Chester recommends charter school for Worcester

Commissioner Chester has released his recommendations on the pending charter schools; it includes Spirit of Knowledge in Worcester. Here follows excerpts of his press release:

Lynn Preparatory and Spirit of Knowledge Charter Schools Would Open in 2010

MALDEN - Massachusetts Education Commissioner Mitchell D. Chester will recommend that the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education grant two new charters next week to groups seeking to open schools in Lynn and Worcester.

Commissioner Chester plans to recommend approval of charters for the Lynn Preparatory Charter School, which aims to serve 250 students in grades K-8, and the Spirit of Knowledge Charter School, which aims to serve 275 students in grades 7-12 in Worcester. Spirit of Knowledge was a finalist in the 2008-2009 application cycle and submitted an updated application before becoming a finalist this year.

"I am confident that these two charter schools both have the potential to succeed and to serve their students well," said Chester. "Both proposed schools met the necessary criteria established in the application process and present unique visions for ways to set high academic standards and close achievement gaps."

Spirit of Knowledge Charter School's (SOKCS) curriculum will be based on high-standards academic learning, subject-specific, multi-year courses that span grades 7-12, and a focus on intensive math, science, and technology. SOKCS plans to open for grades 7-9 with an enrollment of 156 students in fall 2010, and expand to full capacity in its fourth year.

Founders of eight of 14 proposed charter schools during the 2009-2010 cycle were invited to submit final applications for consideration in September 2009. The eight finalists included: Discovery Charter School of Sustainability in Franklin County; Hanlin International Academy Charter School in Quincy; Housatonic River Charter School in Berkshire County; Leaders of Tomorrow Charter Public School in Worcester; Lynn Preparatory School; Rediscovery Academy Charter School; Road to Success Charter High School in Lynn, Peabody, and Salem; and Spirit of Knowledge Academy Charter School. Two schools, Rediscovery Academy and Housatonic River, withdrew their applications during the finalist stage.

The Board will vote on Commissioner Chester's recommendation at its monthly Board meeting on Tuesday, February 23.

Note that the Board votes next Tuesday; they do not have to follow Chester's recommendations. Also, note that, unless the state can fully fund the charter reimbursement this coming year, this will cost Worcester an additional $1.56 million (and if the state does, then it will cost the state $1.56 million). In the fourth year, it will be on Worcester's tab entirely, and it will cost $2.75 million.

Two things you can do: you can write to the Board of Ed at boe@doe.mass.edu.

You might also write letters to the editors, not only of the Telegram and Gazette (letters@telegram.com) , but also of the Globe (letter@globe.com).

Spirit of Knowledge by the numbers

There are some fascinating charts in the backup to this week's School Committee meeting regarding the new Spirit of Knowledge Academy that's opened in Worcester this fall. You might remember that this charter school has opened under the new requirements; it must reflect the population of the Worcester Public Schools. So, how's it doing?


The Worcester Public Schools, according to Title 1 numbers (free and reduced lunch), is 72% low income. SoKA is less than half low income.

Twenty-seven percent of Worcester Public School students are English Language Learners. Seven percent are ELL students at Spirit of Knowledge Academy.
One in five students in the Worcester Public Schools are students with special education requirements. Eight percent at Spirit of Knowledge are on IEPs.

The big way that Spirit of Knowledge will of course be measured will be by their MCAS data. So what sort of kids are they starting the year with?

Nearly sixty percent of the the students attending SoKA this year attained advanced or proficient on their math MCAS for 2009; a full 65% attained advanced or proficient on their ELA MCAS for 2009. So that's where they're starting from in educating these kids: two out of three are already in good shape on the MCAS exam.

About the only place SoKA does appear to be close to reflecting Worcester is in ethnic demographics:
...more students of African-American and Asian profiles, fewer of Hispanic, about the same on whites.
How does that line up with serving the under-served populations in Worcester?

(UPDATE: you might also find relevant my notes from the Board of Ed approval in January, and the Act Relative to the Achievement Gap, which lays out the requirements of attraction and retention of various student groups. See Section 7, subsection e.)

Spirit of Knowledge profile (and Seven Hills, too)

so, let's all remember: New charter schools were to serve UNDERSERVED students to close the achievement gap.
So we asked about Spirit of Knowledge...
You can find the charts here. Admin has included information about Seven Hills, as well, as we had an outstanding motion on that as well. Go look at the numbers!
Spirit of Knowledge serves 31.2% low income students; WPS serves 70.1%
SoKA serves 11.9% special education students; WPS 20.9%
SoKA serves 15.6% ELL; WPS 24.3

Spirit of Knowledge update from Superintendent Boone

We got an update tonight from Superintendent Boone tonight regarding students matriculating from Spirit of Knowledge, which reads in part:

As of this afternoon, at least 65 families have enrolled their children into one of the WPS.It seems that the enrollment process has gone fairly smoothly...We continue to work very closely with DESE on various operational matters for transition, including how to count new students since they are enrolling beyond the October 1 enrollment reporting date.We will provide a full report to the school committee on the financial changes as a result of the school’s closure once we’ve finalized all details with DESE.

As the second quarter begins on Monday for Worcester, there is a natural beginning place for students who are entering. Parents began enrolling their children (some parents had more than one student in the school) in WPS as soon as they retrieved their records from Spirit of Knowledge, and, thus far, students seem to be distributed throughout the district (keep in mind that Spirit of Knowledge was grades 7-12, thus middle and high school). District personnel have reviewed all courses being taken by students coming in to best place them in courses in WPS, with special regard for seniors.
Families are also being invited to an open house early next week, so they can have their questions answered by school and district personnel, and be welcomed to the district.

Testimony before the Joint Committee on Education: charter schools

Good morning, Madame Chairs. My name is Tracy O’Connell Novick and I am a six-year member of the Worcester School Committee. I am here today on behalf of my fellow members from Worcester, who unanimously support Senator Michael Moore’s bill S321, requiring local authorization of charter schools that use local funding. This is also reflects years of advocacy by the Mass Association of School Committees.

S321 requires local authorization for charter schools that will receive local funding. If a charter is instead authorized by the state, the state pays for it.

I suspect the first response is that this would be impossible. I would respectfully point out that this is just how Mass Academy of Math and Science’s budget works. Mass Academy is state-chartered, working with WPI, and their budget is a line-item allocation in the state budget. So it is not only possible; you’re doing it currently.

This is in marked contrast to Worcester’s experience with Spirit of Knowledge Charter School. In 2010, a delegation from Worcester testified before the Board of Education regarding Spirit of Knowledge’s application for a charter. We laid out, in detail, the issues with the proposal: the founder’s troubling history with regard to management; the substantial lacks in the administration and facilities plans; the holes in recruiting a student body that reflected Worcester’s population; and, most telling, a fiscal plan that simply did not work. At the time, our CFO testified:

This proposed school will spend 1 out of every 3 dollars on non-instructional expenses.  The school will have 13.5 non-instructional and administrative staff for a school with less than 600 students...there are items in the application which seriously question the financial viability of the school.  In fact, the proposed spending plan is out-of-balance during the three year period submitted...The Board should reject this recommendation from the Commissioner.  Although mathematics appears to be a core focus of this school...the financial plan just simply does not add up!  

The charter was granted.

In 2013, the school closed in October, for all of the reasons listed above, with the finances finally clobbering the school for good.

And 150 students were back on the doorstep of the Worcester Public Schools in the first week of November.

We told you so. And we were ignored.

Madame Chairs, the current system is questionable in its Constitutionality. The partnership laid out by John Adams in Chapter 5, Section II is for education to be “the duty of legislatures and magistrates.” That is you, yes, at the state level, but it is also, we--Adams’ “magistrates”--at the local level.

As the current chartering system stands, it is only legislatures--not magistrates--that are overseeing education within charter schools. As a result, there is no local accountability (budgetary or otherwise) for charter schools within our communities. They are free to spend money without local transparency, to make decisions without community input, to counsel students with extra needs that they would be better off elsewhere,  to suspend eye-popping numbers of students...and then when they fail, to return all of those students to the public school system.

What is the goal, here, Madame Chairs?

If, as we are Constitutionally charged, it is “spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people,” the system you’ve created isn’t doing that. You’ve made it okay for some schools to pick their kids, throw out those that won’t work on data charts, and then be held up as unmitigated successes, while other schools teach all kids, and somehow fail by contrast.

We on the local level endeavor to educate every child, every day. We invite you to join us in this effort by passing this bill, and other reform bills before you today.

Notes from the Board of Ed

These are specific to the charter section of the agenda.

Chester:"maintain the integrity of the process""grounded in the merit of the application" --it's been a process that looks at the merit of the application"
continue to believe that the Lynn application" is a good one"
"we have to be careful"
"Legislature did not give this board the authority of evaluating the fiscal impact"

PULLING his recommendation on Lynn: issue on whether this is a private school applying for a charter (it's too unclear if this is what's happening in the case of Lynn, he says)
"don't want to foreclose any possibility of anyone...from the private realm...applying for a charter"
instructed legal counsel for some standards around this, as we can't convert from private to charter
Lynn's application was put in from the Hathaway school, which is a private school in Lynn, which would close the private school and open the charter school
Objections from the proponent of the application, who says that this was not brought up before, that he'd be happy to answer questions, that he hasn't heard previously from the delegation.

Mayor O'Brien speaks of what they will not to do: students not served
Novick speaks of they will do: no outreach to ELL, low income, special ed communities; college prep
Monfredo speaks of programs already in place in WPS: engineering pipeline at Doherty, Tech, Mass Math Academy, etc
Boone speaks of the lacks in the application and the ways in which Worcester meets needs
Allen speaks of the 25% dropout rate in the application (academically gifted programs). 1/3 of speading on non-instructional needs.
"The financial plan doesn't add up."
Toomey speaks of the record of those applying for the charter: it isn't good, say the least, particularly as the primary applicant was fired by her previous board in the charter for which she worked before

Really long part when they talked about new regs which had nothing to do with charter schools

Reville is recusing himself as the school is attempting to rent space at All Saints' Church, where he is a member

Chester: 14 initial, 7 applications by deadline, 1 dropped out; outside reviewers, hearings, public comments solicited, final interview
people Chester worked with said 1 thumbs up, 3 thumbs down (Chester says "not ready for approval"), 2 mixed
the application "that was a clear thumbs up was the Spirit of Knowledge charter school"
2 possibles were Lynn and the Discovery charter
Lynn withdrawn not on merits but on precedent setting on private schools becoming charter schools

THUS ONLY SPIRIT OF KNOWLEDGE is on the table, as the Commissioner is saying he's taken Lynn entirely off the table
one member of the Board of Ed said that his impression was that community members were
preponderingly against; the proposed Board of trustees spoke, as did WPS, but he isn't weighing that in
another member says that he made a note on 6 in opposition versus 25 in support; he is including all those who spoke, including the trustees
if you remove all that are associated either with WPS or with S of K, "there wouldn't be very many left"
question about management: professional opinion from ESEA of those who are proposed to lead the school ("to dispel some of what was said around people who were fired...")--"I don't know that I've met anyone who has a sense of perservance on getting the job done" says someone from the Charter schools department from the DoE

interview: "school is different from Marlboro...not going to be elitest"
short turnaround time between charter approval and lottery (restrictions around outreach)
ESEA says the school WILL BE SUBJECT to the new ed reform law in distribution of student population
80% or more applications are from minority students, reports the school (How do they know this, comments someone in the crowd, as there is no line on the application for it?)

comment from Board member that there are few kids at Mass Academy

"why there should be any concern around which students are going to charter schools..who their parents are, and so forth?"it sounds like she wants a survey of why parents want charter schools...thinks it would be useful to districts
why there might be disproportionate numbers of particular groups of children applying to charters--she's under the impression that some groups are more satisfied with public schools than others
Chester says we haven't done a good job in learning from one another--charters, public, ESEA

pre-enrolling before they get a charter? population has to be reported to districts by March, so people enroll before the school has a charter
questions around elitism...track record in Marlboro was not good, AMSA doesn't reflect sending district:"hard to know what to believe" says one board member
anticipate students that need pull-out special ed services in a school that has substantially AP classes
"with all due respect...if I saw this, I would know that this was not the school for my daughter"
part-time ELL position when there is "a priority placed on" (this from Ruth Kaplan, the parent member of the Board)

"What they've done in Marlboro is create a regional school of excellence" says another member
cites exam schools "very, very important, and in many ways better than the usual model"

"completely creditable to me that this can be done" citing Boston Foundation report
"exhortation to the charter school office" that these conditions apply

Shrewbury superintendent's letter said that it largely a qualitative difference (uniforms, length of day) in what parents who leave public for AMSA
ALSO said that a majority of kids sent to AMSA from Shrewsbury ALREADY were advanced when they left Shrewsbury
Board is not charged with creating elite schools, charged with creating schools that address the achievement gap
S of K has no record in serving underachieving schools
new law says only if the applicant has a record of serving ELL and other underperforming groups
"lots of drama" around AMSA
don't see how this school is reflecting the population they are supposed to be serving under the new law
what does the pay for performance mean?
Soka education : is this being used anywhere else? No ("one of the things that makes this proposal innovative")
underrepresented diverse population: starts at gr.7 : by then you have to have a platform in order to achieve at high levels
"this has clearly been a theme" particularly by Legislature under ed reform

Commissioner: population that represents the community as a whole
all new applications coming forward starting next year, but also all existing charter schools MUST be representative of sending community
student member likes school calendar and curriculum
charter doing things that were not expected (AMSA not originally chartered for districts from which it's been drawing; it now draws from 57 communities)
asks if this is a precedent that we want to set: how does the new law hold charters accountable? the short answer is that we don't know yet

Board votes 6-2 in favor of granting the charter.

You're not entitled to your own facts, Mr. Nemeth

It's been some time since I hit a nerve with Mr. Nemeth over at the Sunday Telegram, so I suppose I was overdue. 

For those wondering just what he's referencing, the letter to the editor was in the Boston Globe, not the T&G, so you may well not have seen it. It was in reference to their (not surprisingly for the Globe) one-sided coverage of the charter school hearing at the State House last week. And the Globe has a strict 180 word limit on letters to the editor (mine clocked in at 178 before it was edited further by them), thus it was rather short. 

However:
With all due respect to Mr. Nemeth, I was at the hearing last week at the State House. It's not that big of a room, so I know that he was not. Thus I not only heard the testimony of the pro-charter forces; I heard the testimony of the gentleman from Stanford, flown in specially by the Boston Foundation to present his findings. Representative Denise Garlick of Needham, the House Vice-Chair of the Joint Committee on Education, directly asked him if he had controlled for the affect of parents on educational attainment when comparing charter schools and regular public schools.
Not only did he concede that they had not; he said that any such study would be unable to do so, as parents had "opted into school of choice."
That's not dishonest, Mr. Nemeth; that's what he said. 

As for whether charter schools exclude particular students, the numbers speak for themselves. Here, for example, are Spirit of Knowledge's 2012 numbers as compared to the Worcester Public Schools:

• Spirit of Knowledge serves 31.2% low income students; WPS serves 70.1%

• SoKA serves 11.9% special education students; WPS 20.9%

• SoKA serves 15.6% ELL; WPS 24.3%

Here, in case you're interested, are SOKA's 2011 numbers. I haven't asked for 2013, because frankly it's rather depressing to keep asking the same question and getting the same answer. Perhaps now that SOKA is on the Board of Education's agenda for Tuesday, I will. Of SOKA, Commissioner Chester says:

 In nearly three years of operation, SOKCS has employed four executive directors, has not maintained a sound or stable financial condition, has failed to maintain adequate membership on its board of trustees, has not provided the academic model proposed in its charter, has not shown promising academic results, has a significantly decreased enrollment from what it projected in its application, and will face financial challenges as a result of its drop in enrollment.

And that's just one of Worcester's charter schools. While Worcester's other two charter schools are (thankfully for their students) not so benighted, the comparisons of population would reveal similar trends.
So the makeup of Worcester's charter schools is not that of the general WPS population, Mr. Nemeth. That's the truth.

I'm more than happy to argue the relative merits of charter schools with Mr. Nemeth or with anyone. 
I do take issue with being called a liar in print on the Sunday editorial page.
I get my facts straight before I write or speak. I would suggest that Mr. Nemeth do the same.

You're entitled to your own opinion, Mr. Nemeth; you're not entitled to your own facts. 

Increase in students: increase of budget?

Biancheria: students back from Spirit of Knowledge, need for supplies for students that have enrolled
Boone: enrolled in seven different schools
all across the city (except Worcester Tech, as there's no midyear enrollment there)
nominal to moderately significant
Allen: generally instruction supply dollars are based on enrollment a year ago
changes our charter school tuition and reimbursement; happens quarterly
would happen later this month
City Council sets tax rate next Tuesday; finalizing with city what the change and increase funding to Worcester Public Schools would be since Spirit of Knowledge
in a Friday letter tomorrow, ahead of the City Council agenda coming out tomorrow
allocation recommendation on December 19 meeting "really in three areas":

• placement of Spirit of Knowledge students
• budget deficits
• resources for FY15

And right on cue...

...comes, as forecasted by the T&G comment section, the "Spirit of Knowledge may have failed but that DOESN'T MEAN that charter schools are bad!" editorial from our stalwart charter supporters (right down to having relatives working in them!) at the Worcester Telegram and Gazette.

You know, guys, this would all be a bit more believable if the department and the Board actually vetted the applications of charter schools. Spirit of Knowledge got their charter--I was at the meeting--because they were the only ones left. The Lynn applicant was going to get them into legal trouble. The proponents didn't have a good history in managing schools; they didn't have a solid financial plan; they had little evidence that they were going to attract a solid and reflective student body.
But they got their charter, anyway.
Then, they had issues with how they were dealing with students, to the extent that parents finally went to the Worcester School Committee for help. Legally, of course, we had no authority. However, when next Spirit of Knowledge came before the Board, I went to the meeting and in essence said, "Do your job. You are their School Committee. Act like it."
And still, they kept their charter.
Even this year, when they were on probation, they reportedly had NOT A SINGLE VISIT from the state.
You can talk of oversight and reaction and such all you like. It's not panning out on the ground.

And it's the kids who get hurt.

Still no progress on Spirit of Knowledge (with update)

No word of additional funding or credit, and this from this afternoon's emergency meeting:

Worcester - Spirit of Knowledge school mtg - a vote to shut the school down will not happen tonight - Chair Barry Henry
— Kim Ring (@KimmRing) October 27, 2013

(Kim Ring is the T&G reporter at the meeting.)

I've also gotten a few questions about what happens to assets if the school closed--the students have public school options, the teachers unfortunately lose their jobs, but what happens to the "stuff" of a school--and was directed to 603 CMR 1.13(8), which reads as follows:

(8) Upon the revocation, non-renewal, or voluntary return of a Commonwealth charter, title to all of the property of the charter school shall immediately vest in the Commonwealth, subject to the rights of any secured party holding a perfected security interest in the property of such charter school. Any funds remaining after the satisfaction of the charter school's obligations shall be deposited in the General Fund. 603 CMR 1.13(8) shall not apply to the extent the charter school or any other interested party demonstrates that charter school property was purchased solely by, or solely with funds paid to the school by, persons or entities other than the Commonwealth, in which case ownership of the property shall be transferred to such persons or entities, unless otherwise voted by the board of trustees.

Thus it largely goes to the state. The only thing I'm not clear on is if the bit about property "purchased solely by, or solely with funds paid to the school by,  persons or entities other than the Commonwealth" applies to the City of Worcester which, as it does for the Worcester Public Schools, has supplied approximately one-third of the funding of the school.
And thanks to those at the state for answering my email on a weekend!

UPDATE: Worcester Magazine's Walter Bird was also at the meeting. He has some additional information about finances, and he reports that the Board of Trustees is meeting Tuesday, and a vote regarding the school's future is expected at that time.

Let's talk about this charter school application for Worcester

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education this year is considering a single application for a new charter school, and it's in Worcester. You can find the application online thanks to the MTA (not on DESE, as would, you know, actually make sense); the notification the Department gives is that the application is in, and they'll be holding a hearing, as required by MGL Ch. 71, sec. 89(h) here in Worcester:

4:00–6:00 p.m. on Friday, December 9 

the Hebert Auditorium, Surprenant Building, Quinsigamond Community College

You can also email your comments to charterschools@doe.mass.edu by January 4.

First, an overview of charter schools in Massachusetts, in case this is a new conversation for you:

Now, if you're brand new to charter schools entirely, let me recommend this piece from John Oliver from 2016, keeping in mind that a) it's from six years ago and b) it's a national look:

One thing that often is touted in Massachusetts is that all charter schools under MGL Ch. 71, sec. 89, are chartered by the state: applications go to the Commissioner for consideration, who then recommends (or doesn't) charters to the Board of Ed, who then awards (or doesn't) the charter. A parallel process is followed for renewals. While this means we have dodged some of what has happened in other states, let me note that Massachusetts isn't immune to some of the issues other states have seen; the ongoing issues, dating back at least a decade, of Mystic Valley Charter (up for renewal in February, incidentally) is probably the extreme, but please note that Worcester did have a charter that collapsed in October (!) of 2013 for exactly the financial reasons the Worcester Public Schools said in public testimony were going to happen when the state first considered it in 2010. (Search "Spirit of Knowledge" in the sidebar if you'd like the whole history of that.) 

The part that will always stay with me about that experience is attending a meeting in the Mayor's office with parents of students at Spirit of Knowledge who were begging the Worcester School Committee to do something, anything, to improve their children's experiences, and being entirely powerless, as charter schools answer only to the Board of Ed. My testimony before the Board of Ed on that experience is here; I also testified before the Joint Committee on Education in 2015 about that experience, calling for local authorization, if funding that impacts local districts is being used.

And that is how charter schools are funded in Massachusetts: the foundation budget amount of each student that attends the charter school PLUS $1088 for facilities (increased due to the Student Opportunity Act) PLUS any amount over foundation that the district spends (calculated as a percentage) comes straight the Chapter 70 state aid of the district in which the student lives. If you like playing with spreadsheets, you can download the projected FY23 district by district amounts here.

That spreadsheet also includes the calculation of what is most often misunderstood about charter school tuition: there is a transition amount. When a student, for example, leaves a district school for a charter school, for the first year, 100% of the amount of state aid being transferred comes also as reimbursement to the district; this tapers to 25% for the following three years. This was fully funded for the first time ever this past year (also thanks to the Student Opportunity Act). Note that it is the INCREASE, not the ongoing cost, that is reimbursed, and only for the transition.
The argument has been that this gives the district time to make the adjustments needed to their budget due to the loss of that individual student. Given a moment of thought, however, the inapplicability of this argument becomes clear: a district doesn't lose an entire third grade class, and so can cut a teacher to save that cost. A district loses a few students here and there across grade spans, and generally there is no "savings" at all.
And a charter school in a town or city is granted by the state district-funded transportation for all in-town or city students at the same status as the district's own. Thus the charter's existence itself increases a district cost, with no benefit to district students. You can see how much this costs on a per pupil basis on this spreadsheet; for Worcester last year, it was $2771 per student, or $5.7M.

Also, possibly a discussion for another time, I continue to wonder about the constitutionality of charter schools at all in Massachusetts, given the outlines of the dismissal in 2016 of Doe v. Peyser; in particular, as I quoted in that earlier blog post: 

The education clause "obligates the Commonwealth to educate all its children." [McDuffV. 415 Mass. at 617]. This obligation does not mean that Plaintiffs have the constitutional right to choose a particular flavor of education, whether it be a trade school, a sports academy, an arts school, or a charter school. Even if the court were to deny the instant motion, thereby allowing substantial discovery to follow, Plaintiffs' action will always be addressed to the question of whether the Commonwealth is obliged to provide more of one flavor of education than another. This decision - how to allocate public education choices amongst the multitude of possible types - is best left to those elected to make those choices to be carried out by those educated and experienced to do so.

A bit about where we are with the state process:

As noted on the MTA's Policy Minute, initially there had been three applications for new charters in Massachusetts. That link also covers the proposed expansion of current charter schools. Two things that could maybe be relevant here:

• the Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion group was not invited to apply for their proposed central Mass twin school (My personal opinion is that could be due to their continually turning up at Board of Ed meetings to try to get them to overrule the Commissioner on pretty basic stuff around their enrollment, but that's based on nothing other than attending Board of Ed meetings).
  
  
• Old Sturbridge Village Charter, which is the same administrative oversight proposing the new school in Worcester, was not moved forward for their proposed expansion into high school. 

Expansions and additions are governed by the state law on charter school spending: up to 9% of a district's required spending can be pulled out by charter schools, with up to 18% being pulled out of the lowest 10% of districts. This is the charter school "cap" which the state overwhelmingly voted to retain by rejecting question 2 in 2016. 

Because I will share this map any chance I have to: a look at exactly how unpopular lifting the charter cap was, courtesy of WBUR

Much like everything else, this list lowest 10% list, which is based on MCAS scores, was impacted by the pandemic, and so it has been frozen for 2021, 2022, and 2023 with the ratings of based on 2018 and 2019 MCAS scores.
And yes, Worcester is on that list, just. We had moved off the lowest performing list (download them and check!) for a number of years, but the 2020 list dropped us back into that group. This was never discussed at the district level; the previous administration never really did much sharing of the state accountability information, let actual reacting to it.
And that is the group that is now frozen.
We would have space under the charter cap, in any case, as 9% of Worcester net school spending does not go to charter schools, thankfully.

What's the deal with Old Sturbridge Village and charter schools?

The charter being proposed in Worcester essentially is a sibling to the Old Sturbridge Village Charter School in Sturbridge, which opened in 2017, after being rejected the previous year. It has 320 students in grades K-8. For FY22, it pulled $4.8M out of the districts of Brimfield, Brookfield, Holland, Monson, North Brookfield, Palmer, Southbridge, Spencer-East Brookfield, Sturbridge, Tantasqua, Wales, and Webster, though $1.8M of that came from Southbridge alone, where close to half the student body comes from. Southbridge is one of the three districts deemed chronically underperforming by the state. It has been under state receivership since 2016.
The dates being the same as when OSV first applied to open a charter school is in no way a coincidence. The state law is constructed such that this sapping of resources of the districts that are often only minimally funded and most need every dollar to do better is incentivized under the argument of giving families, essentially, an escape hatch, as the state has thrown up its hands (at least until recently) around actually doing its job in ensuring the constitutional requirement for a fully-funded education for each student is met.

As a side note, there is no evidence that state takeover of school districts in Massachusetts has been effective. 

It's also not a coincidence that it's Old Sturbridge Village that has been, I believe, the first and only museum to take advantage of the provision that allows for a charter to be filed jointly by (MGL Ch. 71, sec. 89(d)) "a college, university, museum or other similar non-profit entity," given who the President and CEO of OSV--who also serves as Executive Director of OSV Charter and who also is proposed to serve as Executive Director of the Worcester expansion--has been since 2007: Jim Donahue. 

Donahue, as this profile in Worcester Business Journal from 2011 notes, came on as OSV's President at at time when it wasn't entirely clear that OSV was going to make it. That changed under Donahue. Donahue's background, though, is not from the museum world: he's a charter school director.

Donahue was the director of Highlander Charter School in Providence, Rhode Island. Donahue also recently ran for City Council in Cranston, RI (there were three seats open and he came in fourth), as well as serving as co-chair of Allen Fung's campaign for the Second Congressional district in Congress (both men are Republicans; Fung lost to Magaziner).

In both the case of OSV Charter and the proposed Worcester school, Donahue serves as Executive Director under a management agreement with Old Sturbridge Village; he is appointed to that position by the OSV board. The proposed management agreement for the Worcester school, which is 28 pages long and is included starting on page 278 of the application, looks to these non-lawyer eyes like it is pretty difficult for the charter school to ever get out of; look at what "termination" spells out, starting on page 297.
The agreement states that OSV will be responsible for:

• Providing general business operations
• Providing leadership and management support to School Leaders as necessary to achieve goals as outlined in the Accountability Plan and mission and vision of the Charter;
• Preparing entitlement grant applications and reporting;
•  Recruiting School Leaders, teachers, and other administrators; using best practices for attracting a qualified, talented and diverse faculty and staff, and ensuring compliance with the provisions of MGL c. 71, §38G;
• Training and coaching of the School Leaders by the Executive Director;
• Preparing the evaluation of the Principal for the Board’s review and approval;
• Preparing a budget and monthly financial statements for the Board’s review and approval;
• Providing payroll and accounting services;
• Assisting with the selection of an independent auditor to be retained by the Board;
• Coordinating and implementing contracts with prior Board approval, consistent with the School’s policies and procedures;
• Preparing selection of benefits plans for Board approval for employees of the School governed by the Board;
• Assisting with the maintenance of human resource files for employees of the School to the extent permitted under State and federal law;
• Facilitating the purchase and procurement of all required School materials, equipment and services consistent with the School’s Fiscal Policies and Procedures and in accordance with all applicable Massachusetts statutes and regulations. An employee of OSV will be designated as procurement officer and such person will attain a Massachusetts Certified Public Purchasing Official (MCPPO) certification. OSV will ensure that at least one School employee will attain the MCPPO certification;
• Assisting School Leaders with the preparation of drafts of required government reports, including, but not limited to the annual report of the School for review and final approval by the Board;
• Administration of transportation services contract for students
• Facilitating student recruitment through community based outreach, parent information sessions, direct mail, social media, and person to person conversation. Facilitating fundraising through the identification and submission of grants proposals;
• Providing marketing and advocacy for the School under the direction of the Board;
• Administration and oversight of food services for students;
• Oversight of procurement of custodial, supplies and equipment for leased school facilities;
• Providing resources to support School goals related to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Access (DEIA); and
• Information technology support for staff and students including but not limited to; network and communications and set-up and support for all staff and student computer devices

All of that is spelled out in greater detail in the pages that follow in the management agreement. 
There are two things to note on this: the first is that the oversight of the school remains pretty firmly under OSV: the Executive Director is to provide "training and coaching" of the principal; the principal's evaluation is to be prepared by OSV. The second is that all of the finance and operations functions are done by OSV; from the minutes of the current school, one can infer that this will be led by Tina Krasnecky, Vice President of Finance and Human Resources. 

The opening discussion outlines the relationship as follows (p. 83):

Because the accountability of the Management Organization is essential to the foundation of this partnership, and because the responsibilities of the Principal are critical to the success of WCACPS, the Board of Trustees will delegate to the Management Organization the authority and responsibility, consistent with state law, to make recommendations for recruiting, hiring, evaluating and terminating the Principal. Actions regarding the Principal must be approved by the Board. The Management Organization will provide the leadership of the Executive Director who is responsible in assisting the Board in holding the Principal accountable for managing the school’s day-to-day operations and will hold them accountable for meeting established goals that ensure the success of WCACPS.

For all of this, the school will pay OSV $12,500 per month until June of next year, and then 7% of all tuition payments once the school is operational. As the budget projects tuition being $3.3M for the first year, rising to $6.7M in year five of operation, that's a fee of $233,955 rising to $470,531 over the term of the charter.

(The budget starts on page 236. Don't worry; we'll get there.)

Now this made me curious as to how this has been working for the current school at Old Sturbridge Village. As the school doesn't post their budget online, the state doesn't publish spending broken out by account code for charter schools (which would only do us so much good, anyway), and the school doesn't include an annual budget or financial statements in their minutes on their website, this is not clear. Old Sturbridge Village also doesn't make this clear in their 990 filing (page 9 is revenue).

However, if you look at the pretty vague financial statement on page 28 of the FY 22 Old Sturbridge Village annual report, you can find a line for contracted services: 

That isn't a line that appears in the OSV Annual Report prior to the opening of the charter school. Is that $464,816 all coming from the management agreement? We can't tell without filing public document requests (with the school; the museum isn't subject to public document laws), but 7% of the $4.8M the school gets in tuition would be $336,906, so if its agreement is similar to that of the proposed school, at least most of that is chapter 70 aid, funding the museum.
Additionally, the rental line is also at least in part from the school. The modular classrooms that OSV has along the edge of their parking lot are charged rent by the museum. In the April minutes of the charter Board, we find the cost has been $323,952 (page 4), but the total cost will increase in FY23 to $687,362 (page 7), because OSV plans to rent the Oliver Wright Tavern and the Village Conference Center to the school next year for the middle school. 

...which means that OSV has been getting $650K from the school, rising to nearly a million dollars next year. 

To that, then, they'd be adding another $233K next year, rising to $460K the year after, largely for providing the financial bookkeeping, along with Donahue's executive coaching, to the Worcester school. 

While that isn't the make or break for a $12M a year institution, I imagine it doesn't hurt.
For this, by the way, Donahue makes $242,626 as of the last filing (page 7 of the 990) from Old Sturbridge Village; as best as I can tell, this is the only payment to him, as the management agreement, at least of the proposed school, makes no additional allocation. 

How does the budget work for the proposed charter school?

The proposed budget for the charter school starts on page 236 of the application, but let's start not with spending, but with revenue.

Let's start with what they're spending now:

Old Sturbridge Village is currently leasing a building in Worcester that the founding team is using as a base for our outreach efforts in the Worcester community. This is funded by a private donor that we believe will also continue to generously give to WCACPS. If a charter is granted, the WCACPS Board will have the option to assume this lease from OSV.

This is the former You, Inc. building at Holy Family Parish on Hamilton Street. 

In this planning year, their budget is $750,000, of which $500,000 is half of a million dollar planning grant that they would expect to receive from DESE if the charter were awarded; the other $250,000 (p. 87) is "a private foundation grant of $250,000" which they haven't yet received:

The applicant group has applied to a private foundation for a $1,000,000 grant to fund the start-up of WCACPS. The funder expects to make a decision on this request at its Board meeting in November 2022. Based on conversations between Jim Donahue and the foundation we are confident of receiving at least $500,000 which would be disbursed during the pre-operational period ($250,000) and the remainder in Year 1 and 2 to help fund building improvements, the purchase of a bus and other start-up costs

In other words, they're already spending money that they don't have. As the lease of the building is being carried by Old Sturbridge Village at this time--and gosh, I'd sure have some questions there if I were an OSV Trustee!--this is clearly OSV making a gamble on the finances here with ultimately there being a reward to that risk.

And note that the early years of operation likewise are dependent on this funding source to make the books balance.

There's also, throughout the application (this is from p. 96): 

The foundation discussed above is also exploring the creation of a philanthropic ecosystem through which they will make grants to the Expedition Institutions of central MA to support their development of programs in partnership with the Worcester Cultural Academy.

The crux of the program for the proposed school is the museums, but they don't have funding for this part of the program. And where is the funding for that going to come from? The Worcester donation ecosystem is not that large, and the non-profits--museums included--depend on that pool of funds in order to keep things going. Unless this somehow expands the funding involved, one could easily hurt the very institutions cited.

The allocation is WILD. First up, remember much of what we might call administrative overhead is being done through the management contract with OSV. For the first year of operation, that's budgeted at $233,955.
To that, the plan adds an administration of a principal, a vice-principal, for a total of $261,581.
As the full budget for the first year of operation is $4,090,017, they've budgeted 12% of their budget for administration.
While some of that is due to the size of the school, because the management agreement is a percentage of the tuition, that drops but only to 10% of the total budget in year five. 

Looking through the rest of the education salaries, they appear to have 10 classroom teachers, 3 English learner teachers, the science enrichment teacher, the wellness teacher, and the learning expedition coordinator, and possibly the math time math coach (?) all coming out of the lines totaling $888,080; for student support, a full time adjustment counselor, plus full time nurse, plus half time psychologist, half time OT, half time PT, if that's all "student support services" (because I can't figure out where else it would go?) totals $156,000.
And there are four paraprofessionals in a line budgeted at $133,620.

The salary line for custodial is $70,000 for TWO custodians. 

There's just not enough money in here for salaries, in any case, but in this current state of affairs, I just don't see how this gets staffed.

What exactly is the program being proposed for Worcester?

My quip to my homeschooling friends when OSV charter opened was that this was homeschooler bait: send your children to school at the Village! They can wear bonnets and milk cows and feed chickens and learn to make shoes! And of course, there are plenty of photos of that, though that is not the bulk of the experience at that school.

In the Worcester case, there is a significant amount of attention to a two hour block once a week for students for what the application refers to as "Learning Expeditionary Field Study." (Schedules start on page 228 of the application.)There are several mentions of the "short drive" to OSV (from the proposed school location on Hamilton Street, it's a 40 minute drive), and ongoing references to proposed partnerships with Worcester museums.

This is another place where it gets interesting: one can, of course, bring students to museums all one likes. There is, though, no evidence, that any actual partnerships with Worcester institutions, which the applications refers to as "Expedition Institutions" in fact exist. The application says, for example:

We anticipate that this type of relationship can be replicated at other Central Massachusetts cultural institutions such as the EcoTarium, Worcester Art Museum (WAM), Hanover Theatre and Conservatory for the Performing Arts, and more, in addition to the partnership with Old Sturbridge Village. The founding group is continuing to forge relationships and find potential opportunities within Central Massachusetts that fits our criteria for partnerships

As much as the names of Worcester institutions are featuring prominently in some of the advertising of the school, it is not Worcester museums proposing this charter, nor should one read into their names being used any support of it, as much as the application and surrounding documents lead in that direction. The only actual thing we know is that there have been initial meetings.

The proposed Worcester charter, like the one in Sturbridge, essentially would contract out their curriculum to EL Education, for which they would pay $75,000 a year for the first three years, then $40,000 a year thereafter. It seems clear from the application introduction that this is based off a visit Jim Donahue had with Ron Berger (who now is an executive at EL Education) when Berger was teaching in Shutesbury. Knowing that, the passive voice here is...a choice:

With that in mind, it was no surprise that EL Education was recommended to the museum as a school-design partner for OSACPS.

Surely someone did the actually recommending?

They plan to use iReady math, which is fairly common. 

Concerningly, their assessment grid also says that they also plan to use Fountas & Pinnell for grades 3-8, which WPS just managed to extricate itself from and has been widely noted to not follow what is known about what works in reading instruction.

What about the students?

This, of course, should really be the crux of the matter. Who is this school designed to serve? 
And that's actually a really good question. 

The school application is coming in as a "proven provider": the argument here is Jim Donahue (and those coming over from OSV Charter--about half the proposed Board is from there--have experience in running a charter school and so that gives the school a leg up.

But take a look at who OSV Charter has as students: 

OSV Charter: 4.1% African America; 0.3% Asian; 17.8% Hispanic; 0% Native American; 76.3% White;
0.3% Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander; 1.3% Multi-Race, Non-Hispanic

Here are the Worcester Public Schools' parallel demographics:

Worcester Public Schools: 16.9% African American; 6% Asian; 44.7% Hispanic; 0.2% Native American;
27.9% White; 0% Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander; 4.3% Multi-Race, Non-Hispanic

Very much not the same, and you'll see something similar in comparing selected populations:

Here's OSV Charter:

OSV Charter: First language not English, 5.3%; English language learner, 3.8%; Low income 43.8%;
Students with disabilities 19.7%; High needs, 55.6%

And the parallel numbers for the Worcester Public Schools:

Worcester Public Schools: First language not English, 58.9%; English language learner, 28.3%;
Low-income 74.3%; Students with disabilities, 21.1%; High needs, 84.1%

Thus in addition to being a much whiter and a much wealthier student population, the student body there has very few students who are learning English, and very few students whose first language isn't English. Not only is their percentage of both well below Worcester's; it's even below the state average (which is really saying something). 
In fact, they serve so few English learners, that their results for such students are not reported because there are so few students.

We literally cannot see how they do with their (less than 20) English learner students.

And as a side note: they're also nowhere near Southbridge Public Schools' demographics, either.

This, of course, speaks to lack of experience with students who are multilingual learners. While there is a section of the application (p. 60ff) designed to address English learners specifically, it opens in part:

This model is an ideal school environment for ELLs, which the leadership team has already established through OSACPS, that will enable them to overcome language barriers.

...which isn't something one can see from the student body actually being served in Sturbridge.  They don't have the experience to know that at all.
There is a heavy dependence on supplemental materials and differentiated instruction. There is not a great deal of evidence of understanding and experience of the actual needs of multilingual learners (who are not referred to as that, incidentally) in a school whose advocates envision it serving a student population that's between one- and two-thirds students who are learning English.

The application also speaks of the students in ways that strike me as worrying: the school has "a unique opportunity to serve children who fit a typically urban profile" (p. 27) in a section set aside to describe the student population served. That section instead pinballs from the proposed Board members to MCAS scores, to student demographics, to the housing authority, to rates of mental health issues, of which the section says: 

WCACPS would create a pathway for better outcomes when it comes to mental health and wellbeing for students by connecting them to cultural institutions, social services, and community organizations in the city and beyond at an early age.

And yes, the article cited does briefly review a few pieces relating mental health and museums, but this is a concerning focus when not presented in connection to further supports for students, which in this section, it is not.

There is of course much more one could say; the application is over 300 pages long, and the arguments on which it depends are larger than that. One could compare MCAS scores, but current MCAS scores are not even being used for accountability purposes, so there's not a great deal of use there. 

What we can say is this: we have a charter proposed that is not integrated to the Worcester community, that does not have the experience needed to serve our kids, that is predicated on a curricular model that is off-the-shelf, that uses a model to teach reading that is problematic, that legally binds the education to a non-profit oversight financially and administratively, and that will pull millions of dollars out of the local school district, just when the state has finally implemented the reform that would appropriately fund the district to the level constitutionally required.

We need to say no. 

Let me also note the following for Worcester residents: there are petitions going around in support of this expansion coming directly from the proposed Board. First, please don't sign or share them; second, please push back on the narrative accompanying them.
Oh, and a note on the opening of the application, which I found irritating.

Transitioning Spirit of Knowledge students

As you probably caught from today's paper, Spirit of Knowledge Charter School's board voted last night, 4-3, to surrender their charter and close the school.
As all but three of the students there are from Worcester, the majority of those students are our responsibility. We received an email from Superintendent Boone this morning which explained the transition plan for those students (note that they are in grades 7-12). I've included some of it below:

Originally, the parents would have received a letter from me on Monday welcoming them to WPS and sharing information about two open houses - one that was scheduled for last night at 6:30 pm and another that was planned for the afternoon of Thursday, October 31st. Friday, November 1st was planned to be a "jump start" day with students spending the day at the school they would attend to meet staff, finalize schedules, receive lockers, textbooks, etc. SOKCS promised that students would have available their current schedules and final first quarter report card to use during enrollment in WPS.  This is a good time for transition because our new grading quarter begins Monday, November 4th.

We will be working today to develop a new schedule for transition.  Additionally, we will have to work to notify parents since the school's closure means hand delivery of the letter to parents may not be possible. We have received the student enrollment information and will try to create a group in CONNECT ED to reach the parents by phone.  Two things impact a transition schedule that begins in the middle of the week - Halloween is tomorrow and holding an evening meeting will be virtually impossible as many of the staff who have been tapped to support the meetings have plans for their families and many who prefer to be at home that night.  The second issue focuses on holding an open house on Friday evening and the conflict wtih high school football games where principals and assistant principals are generally in attendance.  We have already identified the following core staff to support the open houses:  principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, school adjustment counselors, DAB staff from ELL, special education and the curriculum liaisons.  A separate session for seniors is planned during the open house due to their very specialized needs siince the senior year has started.

This is a most unfortunate situation for the students and families at SOKCS.  Marco and I have met with principals twice to ensure that the transition occurs as seamlessly as possible.  John Hennessey is completing an analysis of bus routes, based on student addresses, to determine if any route adjustments will be required.  It is our hope to have students sitting in WPS classes by the middle of next week. Should any parents show up at our schools seeking enrollment prior to the open house, principals will welcome them and facilitate their enrollment and have them ready for classes as soon as possible.

And those students, all as students who come to us in the Worcester Public Schools, are most welcome. We will do our very best for and by them.

Hearing on the proposed charter school

Hey, so before I start this not-at-all liveblog of the charter school hearing, which will absolutely not cover everything, and which is mostly drawing from my Twitter feed (scroll UP), but also other sources, please note:

YOU CAN STILL SUBMIT TESTIMONY THROUGH JANUARY 4!
It goes to charterschools@mass.doe.edu

And as always, the following is my summary, my work, my commentary, and does not claim to be otherwise. 

As MassLive notes in their coverage: "Of the 13 people that spoke in favor of the charter school, 11 were board members, trustees, teachers or staff at Old Sturbridge Academy or Old Sturbridge Village."

Proposed changes to charter school regs in Massachusetts

At their March meeting, the state Board of Ed is considering  proposed changes to the charter school regulations here in Massachusetts
You can find the current regs with proposed changes here. The Commissioner's summary of them for the Board of Ed is here. While I somehow got the deadline wrong on this--it closed on the 24 of January--(why is it TWO MONTHS before the meeting!?), comments can be directed to charterschools@doe.mass.edu, and it's good to cc the Board itself at  boe@doe.mass.edu.
I also plan to go to the Board of Ed meeting in March to testify before this vote.
So what's proposed?
Let's first be blunt: a number of these changes are in direct response to the closure of Spirit of Knowledge in Worcester this past fall, most particularly everything in 1.12 having to do with what happens when a charter school is placed on probation. Any such school now "may be required" to establish an escrow account to pay for closing costs; it also provides for appointment of an outside party to oversee closure, should it be deemed necessary. Further, it adds that a charter school may be placed on probation for "lack of evidence of academic success," which, believe it or not, is not currently among the reasons. The state may also withhold payments to any such charter and is now changing the bit about what happens to the property of any closed charter school: it ALL goes to the Commonwealth in the changed regs, without any language around purchase by other entities.
Things that are missing here: there should be a clear bit about reconsidering the foundation budget and the student population of sending districts when a charter school closes. Worcester managed this, but, from what I can tell, it was largely through sheer determination on the part of our finance office. It shouldn't be up to them; it should be part of the regs. If a district gets 150 kids in late October, they should count on that year, and they should be funded as the school closes, deadlines be what they may.
And the "may"s around escrow and outside parties should be "shall." There were a number of panicked phone calls that went back and forth to Malden in the weeks after SoKA closed (and not all from WPS!); there needs to be a clear authority who picks up the pieces.
What else is going on here?
Along with some languages changes that are more tweaks, the state is proposing change the "shall" to "may" on the two step application process (see the beginning of 1.04); I can imagine someone coming back with a "streamlined" process which probably isn't good. There's a bit more clarity of notification of district superintendents on applications for charters (and such) throughout the changes. They've also broadened--and I see SoKA in this one, too--what is required in the application for a charter.
But goodness gracious, look at what is going on in section 6 of 1.04!

(d) Should the Board elect to award fewer than the number of charters specified under M.G.L. c. 71,  § 89 in any given cycle, the Board may grant those charters not awarded in subsequent  application cycles in addition to the number of charters scheduled to be awarded and  notwithstanding any limitations on the number of new charters authorized in such year.  

(e) The Board may award any charter revoked or returned to the Board in subsequent application  cycles in addition to the number of charters scheduled to be awarded

So, they could not grant any this year, but "save" those charters to be granted next year. This sounds to be like a face-saving move; if they have only applications they don't want to grant, they don't have to go the route they did with Gloucester Arts and SoKA and give them to the "least worse" of the applicants, but just save those charters until the next year, without--heaven forbid!--looking somehow anti-charter school.
Likewise, it looks to me as though (g) in that same section is to give clear guidance around applications like the one from Lynn the same year as SoKA that smells a lot like a private school conversion.

Here's the bit we REALLY need to pay attention to:
Section (9) of 1.04 deals with the very important question of where new charters go. They're proposing a switch from a straight math/ELA MCAS calculation to one that uses MCAS CPI for math/ELA/science, percentage advanced, percentage failing, and student growth.
Yes, it is all MCAS scores. And one assumes we're going to be scrambling like mad if we make a switch to PARCC.
Good news, first: it isn't a silly "who does best on MCAS" ranking, which is, and will always be, a great reflector of "who has the highest income," thus telling you little about the school system. They're actually including student growth!
But--bad news--only as a quarter of the measure, with the rest of it remaining plain ol' MCAS lists.
Thus, in the interest of not making the perfect the enemy of the good, here's a good place to praise the inclusion of student growth--which still reflects family income, but not as exactly--but push the Board to make it more than a quarter of what is considered. It would, from calculations I've seen, substantially change what communities are targeted.

Also, new requirement for charter schools:

 A charter school must develop a plan that includes deliberate, specific strategies the school will use to attract, to enroll, and to retain a student population that is demographically comparable to similar grades in schools from which the charter school enrolls students. Charter schools shall submit recruitment and retention plans for approval by the Department that meet the requirements of M.G.L. c. 71, § 89; 603 CMR 1.05; and any guidelines issued by the Department.

I'd be interested in how they're going to enforce those.
There's also a long section on the responsibilities of the Board of Trustees (1.06) and staff. Also  a proposed change in funding to monthly rather than quarterly payments, and those will be in line with monthly enrollment reports from the charter school (only the initial payment will be based on projected enrollment).  They're also pushing hard on solid numbers on enrollment, which is overdue.
Regardless of dates, you can always write to the Board, and, should there be anything you hope I'd include, please let me know!