charter schools

The Trickle-Down Effect

Eduflack charter schools, DCPS

Without question, economy is top of mind for virtually all Americans.  We’re concerned how it is going to effect our employment, our ability to pay our bills, saving for our kids’ college, or having any hope for retirement.  The recent collapses in stock prices (and just about everyone’s 401Ks) and the absence of public faith and trust in our economy has just about everyone worried.

That said, only time will tell what affect it all might have on our educational system.  We started the school year hearing that some districts were considering shifting to a four-day school week to save money on gas prices.  Now we’re hearing districts’ concerns about the value of retirement accounts and how we’re all going to do more with less.  But are there any real short-term concerns that come out of the immediate economic problems?
If you read The Washington Post, the answer is a resounding yes.  For those who watched the evolution of DC Public Schools, we all know the power and the impact of public charter schools in our nation’s capital.  Currently, nearly a third of DC public school students attend charter schools.  And just this year, we saw the DC Catholic Archdiocese convert a number of high-quality Catholic schools into public charter schools, all in the name of better serving the greater DC community (and not just the Catholics within the city).
So what’s the story?  WaPo now has DC’s charter schools facing “financial challenges.”  KIPP DC is struggling to line up funds for renovations for a new high school and early childhood center to be added to KIPP’s successful DC efforts.  The successful Cesar Chavez Public Charter Schools for Public Policy may not be able to add a third campus, as originally intended.  And other charters with lower-than-expected enrollment (and thus lower-than-expected funding from DCPS) are scrambling to find stopgap funds to help them meet their obligations to the students and families of DC.
Why is this all so important?  As a nation, commitment to public charters schools as part of our educational system has never been stronger.  Both presidential candidates note their support for charters, and emphasize the needs for strong structure, strong quality, and strong results from these schools.  Recent data from groups such as the Center for Education Reform has shown that public charter schools are already being asked to do more with less that a traditional, old-school public school gets to operate.
What’s next?  We’d all like to believe the economic issues will resolve themselves, and money will once again freely flow into our school systems.  But we are realistic enough to know that is unlikely to happen, at least in the short term.  We also are smart enough to know that if this is happening in DC, it is likely having similar repercussions on other cities with strong charter systems.    
All this speaks to the a greater emphasis on quality, whether they be charter schools or not.  Our states and school districts need to ensure that education funding is going to high-quality schools, to those with strong policies, strong administration, strong practice, and strong results.  As our dollars are scarcer, we need to invest in schools that are doing it right and proving their work.  At the same time, we need to make sure that lenders and financial agencies — those who help fund building renovations and bonds and bridge loans — understand the importance of strong governance and strong management in our schools, charters or otherwise.
After watching the education reform process for the past decade, does anyone really believe that a $23 million loan to build a KIPP high school and early education center in DC is a bad investment?  Of course not.  We know there is good research and not so good research in education.  Likewise, we know there are good investments and not so good investments in public education.  Financial, academic, or otherwise, a good investment is one accountability and achievement.  
These financial times call for tough choices.  We need to make sure we are investing in what works, and we need to make sure that innovations like high-quality charter schools don’t fall victim to the larger worry.  Otherwise, we hurt families today when we shut down or cut back their school options, then we hurt them again when their kids don’t have the high-quality education they need to achieve in the 21st century workplace.

McCain v. Obama: The Thrilla for the Schoolhouse

Eduflack charter schools, early childhood education, ELL, higher ed, John McCain, national standards, NCLB, Obama, Online Education, Presidential campaign, STEM, vouchers

Over the past two days, Eduflack has taken a close look at the educational platforms offered up by the two presidential campaigns.  Again, the ground rules were simple.  We looked at the campaigns’ plans as identified, laid out, and described on both candidates’ official websites.  No cheating from the speeches made by Lisa Keegan or Jon Schnur or other surrogates.  No interpreting what a few throw-away lines from the conventions meant.  Not even a few glimpses into both senators’ voting records in the congress these past four years (the time they were together).  No, we are here to measure vetted, official plan against vetted official plan.

The 10,000-Foot View
Just like the two campaigns, the two education platforms couldn’t be more different, particularly in terms of their rhetoric and the framing of the issues.  Yes, they both focused on the issues of early ed, K-12, and higher education.  But that’s a given.  Beyond that, their foci are quite different.  McCain’s plan is a running mantra of accountability and choice.  Obama’s is one of programs, resources, and opportunities.  McCain’s takeaway is one of improvement, where Obama is focused on the problems.  Interestingly, McCain seems more focused on change, while Obama seems keyed in on conserving what we already have in place.
The Buzz Words
Eduflack wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t focus on the words being used by the candidates and the power behind the rhetoric.  So let’s take a look at the hot words lists for each candidate:
* McCain — Standards, accountability, quality, empower, excellence, parents, effectiveness, choice
* Obama — High quality, opportunity, teachers, programs, support, reward
Areas of Agreement
Both campaigns recognize the need for a strong early childhood education program and both want to improve and simplify the financial aid process for those going to college.  Both recognize that NCLB needs work.  Obama seeks to improve and better fund it, McCain wants to build on its lessons.  Both support charter schools, and both want greater accountability for these school choice options.
Issues of Importance
Obama and McCain clearly come to the table with a different view of the federal role in education.  Again, Obama’s platform focuses on strengthening and improving funding for a number of existing federal programs, while adding funding and support for more efforts.  McCain is focused on innovation and local empowerment, almost re-embracing the old-school GOP role of locally controlled education.
What issues stand out for the two candidates?
* McCain — School-based decisionmaking, parental involvement, school choice, alternative certification, merit pay, virtual learning, higher standards, greater accountability
* Obama — Head Start and Early Head Start, math/science education, dropout prevention, afterschool programs, ELL, teacher recruitment and retention (and merit pay, albeit to a lesser degree than we hear on the stump), and college opportunities   
Again, McCain is talking ideas, Obama is speaking programs. It is an important distinction, particularly when we don’t know who will be calling the policy shots from either the Domestic Policy Council or the EdSec’s office.  So the devil is in the details.
Areas of Disagreement
It’s funny, but these are less areas of disagreement than they are issues of priority.  McCain and Obama simply aren’t focusing on many of the same issues.  Their degrees of importance really define the differences.  
On early childhood education, McCain is focused on Centers for Excellence, improving Head Start on a state-by-state basis.  He also emphasizes the need for standards and quality for our youngest learners. Obama believes early education is about getting as many kids as possible into programs.  Obama focuses on quadrupling the funding for Early Head Start, a program that McCain doesn’t even mention.
On K-12, McCain focuses on options, choice (charters and vouchers), and doing what it takes to boost student achievement (particularly principal empowerment).  Obama focuses on the programs that make our schools run — math/science, dropout prevention, afterschool, and college credits.   Obama also mentions charter schools, but his focus is on closing those that are low performing.
On teachers, the biggest difference is prominence.  Obama provides teachers with their own policy category; McCain embeds them in his K-12 platform.  For Obama, it is all about recruiting, training, retaining, and rewarding. For McCain, it is an issue of alternative certification (which Obama never mentions), incentive pay, and professional development.
On higher education, Obama wants new tax breaks, while McCain wants more research and simplified tax benefits.  McCain also emphasizes the need for information, particularly to parents (while Obama seems to avoid parents all together in his education platform).  Both want to fix the “broken” system of student lending, though.
Funding
By focusing so heavily on programs, Obama essentially calls for increased federal spending for education.  He pledges sizable funding increases for Early Head Start, NCLB, the Federal Charter School Program, dropout prevention, 21st Century Learning Centers, GEAR UP, TRIO, and Upward Bound.  He would also create a number of new federal initiatives, including Early Learning Challenge Grants, Make College a Reality, Teacher Service Scholarships, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit.  In today’s economic climate, this is a bold statement.  Paying for these programs either means eliminating current programs that don’t work (see Mike Petrilli’s suggestions at www.edexcellence.net/flypaper for a good start) or it means increasing the annual appropriation for the U.S. Department of Education.  Based on current politics, I’d say the latter is a near impossibility.
On the McCain side, the Republican nominee focuses on some new programs as well — including Centers for Excellence for Head Start, a grant program for online education opportunities, and Digital Passport Scholarships.  He also calls for funding for teacher merit pay, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, and increased monies for Enhancing Education Through Technology.  Still a nice Christmas list, but far more affordable than his Democratic counterpart.
What’s Missing
You know me, I always like to dwell on the negative.  So I immediately jump to the issues that didn’t make the cut in developing the platform.  Neither candidate speaks to the idea of national education standards.  There is almost no discussion of student testing and the measurement of student performance.  Data and research-based practice and decisionmaking can’t be found here.  And while Obama mentions math and science, neither candidate focuses on STEM education, what Eduflack sees as a key to truly linking education, the economy, and our national strength.
Added to the list, McCain avoids ELL (strange for a senator from Arizona), high school dropouts, afterschool, and t
eacher education in general.  Obama avoids discussions of reading/literacy, alternative certification, online learning, and parental involvement.
So Now What?
Eduflack is not going to be so audacious as to make an endorsement of a presidential candidate based on his education platform.  (Those who know me well know where I stand.  And at the end of the day, my opinion is going to be a fairly uncommon one.  Having worked on the Hill for Democratic stalwarts like Robert Byrd and Bill Bradley and then spending so much time advocating for NCLB, Reading First, and accountability, there are few in the Eduflack mold.)  And who cares who I pick?  This above breakdown is to help others take their education priorities and see which candidate better addresses them in the official platform.
If these past 18 months are any indication, education is not a priority for either candidate.  It isn’t what they are out there stumping on, and it is not the red meat the voters want to hear or seem concerned about.  And anyone who has been in this town for more than a few weeks knows that a policy paper is barely worth the paper on which it is printed.
What this does, though, is it makes clear to Eduflack where the priorities are and what emphasis we should see, education wise, should candidate M or candidate O take the oath on a cold January day.  What does Eduflack see?
A McCain Department of Education is one of accountability, standards, and innovation.  Data-driven decisionmaking.  School choice opportunities.  A heavy emphasis on the role of technology, particularly in terms of online learning.  McCain also sees his ultimate customer as the parent, giving them a seat at the table in charting their child’s educational path.
No surprise, then, when we see some of the names on the “finalist” list for McCain EdSec — Lisa Keegan, New Orleans Supe Paul Vallas, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at the top.  (I know some add former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift to the short list, but I fail to see how someone who called for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education a decade ago is really the choice to head that same department today).   All steady, experienced hands to steer the ship.
An Obama Department of Education, though, would have a much different feel.  It almost seems more like a foundation, with a great number of programs running to achieve a common goal.  An Obama ED is one of teacher education, universal preK, increased supports, and improved paths to postsecondary education.  Obama’s ultimate customer — the teacher, without whom most reforms will fail before the get off the ground.
And the tea leaves on an Obama EdSec?  We have the usual suspects, the programmatic heads such as former NC Gov. Jim Hunt.  But we also have out-of-the-box names like New Leaders for New Schools founder Jon Schnur.  The future direction of Obama ed may very well hinge on the leadership qualities he seeks from an EdSec. 
There you have it, the education presidential campaign gospel according to Eduflack.  Let the reflections, debates, and attacks begin.
  

The McCain Education Platform

Eduflack charter schools, early childhood education, high-stakes testing, John McCain, national standards, NCLB, Online Education, Presidential campaign, Teacher Education, vouchers

My friends (sorry, can’t resist), despite popular opinion, U.S. Sen. John McCain does indeed have a comprehensive education platform, and it is a plan that clearly reflects the collective experiences and perspectives of the senior staffers advising the McCain-Palin campaign on education policy.

The Bumper Sticker
McCain-Palin’s education platform operates under a simple mission — “Excellence, Choice, and Competition in American Education.”  It pledges to four key educational points:
* American education must be worthy of the promise we make to our children and ourselves
* We are a nation committed to equal opportunity, and there is no equal opportunity without equal access to excellent education
* We must fight for the ability of all students to have access to all schools of demonstrated excellence, including their own homes
* We must place parents and children at the center of the educational process, empowering parents to greatly expanding their ability to choose a school for their children.
The Plan
The McCain-Palin campaign breaks its education platform into three key areas — early childhood education, strengthening America’s schools, and higher education policy.  The latter two were actually offered as media releases during the summer (though I don’t remember reading much, if any, about either of them).
Early Childhood Education
The early childhood component is focused on the notion that we must “make certain students are ready to learn.”  With an emphasis on a range of high-quality programs that focus on educational foundations in reading, math, social, and emotional skills.  The further highlights:
* Centers for Excellence in Head Start — Ensuring that all Head Start centers have quality instructors, are accountable to parents, and focus on outcomes instead of just processes.  The federal director of Head Start would choose at least one Center in each state, and the state’s governor would nominate potential choices.  Such centers would be expected to expand their services to reach more students, doing so with an extra $200,000 in funding from the feds.  For these centers, the name of the game is results, with a demand for clear goals, clear objectives, and even clearer effective practice.
* Measurable Standards — Every federally funded early childhood program should be held to measurable standards, quality measures that “should be centered on the child and outcome-based.”
* Quality Instruction — Early childhood education is about preparing students for K-12 instruction.  Every early ed instruction should have strong preparation with “an emphasis on performance and outcomes as measured by student development.”  All federally funded preK programs would be required to offer a “comprehensive approach to learning that covers all significant areas of school readiness, notably literacy/language development, as well as math readiness and key motor and social skills.”
* Healthy Children — Advocating partnership grants for early screening programs for hearing, vision, and immunization needs of preschoolers.
* Parental Education and Involvement — McCain-Palin would ensure federal programs focus on educating parents how to prepare their kids for a “productive educational experience.”  Parents would be schooled in reading and numbers skills, nutrition, and general health issues.
Strengthening America’s Schools
Focusing on opportunities and a quality education for all students, the McCain-Palin plan focuses on empowering parents, teachers, and leaders while taking a swipe at the traditional educational bureaucracy.
McCain’s K-12 policy is comprised of four key principles:
* Enact meaningful reform to education
* Provide for equality of choice
* Empower parents
* Empower teachers
More specifics then come in the dozen or so specific policies McCain offers to support these principles:
* Build on the lessons of NCLB, continuing the national emphasis on standards and accountability
* Provide effective education leadership, particularly rewarding achievement
* Ensure children have quality teachers, accomplished by:

– Encouraging alternative certification methods that open the door for highly motivated teachers to enter the field
– Providing bonuses for teachers who locate in underperforming schools and demonstrate strong leadership as measured by student improvement
– Providing funding for needed professional teacher development

* Empowering school principals with greater control over spending, focusing principal decisions on doing what is necessary to raise student achievement
* Making real the promise of NCLB by giving parents greater choice, choice over how school money is being spent
* Expanding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, better known as DC’s voucher system
* Ensuring children struggling to meet state standards will have immediate access to high-quality tutoring programs, made available from the LEAs, the feds, or private providers
* Expanding virtual learning by reforming the “Enhancing Education Through Technology Program,” providing $500 million to develop virtual K-12 schools
* Allocating $250 million through a competitive grant program to support states that commit to expanding online education opportunities, offering a path for states to establish virtual math and science academies
* Offering $250 million for Digital Passport Scholarships to help students pay for online tutors to enroll in virtual schools, offering competitive funds to provide low-income students greater access to a range of courses and programs needed to maximize opportunity
Higher Education Policy
Focusing on innovation, the reduction of regulatory barriers, and a shared need that our economic strength depends on strong postsecondary education, the McCain-Palin team calls for the following in higher education policy:
* Improve information for parents, particularly institutional i
nformation on postsecondary choices
* Simplify higher education tax benefits, connecting a lower tax burden to greater pursuit of higher education
* Simplify federal financial aid, consolidating the financial aid process
* Improve research by eliminating earmarks, tying the campaign’s signature anti-pork barrel spending to boosting the funds available for federally funded research programs
* Fix the student lending programs, expanding capacity and demanding high levels of lender activity.
The Takeaway
There you have it.  The full McCain-Palin education platform, as presented on the official McCain-Palin campaign website.  Six total pages of text.  So what’s Eduflack’s takeaway?
* A strong focus on accountability and standards
* Emphasis on core instructional approaches and needs
* Recognition that improvement comes with parents, kids, and teachers working together
* Significant focus on innovations, specifically virtual education, alternative certification, and school choice
* An effort to place results over process
* An attempt to learn from and move beyond NCLB, not fix the federal law
What’s missing?  Discussions of issues such as ELL/ESL, student testing, national standards, STEM education, high school dropout rates, and teacher education.  But we can surmise from the policy ideas above where the McCain administration would stand on some, if not all of these issues.
So there you have it, the McCain-Palin education platform, in a handy email/pocket-sized guide.  Senator Obama, you’re up tomorrow. 

The Disconnect Between the Policy World and the Real World

Eduflack AYP, charter schools, national standards, STEM

Sometimes, we forget that is done and said in Washington simply stays in Washington.  We expect that Main Street USA understands what we do, why we do it, and who we do it for.  It’s almost like we buy into the notion that, “we’re from Washington, and we’re here to help you.”

Eduflack was reminded (like I really needed a reminder) of the disconnect between the education policy world and the real world yesterday at a forum sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for a Competitive Workforce and Talkers Magazine on our nation’s future education agenda.  The headline — lots of interesting comments, some that were greatly reassuring we were on the right track, education reform-wise, and some that were downright disturbing.
First for the best of times.  The forum was framed by two important voices in this debate — the Chamber’s Arthur Rothkopf and Education Trust’s Kati Haycock.  There are few better voices in DC to help identify the problems in public education AND identify the real solutions we can adopt to improve instruction and better prepare our students for the rigors of tomorrow.
Kicking off by stating “the business community is dissatisfied with the quality of what it receives” from the staid and traditional K-12 system, Rothkopf laid out a clear six-point plan for education reform:
* NCLB (or whatever we choose to call it) must be reauthorized, strengthened, and improved
* Better teachers, with performance measured and better, merit-based pay going to the educators who deserve it
* Better management of the system, with more accountability
* Better data (along with better application of the data)
* Higher standards (though no mention of a single national standard)
* More innovation, with an emphasis on investments in charters and online education
By this time, Eduflack was ready to jump to his feet, crying out an “amen.”  But he waited, knowing the true voice of all that is right and effective in education reform — EdTrust’s Haycock — was about to take hold of the microphone.  She didn’t disappoint.  Haycock clearly laid out the problem, “the deeper you dig, the more worried you become” when it comes to K-12 instruction.  She reminded the audience this isn’t just an issue of poor kids or an issue of kids of color, and that even our nation’s highest achievers simply can’t measure up compared to the highest achievers of other industrialized nations.  Ultimately, the problem flows from the choices we make in education — choices like what to expect from our students and what to teach our students.
Haycock’s remarks were not all doom and gloom.  She reminded us (as Eduflack has been saying for years) that there are placed that are doing it right, schools and districts where we’re boosting achievement and closing the achievement gap.  Places where we are simply doing what works.  She rattled off schools in Georgia, Delaware, Kansas, and New York, for instance, that can serve as beacons for teaching at high levels and achieving at even higher levels.
And then the worst of times, the moment when I was slapped upside the head with a reality stick.  The program moved from Rothkopf and Haycock to four local radio talk show hosts — selected by sponsor Talkers magazine — to represent Main Street USA and what is being heard on the airwaves throughout the United States.  Here in policyworld, we frame education reform around issues such as accountability, quality, results, and research.  We talk about processes and outcomes.  We look to separate the status quo from the innovation.  Oh what a sheltered world we live in.
From listening to our esteemed talk show hosts, the ed policy community may as well be living on Mars.  They focused on issues such as student discipline, asking why today’s students don’t fear their teachers the way we did decades ago.  They talked about the failures or parents (who bear some responsibility, don’t get me wrong, but are more a part of the solution, not a major part of the problem).  That their former great high schools are now low-income high schools.  They talked about students being down because all their potential jobs have gone to India (how 2005/World is Flat).  And they even said that vo-tech high school students enrolled in cosmetology courses are getting the higher-level math skills they need to succeed, so we shouldn’t worry at all.
It wasn’t all bad.  Talker Joe Madison declared that “Education is the new currency of the 21st century.”  For the most part, the talkers tried to personalize the story.  Communication-wise, such an approach is a good thing.  It makes it easier for stakeholders to relate and understand the issues at hand.  Unfortunately, here they were personalizing the trivial.  The word accountability didn’t come out of the talkers’ mouths until the very end.  The issue of national standards never came up.  To the contrary, we had one talker actually saying it was unfair to expect a state like Mississippi to perform as a state like Massachusetts does?
Unfair?  I would say not.  If we are truly worried about jobs going away and kids being unmotivated because they don’t see employment opportunities, we need to raise standards.  More importantly, we need to show a potential employer that a high school graduate in Mississippi has the same math and problem-solving skills as a graduate in Massachusetts, Arizona, or North Dakota.  We need to show all our schools are making the grade, not just a select few in a select few states.
Fortunately, Rothkopf and Haycock were able to bring us back to reality.  With Rothkopf, it was the realization that the math, science, and problem-solving skills needed to succeed in college are the same skills one needs to succeed in the workforce (a statement that high school reform and STEM advocates, including Eduflack), have long trumpeted.
Before departing, Haycock left the audience with the sobering fact that the greatest obstacle facing school improvement is one of complacency.  Yes, improvement comes from innovation and new ideas focused on achievement and success.  But those improvements require the rocking of boats, the upsetting of apple carts, and the changing of minds — just the sort of things the status quoers fight against.  
What lessons are to be learned here?  More than anything, we need more people calling in to radio talk shows to discuss issues such as student achievement, school accountability, and research-based decisionmaking.  When we talk of such issues in DC, they tend to drop like a stone, with a thud to the bottom.  Discuss them in public forums like talk radio, and they have the possibility of skipping across the pond, causing ripples that can be unmeasurable.

Virtually, the Next Big Thing

Eduflack AFT, AYP, charter schools, DCPS, Gates Foundation, NEA, Online Education

Without doubt, we in education reform like to follow the trends.  We like to determine what the next big thing is, and then jump on that bandwagon before everyone else has grabbed hold for themselves.  When Reading First was all the rage in 2003, most looking at the tea leaves were certain that early reading would be the next big thing.  At the time, no one was even considering the sort of high school reform that the Gates Foundation was ushering in, full force, by 2005.

Lately, I’ve been hearing from a lot of my reading friends, colleagues, and clients that the “next big thing” is RTI, or Response to Intervention.  I’m guessing RTI has moved to the top of the list because it has been the subject of many an RFP (meaning there is money attached), and groups like the International Reading Association has put it on the hot list.  But I’m not a believer.  Until folks get their hands around the need for the true pre- and post-assessments necessary for effective RTI (and most trying to sell a solution are not), RTI will simply be an also ran.
As we forecast, then, what comes next, we must also decide what issue has run its course.  For the past few months now, Eduflack has been offering private eulogies for the voucher movement.  Yes, school choice is still one of the most important issues the education community — particularly those operating in failing schools — faces.  But DCPS has all but killed and buried its landmark voucher program.  Results coming out of bellweather voucher cities such as Milwaukee and Cleveland have not shown the results many expected.  And even the voucher haven of Florida has watched as its many voucher programs have been scaled back.
So what’s next?  What is the next great issue in school reform?  Where is the next great fight to be waged?  The tale of vouchers helps point us in the right direction.  The next big thing will remain school choice, but it will be a redefined debate — charter versus virtual.
It wasn’t so long ago that charter schools were seen as niche programs run out of someone’s basement.  Today, we see well-run charters dominating the education improvement debate.  Cities like DC, New Orleans, and Cleveland are now seeing charters challenge traditional public schools, student for student.  In DC, the Catholic Archdiocese has decided to convert a number of their previously private Catholic schools into public charter schools.  Why?  First to address the issue of the failed voucher experiment in DC.  Second, and more importantly, to provide broader reach of high-quality instruction across the city it serves.
Over the past decade, public charter schools have demonstrated the ability to build a better mousetrap.  Those that have focused on strong infrastructure, good instruction, and effective measurement and accountability are fulfilling our mission of student improvement.  They are seeing results on their student achievement numbers, and they are pushing traditional public schools to do a better job, or risk losing more students to better run charters with better results.
After all, wasn’t that the goal?  Charters were never intended to replace the public schools, waging a bloodless coup for control of public education.  Instead, they sought to show we could do a better job, particularly in those communities with failing schools.  Reaching the same students, they could build a better school, equip a better teacher, and generate better results.  And with the right management, vision, and commitment, they are succeeding.  Charters are changing the landscape, and that change is reflected in both a shift in AFT and NEA’s view of charters and the public and private positions taken by the presidential campaigns on school choice.
But there is an interesting fork in that road to the next great thing.  A year ago, I would have placed my money for charters to win, place, and show.  After all, they lack the radioactivity of the voucher movement.  They have a network of educators and funders throughout the nation.  And they have a documentable track record of positive results.  But then along came a pesky little thing called the virtual school.
Again, our sights are set down on the Sunshine State.  Yesterday’s Palm Beach Post reports on a new state mandate that school districts must now create an all virtual school option for K-12 instruction.  The full story can be found here — <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/education/story/707329.html.
Having”>www.miamiherald.com/news/education/story/707329.html.
Having formerly worked for a proposed provider of online high school education, I can see the benefit for school districts.  The need for school buildings and facilities drop dramatically.  Worries about teacher shortages, particularly in areas such as math, science, and foreign language, all but disappear.  Students are provided the option to pursue courses of study that are relevant to their interests and needs, not just those courses where 24 fellow classmates want to share a classroom.  And if it works for higher education, why not K-12.
The problem, of course, is we still struggle with high-quality online higher education.  Employers discount the value of a degree from an online institution.  Graduation rates are traditionally significantly lower in virtual higher ed institutions than they are in traditional bricks-and-mortar institutions.  And the variance in quality, regulation, and results still has yet to be determined.
Despite these concerns, virtual education is here to stay, and places like Florida are determined to integrate it into the framework of K-12 education.  What does that mean for the next big thing?  Perhaps we are looking at a hybrid — a melding of the mission, oversight, and outcomes of a well-run public charter school with the options and flexibility of a virtual school.  Expansion of charter school course choice through virtually delivered options.  A way to bring well-run charter school models up to scale in communities where demand or sheer numbers are just lacking.  A chance to bring 21st century thinking and technology to 21st century school choice.
Now is the time for someone to seize the cutting edge mantle from vouchers and move the school choice movement to the next level.  The race is now between the model charter school and the edgy virtual school to see who can capture the public attention and who can demonstrate the results we demand from the next generation of public education.

Higher Expectations, Lower Funding

Eduflack charter schools, DCPS

For years now, the education establishment has debated the value and impact of charter schools throughout the United States.  In cities like Washington, DC, we have seen the positive impact such schools can have.  The number of charters continues to grow.  They are a valuable piece of the public education infrastructure in the city, and as such their oversight has greatly improved over the last decade.  Heck, now we even have the DC Archdiocese converting many of its Catholic schools to public charters to better serve the families of our nation’s capital.

Yes, charters have come a long way.  But we still see many defenders of the status quo set their ire onto these community schools.  Most recently, the attack has been that charters are not academically outperforming the traditional public schools they were intended to replace.  Why, the critics say, would we move more public funds over to these schools if they aren’t an improvement?

The issue of improvement is up for great debate.  Throughout the nation, many charter schools have demonstrated they can succeed where old-school publics have failed, or at least struggled.  In larger urban centers, we’ve seen charter schools change the culture and mindset of both the students and the communities.  And as a result, we see improvement in terms of student achievement.  So how do these charters stack up against the schools they are designed to supplement (or supplant, depending on who you speak with)?

Last week, the Center for Education Reform released its comprehensive survey on charter schools.  http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CER_charter_survey_2008.pdf  There is a great deal of interesting information in the survey.  But what is most interesting is the statistic that public charter schools receive, on average, 40 percent less funding that other public schools.  

Imagine that.  Held to the same academic standards by the school district and state.  Teaching the same pool of students (or possibly the most difficult students in the pool).  Tied to the same real estate, utility, and staffing costs as other schools in the city.  Yet these charters are only getting 60 cents on the dollar to deliver BETTER results than those fully-funded schools.

If we expect our public charter schools to outperform our old-school public schools, moving more students to academically proficient and getting more students on the pathway to success, they need the resources to do so.  If the status quoers are correct, and public charters are only doing as well as other publics today, imagine what may be possible if those public charters were able to increase their budgets by 25 or 35 percent.  

No, money doesn’t buy achievement.  But it does help in employing effective teachers.  It helps in acquiring research-proven instructional materials.  It helps provide learning interventions to those who need it the most.  It helps to provide after-hours learning opportunities.  It helps providing facilities that are conducive to teaching and learning.

The next great chapter of the charter achievement discussion is likely to come from DC, as we witness of the success of the Center City effort to transform those great Catholic schools into public charter schools.  Here’s hoping that those Center City schools get the full funding they need to achieve the lofty goals they have set.  Then, we can continue a real, meaningful discussion of how public charters stack up against the old-school publics.