Sign up for our newsletter

Newswire: June 21, 2016 — Sounding the Alarm for Innovation & Opportunity — Virtual Charter Schools Report Hurts Opportunity — MA Charter Cap Lift Likely Decided by Ballot

SOUNDING THE ALARM FOR INNOVATION & OPPORTUNITY. Hundreds convened last week in Washington, DC to disrupt education and promote CER’s New Opportunity Agenda. “I left the lunch meeting feeling inspired and energized; filled with new ideas to try, groups with which to collaborate and ways to engage the students and their families who desire the option to select the type of school that is the best fit for their educational needs,” wrote Connections Education President Dr. Steven Guttentag.

Add your name to the growing chorus of people who commit to a new opportunity agenda!

Screen Shot 2016-06-21 at 12.39.02 PM

MISS THE EVENT? The full video from The National Press Club is now available at edreform.com, along with a two-minute highlight reel and shorter video clips of not-to-be-missed moments. Stay tuned on social media for more short clips to be released — and added to this page — throughout the week!

Screen Shot 2016-06-21 at 11.07.11 AM

VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL RESEARCH. While we appreciate the goal and desire to learn more about how online charter schools are impacting student outcomes, a report released last week lacks the depth and integrity needed in educational analysis, and ignores the fact that the voluntary choices of parents – when they have them – may not represent others’ conceptions of what works best for their kids. The report’s conclusions endanger the ideals of opportunity and innovation that are so desperately needed in education today.

online learning

WAITING FOR NOVEMBER. Despite the fact that more than 30,000 students are on charter school wait lists, charter school legislation has come to a “dead stop,” Massachusetts Senate President told the Associated Press. In April, the MA Senate passed a bill that masqueraded as a charter cap lift, but in reality would have done nothing to expand educational opportunities. The battle is not over yet though — 50 percent of likely voters in MA support a November ballot question to lift the cap on charter schools.

2015-11-18-Charter-Rally-01-1-780x439

GOOD TEACHERS ARE MADE, NOT BORN. Forget smart uniforms and small classes. The secret to stellar grades and thriving students is teachers. An important article from The Economist.

Screen shot 2014-03-06 at 5.41.26 PM

Charter school reform must include accountability of school districts

by Bob Fayfich
Allentown Morning Call
June 20, 2016

Auditor General Eugene DePasquale‘s Your View (“Fixing Pa.’s worst-in-nation charter school law is overdue”) essentially repeats the recommendations of his May 2014 report, and although we also believe that the charter school law should be updated, we have the same concerns with the auditor general’s recommendations now as we did then — with one addition.

Our historical concerns have been that the recommendations defend due process for school districts but deny it for charters; assume that all districts always act in good faith; dismiss the district role in creating inefficiencies and unnecessary costs; and ignore the impact of the recommendations on parents, children and the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Contrary to Mr. DePasquale’s assumption, many districts do not want charter schools to exist, regardless of how well they are educating children, and they do everything legally within their power, and sometimes illegally, to see that they don’t. The appeals process is the only protection the charter schools and the children in those schools have from inappropriate or illegal actions by the districts.

The report is silent to the fact that more than 200 districts refuse to pass through money to the charters in violation of the law, and the fact that the situations described as inefficient in Philadelphia were caused by actions of the district that were subsequently determined by the state Supreme Court to be in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Perhaps the greatest recommendation to increase efficient spending of taxpayer dollars is for districts to act within the law, but that recommendation is not included among those of the auditor general.

The new concern is that the auditor general is now identifying the Pennsylvania charter school law as the “worst in the nation,” when there is no factual basis for that statement.

Two independent national organizations, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the Center for Education Reform, do independent annual comparisons of charter school laws in every state and neither has ever ranked Pennsylvania’s law as the worst in the nation.

This willingness to deviate from fact to hyperbole, coming from the office that is charged with basing its conclusions and recommendations on rational investigation and analysis, is disconcerting.

There is no disagreement with the fact the charter school law in Pennsylvania is out of date, but what is needed is a comprehensive and holistic approach, such as in House Bill 530, rather than a limited review that chooses to cherry-pick the need for more stringent charter school accountability and oversight while ignoring district accountability and illegal actions.

Bob Fayfich is executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools.

Editor’s Note: Education still at risk, 40 years later

by Ingrid Jacques
Detroit News
June 20, 2016

Nearly 40 years ago, President Ronald Reagan commissioned a comprehensive report on education. “A Nation at Risk,” which came out in 1983, warned of the increasing failure of the U.S. public school system.

Despite the call to action in that report and consequent reforms that were enacted around the country, student performance has remained stubbornly flat — even with a tripling of inflation-adjusted federal education funding since 1970.

The trend of poor performance is certainly true in Michigan, as the state continues to fall in its student achievement rankings.

A group of education, business and political leaders met last week at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to discuss the state of schools and make a “clarion call” to rally the school choice community.

The Center for Education Reform, led by CEO Jeanne Allen, has issued a report on the need for more school innovation, including doubling down on school choice initiatives. Allen brought together a panel of education experts to discuss the report, including former Michigan Gov. John Engler.

Engler, now president of the Business Roundtable, ushered in Michigan’s charter school law in the 1990s. He continues to advocate school choice in his current role. Earlier this month, Engler urged the Legislature to leave out a Detroit Education Commission tied to a bailout of Detroit Public Schools; he believed it would unfairly limit charter schools in the city.

“There’s no excuse for the current state of America’s educational system,” Engler told the group last week. “We run the risk of falling even further behind if we don’t incorporate innovation and opportunity as bedrock principles.”

Union dues case should be reheard by a full Supreme Court

by Gerard Robinson
The Hill
June 20, 2016

In March, the Supreme Court handed down a 4-4 decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case challenging the constitutionality of compulsory union dues that have been on the books in 23 in states for more than 30 years. For the time being, the split decision left compulsory dues in place. It was also the first big decision since Justice Scalia’s death in February and reminded Americans of what a difference just one Justice can make.

Prior to Justice Scalia’s death, most observers expected that the Court’s ruling would go against the unions. Without Scalia’s vote, the lower court decision remains in place. But Friedrichs is far from over. Issuing a split decision is standard Supreme Court procedure in cases where a Justice with the swing vote retires or dies while the case is under consideration. The procedure is designed to allow either party to petition for a rehearing. In April the Center for Individual Rights filed a petition asking for a rehearing. The court has neither accepted or denied the petition and has “rescheduled” consideration of it for the past six weeks, most likely because there aren’t five votes on either side to make a definitive decision on the request.

We don’t know when the court will consider the petition and issue a decision, but while we wait, it’s worth noting just how common it is to hold over Supreme Court case until a bench of nine justices can make a definitive ruling:

Since 1945, the Court has held over 84 cases that could not be resolved because of a vacancy. All of these cases were later decided by a full bench of nine Justices including cases of national significance such as Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade.

What happened in the Friedrichs decision is nothing new, and Friedrichs is exactly the kind of case that should be held only once the full Court can render an authoritative decision. Why? Because Friedrichs represents two essential values of the American way of life: free speech and education; and as such, it deserves the attention and vote of every Supreme Court Justice.

At the end of the day, the Friedrichs case is about the First Amendment’s clear prohibition on any form of coerced speech. Forcing tens of thousands of public employees to pay for speech — either the union’s overt political lobbying or the political stances it takes during collective bargaining — violates a core principle of free speech rights. Surely this interpretation is an issue on which reasonable people can and do disagree. Only the Supreme Court can make a ruling on this question, and even the unions would benefit from that ruling. They claim that requiring each member to pay dues is necessary to preserve labor peace and ensure bargaining solidarity. But there can no peace and little solidarity if the requirement to pay dues is illegal.

It is not only public school teachers who have a stake in the outcome of Friedrichs. Families of 50 million public school students — included among taxpayers that invested $344.6 billion into state elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2014, according to the National Association of Sate Budget Officers — have a lot to say about union-negotiated policies. Some policies greatly benefit families and students. Others undermine public education. Rigid staff assignment policies and teacher layoff rules are two examples. Sadly, policies of this type disproportionately impact families of children in high-poverty schools as well as families of gifted and special needs children.

But so long as states are allowed to collect millions of dollars in coerced dues, the unions have an outsized voice in ongoing debates about improving education. Friedrichs opponents usually overlook this fact. For instance, according to the Center for American Responsiveness, the National Education Association (NEA) spent $92 million, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) $69 million, on federal candidates and other political activities between 1990-2014. To put this in context, the combined $161 million NEA and AFT spent on political activities is more than JPMorgan Chase & Co., AT&T and Goldman Sachs spent on federal campaigns, combined. When the right to free speech of one group is ignored—be it teachers or families—we all pay the price in an unproductive, one-sided public debate.

No matter the outcome in Friedrichs, unions will not fall by the wayside or disappear. Nevertheless, the voices of tens of thousands of teachers and families will continue to be stifled if Friedrichs does not prevail. The Supreme Court must rehear the Friedrichs case when nine Justices can decide it– not only for the sake of the ten California teachers who brought the case, but also for the thousands of teachers and families around the country whose voices matter in our democracy.

Gerard Robinson previously served as Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Virginia and Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida. He is currently a resident fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.  

How to make a good teacher

What matters in schools is teachers. Fortunately, teaching can be taught.

The-Economist

The Economist
June 11, 2016

FORGET smart uniforms and small classes. The secret to stellar grades and thriving students is teachers. One American study found that in a single year’s teaching the top 10% of teachers impart three times as much learning to their pupils as the worst 10% do. Another suggests that, if black pupils were taught by the best quarter of teachers, the gap between their achievement and that of white pupils would disappear.

But efforts to ensure that every teacher can teach are hobbled by the tenacious myth that good teachers are born, not made. Classroom heroes like Robin Williams in “Dead Poets Society” or Michelle Pfeiffer in “Dangerous Minds” are endowed with exceptional, innate inspirational powers. Government policies, which often start from the same assumption, seek to raise teaching standards by attracting high-flying graduates to join the profession and prodding bad teachers to leave. Teachers’ unions, meanwhile, insist that if only their members were set free from central diktat, excellence would follow.

The premise that teaching ability is something you either have or don’t is mistaken. A new breed of teacher-trainers is founding a rigorous science of pedagogy. The aim is to make ordinary teachers great, just as sports coaches help athletes of all abilities to improve their personal best (see article). Done right, this will revolutionise schools and change lives.

Education has a history of lurching from one miracle solution to the next. The best of them even do some good. Teach for America, and the dozens of organisations it has inspired in other countries, have brought ambitious, energetic new graduates into the profession. And dismissing teachers for bad performance has boosted results in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. But each approach has its limits. Teaching is a mass profession: it cannot grab all the top graduates, year after year. When poor teachers are fired, new ones are needed—and they will have been trained in the very same system that failed to make fine teachers out of their predecessors.

By contrast, the idea of improving the average teacher could revolutionise the entire profession. Around the world, few teachers are well enough prepared before being let loose on children. In poor countries many get little training of any kind. A recent report found 31 countries in which more than a quarter of primary-school teachers had not reached (minimal) national standards. In rich countries the problem is more subtle. Teachers qualify following a long, specialised course. This will often involve airy discussions of theory—on ecopedagogy, possibly, or conscientisation (don’t ask). Some of these courses, including masters degrees in education, have no effect on how well their graduates’ pupils end up being taught.

What teachers fail to learn in universities and teacher-training colleges they rarely pick up on the job. They become better teachers in their first few years as they get to grips with real pupils in real classrooms, but after that improvements tail off. This is largely because schools neglect their most important pupils: teachers themselves. Across the OECD club of mostly rich countries, two-fifths of teachers say they have never had a chance to learn by sitting in on another teacher’s lessons; nor have they been asked to give feedback on their peers.

Those who can, learn

If this is to change, teachers need to learn how to impart knowledge and prepare young minds to receive and retain it. Good teachers set clear goals, enforce high standards of behaviour and manage their lesson time wisely. They use tried-and-tested instructional techniques to ensure that all the brains are working all of the time, for example asking questions in the classroom with “cold calling” rather than relying on the same eager pupils to put up their hands.

Instilling these techniques is easier said than done. With teaching as with other complex skills, the route to mastery is not abstruse theory but intense, guided practice grounded in subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical methods. Trainees should spend more time in the classroom. The places where pupils do best, for example Finland, Singapore and Shanghai, put novice teachers through a demanding apprenticeship. In America high-performing charter schools teach trainees in the classroom and bring them on with coaching and feedback.

Teacher-training institutions need to be more rigorous—rather as a century ago medical schools raised the calibre of doctors by introducing systematic curriculums and providing clinical experience. It is essential that teacher-training colleges start to collect and publish data on how their graduates perform in the classroom. Courses that produce teachers who go on to do little or nothing to improve their pupils’ learning should not receive subsidies or see their graduates become teachers. They would then have to improve to survive.

Big changes are needed in schools, too, to ensure that teachers improve throughout their careers. Instructors in the best ones hone their craft through observation and coaching. They accept critical feedback—which their unions should not resist, but welcome as only proper for people doing such an important job. The best head teachers hold novices’ hands by, say, giving them high-quality lesson plans and arranging for more experienced teachers to cover for them when they need time for further study and practice.

Money is less important than you might think. Teachers in top-of-the-class Finland, for example, earn about the OECD average. But ensuring that the best stay in the classroom will probably, in most places, mean paying more. People who thrive in front of pupils should not have to become managers to earn a pay rise. And more flexibility on salaries would make it easier to attract the best teachers to the worst schools.

Improving the quality of the average teacher would raise the profession’s prestige, setting up a virtuous cycle in which more talented graduates clamoured to join it. But the biggest gains will come from preparing new teachers better, and upgrading the ones already in classrooms. The lesson is clear; it now just needs to be taught.

Jeanne Allen calls out school choice movement

by John Bicknell
Watchdog
June 20, 2016

Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform, delivered a stark message to her allies in the school choice movement last week, saying “the movement to ensure educational attainment for all is at a crossroads. We are losing ground in part because we are losing the argument. And our hopes of systemic change — our progress — will be lost, and we will be a nation at even greater risk, if we do not refocus our collective energies and message to connect with the broad universe of education consumers and citizens everywhere.”

Allen says “more was accomplished in the first nine years of the education reform movement than in the past 16.”

Read more here.

Charter Sector Needs Infusion of New Ideas, Center for Education Reform Says

by Michele Molnar
Education Week, K-12 Parents and the Public Blog
June 17, 2016
Cross-posted from Marketplace K-12

The Center for Education Reform, a longtime charter school advocacy organization, says innovation and momentum within the sector of independent schools has slowed, and needs an infusion of new ideas that incorporate new strategies drawn from education technology and other areas.

At a forum held in the nation’s capital Wednesday, the center released a set of recommendations for how the charter school movement can, in the organization’s view, right the ship and develop new strategies for improvement. The center is emphasizing its priorities by incorporating a tagline: “Innovation + Opportunity = Results.”

Read the full article on Education Week.

Report ignites infighting among school choice fans

by Jason Russell
Washington Examiner
June 17, 2016

On Thursday, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools released a report outlining reforms states should make to improve the struggling online public charter school sector. The alliance generally supports charter schools, so it’s made plenty of allies with other nonprofit groups that support school choice. Some of those allies pushed back on the report for suggesting, among other reforms, that authorizers should close chronically low-performing virtual charter schools.

“This research lacks the depth and integrity that we need in educational analysis, and ignores the fact that the voluntary choices of parents — when they have them — may not represent others’ conceptions of what works best for their kids,” Jeanne Allen, CEO and founder of the Center for Education Reform, wrote in a press release. “Researchers agree that this view of the data is superficial and ignores who and what is gained by a particular kind of schooling approach… This report is troubling in that it suggests that the measure of a school’s effectiveness is an average of who gets tested, not who gets served and the conditions under which they enter or leave.”

The push back from PublicSchoolOptions.org was even harsher. “[The report] contains no new information and only rehashes previously released flawed, one-sided data,” the group said in a press release. “The proposal fails to address several key factors calling into question the credibility of its sources and the motives of the authors, organizations that claim to be dedicated to expanding school choice for parents and students.”

According to one study from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, the average student in a virtual charter school learned nothing in math and learned half as much in reading as the average traditional public school student.

Todd Ziebarth, the lead author of the alliance’s report, told the Washington Examiner that Allen’s and PublicSchoolOptions.org’s critiques of the data “defy logic.” He said the data have been well-vetted over the last seven to eight years, and noted that Allen’s Center for Education Reform uses other studies from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes to show how successful public charter schools are.

“It’s not gold standard research, but it does have student-based data comparing students with similar characteristics against one another,” Ziebarth said. “If you’re going to use data, you have to celebrate gains when you have them but also own up to the shortcomings when you see problems and figure out how to do better.”

“Some of the folks in the movement have sort of become the excuse-making machines that school districts they’ve criticized are being. So when data shows poor performance, instead of honing it and trying to figure out and how to do better, they sort of excuse the results away,” Ziebarth said.

His critics seem to support letting any virtual charter school stay open, as long as it has enough parents choosing it to remain viable.

“Many students who enroll in virtual charter schools do so because of extenuating circumstances or because they simply are not served well in a brick-and-mortar learning environment,” Allen said.

Cheers, jeers for report calling for crackdown on cyber charter schools

by Martha Woodall
Philadelphia Inquirer
June 17, 2016

The primary author of a national report that calls for a crackdown on low-performing cyber charter schools said Thursday that the goal was to spur conversation. It did.

Hours after the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools released the report, critics of online charter schools said they welcomed its findings and recommendations.

Companies that manage online schools and some charter advocates dismissed the study and questioned the research on which it was based.

Susan DeJarnett, a Temple University law professor who has been researching and writing about problems with Pennsylvania’s cyber charter schools for years, said she was intrigued by many points in the report.

“I certainly think it’s interesting and kind of confirming a little bit,” she said. “I think some of the suggestions they make are spot-on.”

Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform in Washington, said of the report, “It’s nothing new.”

She noted that most of the data cited in the report were released last fall as part of a large national study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University and others.

Allen called the report “well-intentioned” but said, “We have got to stop making policy prescriptives based on aggregated data and averages that ignore individual outcomes.”

Todd Ziebarth, a senior vice president at the National Alliance and lead author of the report, said the findings on the poor performance of cyber charters were so stark that they prompted his group and others to issue “a call to action.”

The 16-page document said that data from CREDO and other research organizations showed that the vast majority of the nation’s 135 cyber charters perform worse than traditional public schools.

The report urges state education leaders to change policies and increase oversight to improve online charters and close chronically underperforming ones.

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers in Chicago and 50CAN, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for high-quality education, endorsed the report.

“The hope is it will serve as a foundation for some difficult conversations that need to be had in a number of states about full-time virtual charter schools,” Ziebarth said.

It marked the first time national charter groups had sounded such an alarm.

“It’s one thing for researchers to say this, and another for charter-advocacy organizations,” Ziebarth said. “At the end of the day, we want to see states create a better regulatory environment for these schools that will lead to better performance by the students in them.”

Pennsylvania, which has 13 cyber charters that enroll 35,250 students who receive online instruction in their homes, is one of the nation’s “big three” in cyber enrollment.

None of those schools met the state’s most recent benchmark for academic performance.

State Auditor General Eugene DePasquale, who has called for an overhaul of the state’s 1997 charter law, said he was reviewing the report and thought some of its findings and recommendations – particularly around cyber funding – could be helpful.

As is the case in many states, Pennsylvania cyber charters receive the same funding as charter schools that have buildings.

Connections Education, a for-profit firm that manages 30 cyber charters across the country – including Commonwealth Connections Academy in Harrisburg – said it welcomed an informed conversation about virtual charter schools. However, Connections, which is based in Baltimore, said the report offered no new analysis and perpetuated “false stereotypes” that are at odds with what it sees in its schools.

Tim Eller, executive director of the Keystone Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said that although the state’s cyber charters face academic challenges, parents have chosen to enroll their children in them for many reasons.

Eller, whose group does not represent cyber charters, added: “While academic accountability is critical for any public school, if parents are not satisfied with the education their child receives from a cyber charter school, they can remove their child and enroll him or her in another public school choice option.”

Reaction to Reforming Virtual Charters

Excerpt from Politico: Morning Education
June 17, 2016

REACTION TO REFORMING VIRTUAL CHARTERS: A report [http://bit.ly/1PuqukS] released this week by three major pro-charter groups calling for an overhaul of the troubled virtual charter schools sector earned praise from education reformers who saw the report as getting “tough on a wayward family member,” tweeted [http://bit.ly/24U7ROn] Andy Smarick of Bellwether Education Partners. Ohio in particular has had trouble holding virtual charter schools accountable. “When national groups that advocate for and champion charter schools question the impact of virtual charter schools on student achievement, policy makers should take note,” said Chad Aldis, vice president for Ohio Policy and Advocacy for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “If Ohio leaders are serious about improving student outcomes for virtual school students, they’d be wise to consider these recommendations.”

But Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform said the report “lacks the depth and integrity that we need in educational analysis, and ignores the fact that the voluntary choices of parents — when they have them — do not represent our conception of what works best for their kids. This report is troubling in that it suggests that the measure of a school’s effectiveness is an average of who gets tested, not who gets served and the conditions under which they enter or leave.”

Three groups last year — the Center for Reinventing Public Education, Mathematica Policy Research and the Center for Research on Education Outcomes — laid bare in different reports the problems plaguing the virtual charter schools sector. CRPE Director Robin Lake said the research took Allen’s concerns “into consideration and still found some of the most consistently poor results I’ve ever seen in a charter study,” she told Morning Education. “Research should be nuanced but recommendations for policy responses should be clear and firm. Virtual charters have an important role to play, but the ones we have today are simply not fulfilling their promise. Policy action and leadership are urgently needed to close low-performing virtual schools.”

The full Morning Education newsletter here.