
special education pursuant to this article shall be permitted to
participate in an approved special education local plan that is
consistent with subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 56195.1.
(b) A charter school that was granted a charter by a local
educational agency that does not comply with subdivision (a) may not
be deemed a local educational agency pursuant to this article, but
shall be deemed a public school of the local educational agency that
granted the charter.
(c) A charter school that has been granted a charter by the State
Board of Education, and for which the board has delegated its
supervisorial and oversight responsibilities pursuant to paragraph
(1) of subdivision (k) of Section 47605, and does not comply with
subdivision (a), shall be deemed a public school of the local
educational agency to which the board has delegated its supervisorial
and oversight responsibilities.
(d) A charter school that has been granted a charter by the State
Board of Education, and for which the board has not delegated its
supervisorial and oversight responsibilities pursuant to paragraph
(1) of subdivision (k) of Section 47605, may not be deemed a local
educational agency unless the charter school complies with
subdivision (a).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Dave: Gates doesn’t impose a compact on districts. That’s why it’s giving interested charters/districts $100K to write their own document. But let me see if there is a link for the various agreements.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
There are good reasons to be concerned about the charter movement that have nothing to do about whether they have the capacity to contribute to creating a better system for children, or not. I have personally come to believe that that claim is the sheep’s clothing for some very nasty wolves. There are some naive charter school-supporting sheep who don’t fully recognize what’s going on.
In 2008, Andy Smarick wrote: “Chartering’s potential extends far beyond the role of stepchild or assistant to districts. The only course that is sustainable, for both chartering and urban education, embraces a third, more expansive view of the movement’s future: replace the district-based system in America’s large cities with fluid, self-improving systems of charter schools.”
He continues on to list the steps that need to be taken toward this ultimate goal as if it is a master plan. http://educationnext.org/wave-of-the-future/
And indeed this is what is happening. Note that a number of management organizations Smarick presents in the table he calls “Replicating Charter Success” (Table 2) have been disgraced because of poor management, deception, very high attrition, and corruption (Edison, White Hat, Imagine, KIPP).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
This story from the New York Times followed the above story on my Twitter feed. I had to double check to confirm that NYC is indeed a Gates-compact city.
It doesn’t appear that those already in the compact are all demonstrating benefit. Perhaps those who have agreed to a formal collaboration should show how well it works before expansion.
Per discussion above, it would seem that if a charter schools are to operate as laboratories of innovation, sharing the replicable aspects should be a covenant of their charter documents. Successful replication could then be a factor in renewal.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I can’t tell from this article whether anything substantive is being suggested or not. By all means, districts and charters should be cooperating. All educators in a community should be cooperating with one another, whenever it is feasible and productive for the students. The dominant case seems to be districts that try to stonewall charters; however, I realize that some districts — Denver being a good example — are taking a proactive role in promoting School Choice for the communities they serve, and they should be commended for that.
I would take exception, though, to the idea that “charters must be innovative”. Yes, innovation was one of the original justifications for charters, but things are now so dire that simple blocking and tackling may be a more valuable contribution to the world of K-12 education. The charters I have visited often demonstrate innovative practices, particularly in the way the curriculum is presented, and also in things like scheduling and personnel practices. (School districts, as we know, are infamous for clumsy personnel management that would make Post Office administrators blush.) So innovations can be valuable. But the last decade or two has seen many ”innovations” that didn’t do all that much for student learning. The schools that I see in my own district would be helped much more by better execution of basic tried-and-true educational practices like these:
Require that teachers show up on time for class (even if it is not an AP or honors class).
Investigate and work to reduce chronic absences by teachers. The instructional continuity lost from persistent absences can be very damaging. (Just as in other organizations, it seems that only a small minority of people account for the bulk of missed days.)
Reach agreement (among the teachers would be fine) on some level of schoolwork assignments that are deemed necessary to learn the subject in any particular course. (For example, if it is a high school language arts course, should there be any writing assignments — at all? If the subject is American History, should students read anything beyond the almost-comical summaries in the “text”? Anything at all?)
Then, actually assign the work to the students. (It doesn’t help to have it on the lesson plan if it is never actually assigned.)
Then, review and grade (or provide other feedback to students) on any tests or other work that is assigned. (Sorry, but work that is assigned but never looked at by the teacher just isn’t as valuable for students.)
Finally, record those grades and provide them to students, preferably sometime during the course. (Pssst! It is hard for students to know how they are doing if you don’t tell them.)
Limit videos to one or two per week and require that they have some factual basis and pertain to the course. (Is taking 3 class periods to watch Braveheart — a film that historian Elizabeth Ewan says “almost totally sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure” — a wise use of time in World History? Is it legitimate to watch two episodes per week of Law & Order, all semester long, for a Civics and History class?)
These may sound like commonplace objectives, but sometimes doing the simple things well can make a big difference. That is the “edge” that many charters (and many highly touted private schools) offer. They do the simple things that, for a host of reasons, just aren’t happening in many public schools. (If you think the points above are exaggerations, or if you think this is happening just in the ”low-achieving” schools that your, and your friends’, children don’t have to attend, and not in neighborhoods filled with committed professional parents and college-bound students, then you need to get out more.) I truly believe that if the basic suggestions above were followed in traditional schools, we could see noticeable gains in student learning. And as a side benefit for beleaguered districts such as my own, many more parents might be more satisfied with their current school monopoly.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity