April 4 meeting of the Worcester School Committee

Please enjoy these daffodils from my walk from work in Boston.

While school in Worcester was cancelled, the meeting was not; my meeting was, so I got to this one in person to find that the balcony now has some who are interested in good governance of the district attending in person to keep an eye on things. Excellent. Let me know if you're coming; I'm bringing snacks. 

The agenda is here. The video of the meeting is here. 

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."

Testimony regarding the proposed Worcester charter

Thanks to my Worcester School Committee colleague for capturing the opening of my testimony

In preparing for today’s public testimony, I have found that I have a single message for you:

How dare you.

How dare you come into Worcester, the district that in October of 2013 welcomed back over 150 students from the failed Spirit of Knowledge Charter School that failed for exactly the reasons we told you it would, with an eerily similar budget proposal?

How dare you come into Worcester, a district that has lived at foundation level spending for years, with a charter proposal that is so ignorant of how charter financing is calculated that they think at net school spending means no rate was published?

How dare you come into Worcester, a district which after years of research and planning has brought transportation in house, with a charter proposal that plans $50,000 for a bus (we just bought 100; they cost more than that), has no budget for fuel or insurance, and makes no clear provision for students in wheelchairs?

How dare you come into Worcester, a district where the majority of our students speak a first language other than English and fully a third are English learners with a proposal from a purported “proven provider” that serves so few English learners that the state cannot publish MCAS or ACCESS results because they have so few students in that subgroup?

The demographics of the current school are most reflective, per the Department’s own comparison, with that of Edgartown, Florida, Oak Bluffs, Provincetown, Richmond, and Tisbury, with the exception that the Cape and Island towns serve as many as ten times the percentage of English learner students.
And you dare to suggest that they should be able to open a school here.

Those proposing the school have a record in key data points that is in a number of cases worse than that of the Worcester Public Schools while serving a student body that is more privileged. 

Last year at Old Sturbridge Village Charter School, 66.5% of students were absent 10 or more days. In the Worcester Public Schools, our rate was thirteen percentage points lower.

Old Sturbridge Village Charter has had a teacher retention rate over 80% only one year in its history; last year, it was 75%. In Worcester, our rate is regularly over 84%; last year, it was 88.9%.

In MCAS growth scores, Old Sturbridge Village Charter–with student demographics that are wealthier, whiter, and almost entirely primarily English speaking–were 52% for ELA and 56% for math. For the same span, the Worcester Public Schools, serving a demographic that is much more poorly served by the MCAS, had growth rates of 51% in both ELA and math. How dare you tout this as a record of academics superior to ours?

As I once again find myself before a state panel, begging you to not hurt my school district, I wonder if we in Massachusetts public school districts will ever actually see the “more supportive role” of the Department Commissioner Riley has claimed was his vision.
Not yet, it appears.
And so I will ask you again: please allow the Worcester Public Schools to serve and to be locally accountable for the education of our students. Do not forward this proposal.

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.

Charter school application in Worcester

 It has been awhile since this has happened: the latest round of charter school applications includes one in Worcester (h/t to the MTA on this one, by the way; I still can't find this on DESE's website).

 The Ubuntu Excellence for All STEAM School is described as:

The Ubuntu Excellence for All STEAM School’s purpose is to serve historically marginalized students of immigrant families and families of African diaspora interested in STEAM. African diasporic communities in urban cities are often economically or socially oppressed and consist of Black and Brown families who continue to be underserved by the traditional public school system.

It would be, at its fullest extent, a PreK-12 518 student body; it would open K-7, then add PreK and 8, then a grade in high school a year. 

The primary applicant is Dr. Regine Philippeaux, who (interestingly) is the current Deputy Chief of Equity and Strategy for Boston Public Schools, the creator of the Boston Public Schools Excellence for All program, and lives in Upton. The two primary writers, Toni-Ann Williams and Rachel Jules, respectively, per the application, a special education teacher and the current program manager for Excellence for All, live respectively in Mattapan and Dorchester. 

While the school is being applied for in Worcester--which, as I believe I've noted, is back on the lowest performing 10% list as of 2019, and, with the freezing of the list, is on for this year again--I remember being concerned that just this would happen...--the application is a regional one which also includes Mendon-Upton, Hopedale, Milford, Millbury, West Boylston, Sutton, Grafton, Leicester. Worcester also has not hit the spending cap, which, as it is a lowest performing 10% district, has now been bumped to 18% of district net school spending; it was 9% when we were not in that lowest performing group. Such things, one notes, have consequences.

Boston, incidentally, is within 0.5% of its 18% cap; while it, per the February update from DESE, has a fairly complicated methodology going on around adding students, it's not a good prospect for a full school expansion. 

Because Worcester has always funded at net school spending, the balance of making the funding of a charter school in Worcester work has always been dicey--see Spirit of Knowledge, for example. Remember, however, that this school would be opening as the Student Opportunity Act will be boosting funding. 

The other schools applying--there are three--are two in New Bedford and one in Newton. 

I am sure more is to come on this. 

Worcester Public Schools Strategic Planning Public Session

Posting here from Doherty Memorial where we have maybe fifty people (of which maybe ten or fifteen are teachers? I think?). Offhand, I see John Monfredo and Dante Comparetto (both of next year's School Committee) and Matt Wally (incoming D5 City Councilor), a few principals...
I'm hearing the EAW moved the House of Delegates meeting here.
I'm also hearing that the agenda is 2/3rds being talked at, 1/3rd being listened to...

You support your charter school. Here's why you should vote no on question 2.

You teach at a charter school.
You send your kids to a charter school.
Or you have.
Or you have a family member or neighbor who does.
And IT'S GOING GREAT!
So why would you vote against expanding them?

I mean this entirely sincerely: it is great that things are going well, no matter where you educate your kids. Sending kids off to other people for hours a day is a huge matter of trust, and any time kids are being cared for, being well taught, being pushed to do better, being supported, that's a good thing.

Also, like lots of other people in public education, I have friends and relatives who teach or have taught in charter schools, friends who send their kids to charter schools. This is no more a hypothetical than much else in and around public education is to me.

And here's why, when we talk about this, I recommend that they vote no on 2, over and above the reasons regarding the 96% of kids in Massachusetts who aren't in charter schools.

First, do get straight for yourself if this in any way impacts your own child's school. Very, very few districts are anywhere near their charter caps. Here's last spring's "near cap" list; since then, only Springfield and Brockton got new schools, and Everett and Boston got additional seats. If you're being told that this impacts your own child, please do check out the above and see if that is the case. In most cases, it is not.

The reputation of charter schools in Massachusetts, mixed as it is, is closely tied to the state oversight of charter operators. Massachusetts is unusual, in that all charter authorization comes from the state (in other states, there may be a mix of authorizers). All that you heard in response to John Oliver's takedown of charter schools was tied to state oversight: the state only authorizes "proven providers;" the state closes underperforming schools; the state has strict requirements for reauthorization.
As it happens, I'd take issue with all of those statements to one degree or another, but to the extent they're true, that's as a result of DESE oversight. DESE has a yearly budget of just over $4M, which sounds like a lot of money until you realize that there are school districts that spend more than that a year on administration. DESE's staffing recently has been substantially cut, partly due to the current administration, partly due to the loss of Race to the Top funds. This isn't something that has gotten a lot of news coverage--after all, who cares that a state bureaucracy has gotten smaller?--but if you're close to school administrations (charter or district), you've probably heard some murmurings of concern. It's taking longer to get responses; they're not seeing as much on the ground contact; it's becoming more and more clear that they're strapped for staff. (And to my DESE readers: they're not complaining; they're worried.)
Since the only real legal oversight charter schools have in Massachusetts comes through the Board of Education, as reported by DESE staff, that should worry us. If something happens in a district school, and the administration either doesn't know, doesn't care, or willfully ignores it, if all else fails, you can show up at a school committee meeting--meeting in your district, at a publicly posted time and place, in a context in which some form of public comment is on the agenda--and tell them your concern. If a parallel situation happens at a charter school, your only recourse is the Board of Education--meeting on a Tuesday morning, in Malden, and allowing public comment only if you've known to sign up in advance. If your school committee doesn't hear you, you can work to get them out of office. If the Board of Education doesn't hear you, they'll be keeping their seats, anyway, as they're appointed by the Governor on a five year cycle.
This isn't hypothetical to me. Back in May of 2011, a number of Spirit of Knowledge parents applied to then-Mayor O'Brien, who brought in a few of us from the Worcester School Committee, for help in their not being heard by their administration regarding problems there. Having no other recourse, I took their issues to the Board of Ed. I wasn't heard, I would say, any better than the parents were, though some of those issues were the same ones that ultimately closed the school.
I know there are parents whose children are in charter schools because they didn't feel heard by their district schools. Most often, interestingly, I hear this in Boston, which doesn't have an elected school committee.
We're already skating on the edge in terms of oversight of charter schools in Massachusetts. Vastly expanding the vetting, the review, the voting, and then the oversight, with no plan for expanded staffing of the state, is incredibly irresponsible, and it puts at risk any success we are having with such oversight currently.

Okay, maybe your school is fine and you're sure it will always be fine.

Charters are funded from state education (Ch.70) funds for both state and city side of funding. Charters receive the same proportion over minimum funding that district schools do, but the funding all comes from state aid. This necessarily cushions charters from midyear budget adjustments at the municipal level and to some degree from the state level.
There is, though, no financial plan for this ballot question. While advocates can push "money follows the child" narrative, there are two places where there unquestioningly is an increase in state revenue needed with any new charter: facilities funding (which charter schools get over and above per pupil funding) and district reimbursement. Reimbursement has allowed the Legislature to feel that they are to some degree "smoothing out" transfers--the degree to which this isn't happening is here--but facilities funding is outside and above that. With no budget planning for either of these items, where is the funding going to be found for these? The state, after all, has only so much money to go around.
My previous post on funding spoke of the impact on districts that rely primarily on state funding for their budgets. But charter schools rely SOLELY on state funding for their budgets*. Any hit to state education aid will hit charter schools.
And charter schools aren't any less impacted than district schools from the consequences of health insurance not being in line with actual costs. The same tensions surrounding the foundation budget for districts also (to whatever extent their enrollment is reflective) impacts charter schools. Thus charter budgets are also already short by their respective foundation calculations.
And that's what we should be working on, not this ballot question.

I would also point you to Mary Pierce's excellent post on special education. At ground, this is a social justice issue, which is why the NAACP over the weekend called for a national moratorium on charter school expansion. All of our kids deserve an excellent education. 
*with the exception of funding they may receive privately. 

Update on the Brockton charter school

h/t to Sue Doherty of Brockton for sharing this:
When we last left New Heights Charter opening in Brockton, they were asking for a change to their charter for fewer days, because they didn't have a building that was going to be ready on time. They also didn't have anywhere near the projected enrollment, despite that purported silent need being the reason the majority of the Board of Ed voted in favor of it. This was covered by Diane Ravitch in a post yesterday. 
The Brockton Enterprise has now reported that the shorter school year has been granted (by the Commissioner, not the Board of Ed), and they've come to some rather expensive resolution of the building issue:

Jacqueline Reis, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, said on Friday that state officials believe that New Heights Charter School of Brockton will now open at 1690 Main St. The new proposed location is the former Verizon division headquarters, which was sold earlier this year for $960,000, to a company called 1690 Main Street LLC...The charter school previously said that it would open on August 23 at 141 Main St., in the Tuxedo’s by Merian building, following renovation financed by a $575,000 loan to make the property code compliant with Massachusetts education standards...Walker previously said that the charter school would pay $893 per student annually for five years to rent out a 30,000-square-foot school space in the Tuxedos by Merian building in the center of the downtown area. With 315 students expected for the first year, from grades six through eight, the lease could be as high as $281,295 to begin with.

So there's a $575,000 loan for renovations plus $281,295 rent on the 141 Main Street building ('though one would hope that some of the rent might be waived if the school isn't actually occupying the building). They then are renting the 1690 Main Street building (and from whom? Is that group associated with the school?) for some sum of money, a building which, given that it was an office building is probably also going to need at least some renovation in order to be a school. They're doing all of this out of a $4M annual budget, with an additional $250,000 of fundraising from the state charter association.
Here's why this in particular is a concern: financial management has been a weakness of charter schools in the past, and, in particular, buildings and renovations are among what sunk Spirit of Knowledge here in Worcester.

Hearing on the ballot questions and other issues

Posting from the Joint Committee on Education hearing on ballot questions
taking elected officials out of order; then in order

Meeting the needs of students in poverty (MASC conference)

Margaret McKenna, who introduces herself as the daughter of two Central Falls (RI) schoolteachers.
"the first thing we should do is say the word 'poverty'"
"you don't hear it much said now...it should be the number one topic"

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.

LIVEBLOG from the Joint Committee on Education: charter school bills PART I

This may get too unwieldy as a single post; if so, I'll break it up into I, II, and so forth.

Not as many students here as past years. As we've been very vocal about the charters taking their kids out of class for a glorified photo op, maybe they're understanding that's backfired. Plenty of charter school parents in school tee shirts: "My child is thriving at..." "FAMILY" "College Bound Since 1999" etc. Amusing myself by adding asterisks: "*...and no one else's kid matters" "*...right up until they're suspended or need an IEP" "*...except for the kids who attritioned out." Hearing most parents aren't signed up to testify, just the "expert panels." Oh, and the Governor.

Updating as we go
It apparently is pouring rain outside and there's a line to get through security. Rep. Peisch has just arrived. And we're starting
Rep Gregoire and Day also here. Peisch reminds 3 minute limit on testimony, recording allowed if not disruptive. Will alternate electeds and public

Peisch: testifying in support on H464
result of "all stakeholders"
bill provides for "additional flexibilities for low performing schools"
for districts to develop own turnaround plan before being declared underperforming
developed w/ MASC, MASS, both teachers' unions
limited increase in lowest 10% of districts: would allow 1% increase per year for limited years to 23%
other bills allow for far greater expansion of charter cap
only proven providers or to serve those at risk
low attrition and collaborative with districts
"perfection is rarely if every achieved"
contains many compromises
state "constitutionally charged with education"

Senator Chang-Diaz has arrived, as has Rep. Forry
Rep DiNatale on his H3735 on regional charter schools
that charter schools go into underperforming
Fitchburg schools have come out of underperforming: innovative,
$8-11M cut from budget
$77,000 per bus
"this would be a burden that would be overwhelming"
relationship with Sizer school and public schools is outstanding
can't host another one

HEY, the Auditor is here! And her office posted her full remarks
by now you all have read our audit
know that many aspects of audit are dealt with in bills before you
"what we tried to learn but could not in our audit"
"to get meaningful, unbiased, and complete data...so that you and the public would have access to more facts"
wanted to know if the charter schools reflect sending districts
if there are measurable difference in outcomes
found real issues in this data being available
"DESE dimissed this finding..saying our concerns about data relability were really about data security"
DESE doesn't not ensure relability of data submitted
decisions driven by politics, not by real data
"if evidence were driving this debate, there would be widespread adoption" of successful practices
"let's based decisions...on facts"
"it's my role as the chief accountability officer of the Commonwealth to speak up if I see large sums of taxpayer dollars put into private hands" without reliable data
do you have enough information?
"make accountability and best practices" focus of today

Baker (who is on crutches)
look forward to working with you as we continue to strengthen
ed reform law "that has more than stood the test of time"
three main features: foundation budget, statewide curriculum and assessment, charter schools
"this combination...has succeed"
NAEP scores
"charter schools are the envy of the nation"
nearly all in disadvantaged communities in underperforming school districts
some of the highest performing schools in the state
AND THERE'S THE MISUSED STAT!
charter school lottery: "Everybody cries over charter school lotteries"
"modest annual increase in the charter cap"
greatest need for high quality school options
maximum of 12 charter schools annually
"rigorous evaluation process" only highly qualified will get through
"put preference around high need students...and other at risk populations"
note that they CAN put preference
thinks that charters being called out is "unfair"
Phoenix: kids who will drop out, graduate and go onto two and four year colleges
easier for charters to turnaround underperforming
"I understand not everyone sees this the way we do; there's much to discuss"
"not mistake an interest in dialogue with a willingness to let the clock tick"
AND ROUND TWO ON THE MISUSE OF THE LIST
"i know that we can get this done during this legislative session"
sorry, I missed that Secretary Peyser is siting with Baker
Q from Day: Ed reform act listed five reasons behind charters: innovations, to provide greater options, "strikes me as a bit of a political compromise that occured back then as I think they're inconcurent policies"
think it's important to come up with an answer to that
Baker: think it can be both, extended length of school day
Phoenix knocks on your door if you don't show up
can't ignore parental choice
vocational schools are "an out of district choice"
provide both innovation and opportunity for kids
Q from Jehlen: resist "low performing"
correlation between MCAS achievement and income is 88%
second correlation is districts that are right at or below the foundation budget
"to say that these schools are low performing also suggests that they education low income children"
and also that they are underfunded
question is that what is the affect on other kids in those districts?
Baker: looking forward to seeing report on Foundation Budget
open to discussion on foundation: hasn't been updated in twenty years
would say "one of the things that have been most important to me is ability to succeed districts that are at foundation"
done within the math of foundation
"deserve same shot as kids in the suburb"
Peyser: open to discussion of reimbursement of charter
"looking at making it more equitable and more fundable"
Chang-Diaz: sensitive to not letting clock tick
provision on at risk populations: how can Phoenix do its work?
factor kids into their classroom based on where you are (after testing kids)
"very aggressive about staying with them"
idea is to get everyone to a level that if they choose to they can get to a two year or four year degree
find a way to wrap support services around you, particularly young moms
golly, you know, sounds like a whole lot of alternative programs quietly running in districts, like Creamer in Worcester
"like the catcher in the rye...they just don't quit"
back and forth here about how kids get into Phoenix...lottery...self-selected
Gregoire: What would say to auditor about data accuracy, INCLUDING THE WAIT LIST?
(sorry, caps added)
Peyser: department working in schools to be sure it's as throughly scrubbed as can be
lot of work that's gone since the auditor's report
"lot of work that's gone in to be sure that we're scrubbing that wait list"
Senator Pacheco on S326: seeks to do two things: requires teachers be certified in charter schools as they are in Commonwealth schools
seeks to put in place a moratorium on future charter schools until we find out what is happening relative to financing of these schools in the Commonwealth
voted for Ed reform in 1993: 25 charter schools for experimentation
in some cases it hasn't worked, schools have closed, has been great destruction over the years
where it has worked: take curriculum and take ideas and have those applied to all the charter schools in the Commonwealth
have seen places where that can't happen, as work was propriatary
costs money to put in place a longer school day or a longer school year
1 million students have seen millions diverted from existing chapter 70 formula, as no longer have 25 charters, have 71
every time that we open a new charter school, we divert additional resources away from traditional schools in Massachusetts
offer opportunity to ALL students
25 was a compromise: others wanted a voucher system: some wanted "an absolute privatization of education in Massachusetts"
Pacheco served on a local school board: dealing with taxpayers' children
when you look at the $420 million being diverted away from schools in the Commonwealth
"and every year we get the calls--don't we--that it isn't enough"
"that would not have happened if we had kept the cap at 25 and if we really had done what we said we were going to do" and added programs as experimented
"can you imagine if we took $420 million and invested them in the public schools?"
"we have the best schools in the nation here in Masssachusetts"
"put a hold on any additional charter schools in Massachusetts until we can find a way to pay for them in a way that doesn't help some students without hurting all the rest"

Councilor Tito Jackson, Boston Council chair on education:
asking for support of the moratorium!
cites suspension rates for Boston charter schools, way out of proportion to population, particularly for young black men
out of proportion funding
lift of charter caps increase in transportation: 10% of BPS budget
"let's look at real data"
BPS students enter college at a 51% rate; charter schools enter at 47%
without exam schools and vocational schools, BPS is 45%
"question here is one of equity and one of true opportunity"
"should not be widening the democracy gap and the power gap, which is what I believe is going on right now"
"we have people before who are asking for money only for a specific group of students"
"we all lose when young people in public or charter schools fail"
"hit the pause button and look at the dollars and see if those dollars actually make sense"
can't be taking the money from one type of school and moving it to another type of school
great things happening at many school districts across Massachusetts
BPS losing $125M this year to charters
"Deficit in education means a deficit in the state of Massachusetts as we continue on"

Mayor Walsh, Boston:
"first time to come before you to testify on a policy matter as Mayor of the City of Boston"
25% of charter schools in the state are in Boston
"I support all schools"
committed to success of BPS
also committed to Boston charter schools
bright spots and success stories
comprehensive success in urban education
urgency of families is very real, must address challenges head on
stop pitting schools against each other
great, Mr. Mayor: then change the funding and accountability systems
sustain equitable growth (?)
supports Peisch's bill on "greater turnaround" authority
five years out from turnaround bill "proven success"
"waiting for schools to fail and then waiting to get them the tools they needs"
lowest 10% to apply Level 4's to Level 3's
remain turnaround plans after exiting Level 4's
fire teachers who don't have a job after two years of no job
asks that the cap be lifted to 23% at 1/2 of 1% for next several years
hears that others are calling for larger lifts
build on proven success, thoughtful growth
propose that charter schools be eligible for Mass School Building Authority
charter schools are concentrated in urban districts
golly gee, yes, Mayor Walsh, the growth in charters IS in Boston. I wonder why?
charter reimbursement not fully funded
"in Boston, we are serious about right-sizing...our school district"
propose Commonwealth should have transitional funding to charter schools
while community still funds current seats
(I didn't entirely understand what he was proposing here with the funding; it sounded like reimbursement going straight to charters somehow?)
"eliminating the needless pass-through model" to cities and towns
"we can't continue to see education as a battlefield"
"let's climb out of the trenches and come together"
"gives me great hope that we will find a solution"
"let's go forward together now"
Tucker Q: how much
replacement of existing reimbursement model to a three year transition model
total cost less that $4M additional dollars
major benefit to districts that spend more than 9% on charters
some would lose if their funding has stabilized
Jehlen: would you favor a local ability to raise the cap for those who want it?
Walsh: seen success of charters...not actually in favor of local authorities raising cap
Chang-Diaz: your proposal would take place of reimbursement?
generally case, yes
100% first year, 50% second year, 25% third year
after three years would be chapter 70 plus local contribution?
specific amount per pupil wouldn't change in first year: (so just chapter 70)
Chang-Diaz: on what basis would dollars flow? when is count?
wouldn't change that
long tail being very expensive
Forry...just said some things, but no question really
Walsh: not wanting to only advocate for Boston
"it's really complicated, but there's a way to do it, there's a way to do it"
Q from L'Italien: would like more information about why no longer authority
Walsh: said no because it becomes political at that point
"adding more politics isn't the way to go"
"only ones who lose out here are the kids"
fascinating to see a local politician disparge local politics regarding education
back from L'Italien: having served on a local school committee, she disputes his contention

MASC: panel testifying next on a report that they've sponsored
concerns on H464 (from Peisch) hope bill will be strengthen
tremendous work on teachers and students throughout the Commonwealth and not less than 1/2 than 1 percent of students
"it appears a significant number of schools have not letter and spirit of law"
there are some charter schools that flagrantly flout laws
"failing to enroll a diverse student body will not be tolerated"
recommend you impose significant reforms before you consider expansion
Skinner
look at impact of 2010 act on students at risk
urban charters are doing a pretty good job of enrolling students with same levels of poverty as sending districts, suburban are not
"They're just not serving the same population"
slight increase in serving ELL students: "not really enrolling in the same numbers as sending school districts"
charter schools "mild special needs"
"It's a really different student with disability population"
Did anything surprise me?
Females are enrolled much more than males, and they stay enrolled in charters
chair of Barnstable SC: Cape and Islands hit hard, particularly as those districts have out of proporotion enrollment of children in poverty
require local approval
reform the lottery system so double and triple counting is eliminated
special study of sped and actual numbers of students and actual needs
adjust ch 70 aid to reflect unenrollment of high needs (uh, it does)
higher risk students being returned before school tests
(tie MCAS schools to early school year)
Oliveria from Ludlow: have local school committees have conversations
have local represenation on charter boards
urge local authority for granting charters
require local governing boards of charters to have local representation
require an impact study of charters
"not only my responsibility to oversee students" in Ludlow public schools but all students that are in my district

Rep Smizik
"private schools with taxpayers' dollars"
failing to educate students in poverty, ELL, special ed needs
"not representative of the population from which they draw their students"
"this is unacceptable"
"unimaginable that we are thinking of increasing the number of charter schools in our state without increasing accountability"
his bills "will begin to make charter schools more accountable and more representative"
asset managers who do not live in the communities in which charter schools are
increase transparency, accountability to community they serve
"finally, I would like to fully support" the bills that call for a moratorium
"educating the few at the cost of the many"

Mass Superintendent panel
Fitchburg superintendent Andre Ravenelle : must shift focus of this issue, move to collaboration
offering choice
Fitchburg offers a broad array of choices (and has been targeted for charter schools for third year in a row)
"already provide a menu of choice"
"I propose that we first raise the cap on the many resources"
raise the cap on funding for transporation
raise the cap on promised funding for special education
raise the cap on promised funding for students in advanced learning
raise the cap on funding for homeless students
raise the cap on funding for immigrant students
raise the cap on funding for growing mental health needs
raise the cap on funding for Gateway cities who educate greatest number of neediest students
This is what holds us back...
"then and only then should we consider raising the cap on charter schools"

superintendent of Whitman-Hanson
reimbursement doesn't fund needs
parents who choose charter schools...not part of the equation in the community
playing field is not equitable
"as a traditional public school, we are charged to education ALL students"
"choice does not mean a dual system of public education...that charges them to operate under a different set of regulations"

Norton superintendent raises questions of civil rights regulations
"simply put the rules, regulations, and the like must be the same for all students"
he himself arrived in this country at the age of five, product of public schools

Revere superintendent emeritius:
doubling the number of students in charter schools is short-sighted
"short-sighted and small-thinking"
really need some time to think out those issues of what we can improve public education
"is moving the number of children from 3 to 6% really big thinking?"
"what about the 94% of the other children that aren't using that?"

Superintendent of Chelsea:
"I believe there is a place for charter schools in Massachusetts"
system of schools
fortunate to collaborate with Phoenix charters in her district
doesn't have same relationship with other charters in Chelsea
comparing her district to the charter schools in Chelsea via data
increasing a high need district "this work comes at an increased costs"
"the state needs to do a deeper analysis" of demographics
"to simply endorse the cap lift...is irresponsible"

Superintendent of Medford
"Inflategate" of charter wait lists
"you must insist on an accurate assessment...especially since demand seems to drive the issue"
"Mystic Valley Charter serves ZERO charter school students"
demography "must be an issue" particularly if we are going to compare results
many other issues that need to be dealt with
"cost of improving the foundation budget...projected to be $800M for a fix"
(and that's not enough)
"many other investments for educational improvement" that would have a greater impact

Superintendent of Ludlow
before we consider raise the cap on charter schools, the state needs to meet the financial commitments they have already made
"when we receive our $434,000 bill for charter schools from the state, our community has absolutely no say over how those are funded"
"now is the time to raise all of our schools"
disappointed to hear language from Governor "these students deserve more...I would argue ALL of our students deserve more"
Chang-Diaz: for or against H464?
qualified cap lift

THE SUITS: Grogan from the Boston Foundation
cites his support for the Boston Public Schools
"don't believe that our support for charter schools as a diversion from our support for public schools"
"demonstration of the possible"
"tyranny of low expectations"
and I'm totally missing names here....Ah, someone from the Boston Chamber of Commerce
jobs going unfilled in some sectors of economy
"state's most important competitive resource: talent"
"effective tool in elevating student achievement"
AND ANOTHER CITATION OF THE WAIT LIST!
Roxbury pastor, Boston Educational Resource Center
more students of color enroll in and complete a higher education
need for higher ed to succeed in job market
"require a systemic shift"
"simply because it is right and because it is good"
Q from Jehlen: if your data is all from Boston, studies that look outside of Boston have NOT found that
"now that could be because those schools don't focus on MCAS prep"
"we need to ask ourselves: is this Boston question, or is this a state question?"
stop thinking "that what happens to Boston should apply to all those districts"
Grogan now citing Stanford study "certainly supports expansion of charters in the Gateway cities"
Chang-Diaz: do you support Walsh's proposal about funding change?
Grogan: we heard it for the first time this morning
Day: charters in Boston aren't sending kids to schools in same numbers as BPS: do you have employment data on charter grads v public grads?
...basically no...
parent panel which I am missing...

MEL KING!
thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my opinion about this legislation
as a former member of this committee...aware of what you have to do
all children get access to skills and knowledge
have developed a technology center where we provide young people with a technology center
a maker center: work with over 700 children so they get the skills that they need
"but I come today to ask you not to buy into the hypocrisy that is reflected in this legislation"
boo'ed the Pledge of Allegiance when he was in 10th grade
"the meaning of the Pledge is being undermined"
"with liberty and justice for all"
"this legislation does not set forth justice for all...it's justice for some folks and not for all folks"
"amazed that the Governor could sit here and push for legislation that is not in keeping with his mandate for all people"
"not for some of the children but for ALL of the children"

Youth worker from Lawrence: son is at a Lawrence charter school
"would not be able to provide him with a private school education"
concerned about sending him to a regular public school, because his sister has had trouble there
as parents, it's our job to make sure that great options are available to all our children
parent in Boston: daughter is on a wait list for a charter school
also went to a charter school herself
"want to make that choice for my children, but there aren't enough seats"
parent in Boston: Boston community experiences many inequalities
"quality education cannot be sustained without increased investment"
"we should not have to choose between quality" and....?
"while budgets may be a balance sheet for you, you need to realize" that they're a reality for us
METCO graduate and charter parent
"work hard and volunteer at church"
speaks of her son being valued as part of the community, not targeted or suspended
committee has the capacity to raise the value of the education of all of our children

Final panel on H464 (which is the first bill)
ah, founder of the Holyoke Charter School wants to add a high school
she's the one who totally sold out the Holyoke Public Schools before the Board of ed!
"we do not use our demographics as an excuse"
"these are the students that in other schools are labelled as ELL students"
whoa...no, they are still ELL students. You just aren't giving them the services they're supposed to have
calls for change in funding
"never at the expense of our children"
KIPP director: "our success is measure in their adult lives in independence and impact"
stories about kids...power of great schools, partnerships with families
director at a Lawrence charter school
700 kids in K-8
praise for receiver Riley "using every tool in his kit to turnaround the public schools"
charter schools have played a vital role in that effort
"forced by the takeover of schools"
"Lawrence is a great example of" charters and public schools collaborating
cites Boston

STARTING  A NEW POST