Archive for the ‘Charter Schools’ category

Charter Schools: A Primer For Virginians

January 13th, 2010

Newly minted Secretary of Education Gerard Robinson will introduce two words new to most Virginians outside of Albemarle County and Arlington: charter schools. In this Op Ed, well-known education policy analyst Andy Rotherham of the think tank Education Sector notes:

The governor-elect can change that and bring more federal education dollars into Virginia. In Albemarle County, Superintendent Pam Moran is using chartering to improve the schools, and in Arlington, parents used to sleep on the sidewalks waiting in line for that county’s choice options. There is demand and need for more public options in Virginia.

This issue will likely be a hot-topic during the 2010 General Assembly and throughout the Commonwealth in the coming months. There will also be lots of “reform grammar” that constituents will need to work though, so, let’s start with the fundamentals–what charter schools are, and what they are not.
Charter schools are indeed public schools–supported by public funding–so let’s move forward with the primer. Josh Cook, a teacher/leader at Green Dot Animo Justice in South Central, L.A. (full bio), drafted the following series of posts for Edurati Review several months ago. Let’s go there next…

Josh’s series is certainly not meant to serve as evidence in one way or another on whether charter schools are right for Virginia (or anywhere else), but merely as way to build some background knowledge for lots of discussion to follow. There are plenty of opinions on the charter model–and even a little research. We’ll be exporing those at a later time. Until then…

No comments »

Posted in Chad Ratliff, Charter Schools, Virginia

Shift Happens. Even in Schools.

October 30th, 2009

By Jason Flom, Ecology of Education

On a recent field trip, neither my students nor I was at threat of being eaten alive by a t-rex.

Why, despite ruling Earth for nearly 80 million years (even longer than Wall Street barons), are Cretaceous period animals not regularly chowing on our gizzards? Things change.

Scientists have suspected this for some time. In fact, a growing body of geologic evidence seems to support the theory that things today are not the same as they were 200 million years ago. (Many even suspect tomorrow will be different than today.)

Surprisingly, this idea of “change as constant” is not yet an accepted norm. (Though it comes as no surprise to anyone who has visited any number of schools in the past few years.)

In a recent post, titled “Constant Transformation is the New Norm”, on his “Innovation Insights” page on Harvard Business Publishing, Scott Anthony writes:

There are still some executives who are waiting for things to return to “normal.” It’s not going to happen. Constant change is the new normal.

Um. . .correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t “constant change” been the norm for quite some time? Sure, there were (and will be) periods of relative stability, but these are often preceded and followed by periods of growth and transformation. Nothing stays the same forever. This hold true in both geologic and bi-pedal time.

So, why is this news? How can such a scientifically accepted norm make it onto a Harvard blog geared toward innovation? Why is this an emerging trend worth writing about by someone with such an impressive resume in innovation? Surely business executives were aware that things change. What’s so different now?

Pace.

Despite vain attempts by the learned and powerful to keep things as they were, the digital domain is disrupting the old standard, rapidly. Such meteoric growth is transforming how businesses do business, and should affect how schools administer schooling.

While the key to success is to adapt to the new landscape, the strategies for doing so are not so clear cut.

Toward this end, Mr. Anthony offers 3 points of advice:

1. True transformation starts with a deep understanding of the severity of the problem.
2. Transformation requires being outside-in, not inside-out.
3. Space is the only way to avoid the “sucking sound of the core.”

While specifically geared toward businesses, reform minded education trailblazers would do well to take notes on these points, because they offer insights for being on the leading edge of transformative change in our nations schools.

True transformation starts with a deep understanding of the severity of the problem. In education’s case, it must include a deep understanding of the severity and variety of the problems. Too often measures are put in place based on a single problem, as in addressing an important issue, such as the achievement gap, while neglecting or exacerbating others. Leaders would do well to think system-wide before instituting scaled-up standards that solve one problem at the cost of creating others.
Transformation requires being outside-in, not inside-out. Innovation is born out of a novel combination of knowns. Facilitating the innovation process necessitates drawing in elements/people/knowledge from outside the organization. Education’s deeply rutted top down hierarchy maintains the inside-out approach by limiting inputs. As a result, much of the “reform” appears much the same as before, just more of it. More standards, more tests, and more hoops to jump through. Yet, beyond the school walls there is a shift in how people are interacting with knowledge and each other, and an even larger shift in the behavior of the global economy. Looking for meaningful and lasting transformation requires that education leaders broaden their inputs from outside the economic interests of the lobby-sphere to include ideas and influences that develop life long learners.
Space is the only way to avoid the “sucking sound of the core.” In an interview with Blogging Innovation, Mr. Anthony describes the “sucking sound” this way:

Most companies excel at managing innovations that extend their core business. They struggle with innovations that run counter to their existing way of operating. Then, the greatest enemy lies within. We call it “the sucking sound of the core.” A company’s core systems and structures “want” an innovation to conform to what a company has done before, not what is necessary for success. The sucking sound makes innovation slow and complicated. To break the sucking sound of the core, companies need to make sure they have a “safe space” for innovation, and that senior leaders actively step in to break standard operating procedures when required.

In many ways, charter schools represent the laboratory of the education institution, the Skunk Works of sorts. However, as testing and accountability systems become increasingly standardized, the sucking sound at the core threatens to pull any innovation in the public school system toward the previous norm. Continuing to develop and support the relative autonomy of charter schools will help to ensure that our education system has room to explore new and compelling ideas.

Change is not the new norm, but we would do well to act as if it is.

It is the one thing we can count on. In fact, it is the only thing we are sure our students will face as adults. Preparing them for adapting to change must be our top priority. If we are truly bent on normalizing our nation’s schools, we must find a way to standardize diversification and differentiation.

Image: National Geographic

1 comment »

Posted in change, Charter Schools, Harvard, Innovation, Jason Flom, Scott Anthony, transformation

On Charter Schools, Part 3: Criticisms of Charter Schools

April 23rd, 2009

This is the third in a series on the growing Charter School movement in American education. Previous articles have outlined the general disrepair of the American public education system and attempted to define specifically what is meant by the term “Charter School”. This series is being cross-posted at the blog, Sweat & Technique.

Much of the media attention on charter schools as a solution to our educative woes seems to be positive. Charter schools played an important role in Barack Obama’s education speech in Ohio. Barack Obama’s new education secretary, Arne Duncan, helped to rebuild public schooling in Chicago in part with charter schools. This post will not extol the virtues of Charter Schools, but instead will attempt to outline their critiques. As this article published Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal suggests, there are criticisms being levied against the expansion of charter schools. This post will not attempt to refute or discuss these critiques, but merely to present them as objectively as possible. For objectivity’s sake, let me make it clear that I am a teacher at Ánimo Justice Charter High School, a charter school managed by Green Dot Public Schools.

They Reinforce Segregation

“Charter schools are largely more segregated than public schools.” Charter Schools and Race: A Lost Opportunity for Integrated Education, the Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2003.

In the forward to a 2003 report issued by the UCLA Civil Rights Project (formerly the Harvard Civil Rights Project), Gary Orfield writes, “Although there was an early concern that charter schools would serve as a haven for white students to escape diverse public schools, many minority parents have expressed strong interest in alternatives to their local public schools.” That minority parents should be embracing charter schools should not be surprising. I believe that our nation’s Achievement Gap speaks to the fact that problems faced by our public education system are compounded for minority communities. As a result, “charter schools in most states enroll disproportionately high percentages of minority students, resulting in students of all races being more likely to attend school that on average, had a higher percentage of minority students.”

Difficulties with Accountability

In my post last week, I wrote “a charter school must outperform the public school to remain in existence.” Commenter, jkowal, responded,

“in most states & districts, charter schools don’t actually have to *outperform* the traditional public schools. I wish this were the case! But in many areas they can be getting results just as lousy as the nearby district schools and stay open. It really depends on the rigor of their sponsor/authorizer’s accountability standards, and whether or not the sponsor has the resources/stomach/fortitude to shut down a school that’s still better than some in the same district.”

Many may be familiar with the struggle around the closing of Uphams Corner Charter School in Boston. The seven-year-old Charter serving fifth through eighth grade students had made great strides in establishing an identity offering a classical education to struggling students. What Uphams Corner had failed to do was post test scores.

Though a state inspection team found improvements over the past year in student behavior and classroom instruction, MCAS scores remain low. For the first four years, many classes lacked rigor, and teachers didn’t teach a curriculum that was aligned with the state’s academic standards. A majority of teachers left the school in the second and third years.

On the MCAS last year, Uphams Corner performed worse than Boston’s regular, noncharter public schools in math, and similar to Boston in English, according to the state inspection report. Seventy percent of Uphams Corner’s sixth- and eighth-graders failed the 2006 math MCAS tests, compared with about 50 percent in Boston and about a quarter statewide. English scores were better — 49 percent of Uphams Corner’s eighth-graders scored proficient in English, the state’s goal. In comparison, 54 percent scored proficient or higher in Boston, along with 74 percent statewide.

Take note of the year. The article references 2006 scores. The Massachusetts State Board of Education voted to revoke the charter of Uphams Corner Charter School in January of this year. The charter is revoked effective June of this year. The review of scores and practices found Uphams Corner to be deficient in 2006, but the nature of the review process is such that it took two more years for the process to be completed. The process is by nature costly.

According to “Grading the Chartering Organizations,” a June 11, 2003 Education Week article, “In most states, however, there are few resources for oversight of schools and revocations of charters for educational failure, as opposed to financial problems, are rare.” The realities of public schooling on the ground often prevent sponsoring agencies from holding Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) accountable. Each year, the Center for Education Reform (CER) publishes an Accountability Report on Charter Schools. The 2009 report states that, since 1992, less than 100 charter schools have been closed down by their sponsors for failure to achieve their stated academic goals.

Distribution of funds

Charter Schools receive funding through their sponsoring institution based upon the Average Daily Attendance of their student body. Unfortunately, charter schools do not receive all of these funds. According to CER, “Nationwide, on average, charter schools are funded at 61 percent of their district counterparts, averaging $6,585 per pupil compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools.” Part of the problem is the path of this funding. In California, for example, the money goes from the State to the local District to the CMO or School. In California, 31¢ of every dollar does not make it from the District to the CMO or School.

Another criticism of Charter School funding revolves around CMOs. In some states, such as Michigan, it is possible for a CMO to be a for-profit organization. Designed to bring competition to the administrative side of education, criticisms of for-profit involvement with education are pretty clear. If tax dollars are being diverted from the classroom to private shareholders, even as a reward for efficiency, these are dollars that are not being spent as intended … on the education of children. According to an evaluation performed by Western Michigan University, Michigan Charter Schools are on average lower performing than Charter Schools in other states.

They Skim Off The Cream

While it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the measured success of Charter Schools, certainly, it would be easier for a Charter School to succeed if it were enrolling only the best students from a low-performing local school. Many attribute the success of Charter Schools to just this phenomenon i.e. the Skimming of the Cream. In California, Charter Schools must enroll students when they have available spots. If there are more applicants then available spaces, a lottery must be held in order to determine who will enroll. In theory, the practice is extremely egalitarian. Schools can, however, require interviews and/or personal essays as part of the application process. While these may not be judged for merit, they can be judged for “fit between the charter school and the family” and certainly favor the highly motivated. A December 2008 article on Chicagoist.com speaks of community “disappointment with the charter school program and how they are ‘destroying neighborhood schools’” by catering “to the kids that shine on state tests, leaving the lower-scoring kids behind in neighborhood schools.”

Union Issues/Job Security

Much of the education reform debate seems to cast union advocates as obstructionist, and while some of this is deserved and fair, a strong teacher’s union can increase teacher longevity and job security. There has been no love lost between prominent CMOs and powerful teacher’s union. The union I am a member of, Asociación de Maestros Unidos, which represents all teachers at Green Dot Public Schools, seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

CMOs as a general rule seem to see union organizing as an obstruction to school reform. The internet has multiple refer ences to the cleansing of unionizing schools and unfair labor practices when it comes to the formation of unions. I realize that this is a flashpoint issue, and I do not wish to now debate the issue. I simply wish to highlight that there are teachers who wish to unionize at charter schools who are being blocked in their efforts.

Burnout

I am currently in my fourth year of teaching. At my young Charter School in its third year of existence, I am a veteran. I serve as Chair of a Department, Testing Coordinator and on various committees. In the past, I have thought nothing of working a 70-hour week. I am not a workaholic, I just have a strong commitment to my school and its needs. But this is not a sustainable pattern of behavior and leaves me susceptible to any number of diversions such as blogging about charter schools instead of lesson planning (rest assured, I am fully prepared for school tomorrow:) Kidding aside, however, according to a post at EdWeek, “In the charter schools, nearly a quarter of the teachers ended up leaving by the end of the school year, 14 percent of them leaving the field altogether and 11 percent transferring to another school.”

Conclusion

I write this post not because I am anti-charter. I am pro-education reform. I write this post looking for solutions to these problems. While I have attempted to stay impartial in presenting these criticisms, I hope that you will weigh in with your opinions on these and other criticisms of Charter Schools. I will leave you with a quote from a Pennsylvania legislator who voted to create charter schools, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, culled from the Wikipedia page on Charter Schools. According to Wikipedia, Cohen said that

“Charter schools offer increased flexibility to parents and administrators, but at a cost of reduced job security to school personnel. The evidence to date shows that the higher turnover of staff undermines school performance more than it enhances it, and that the problems of urban education are far too great for enhanced managerial authority to solve in the absence of far greater resources of staff, technology, and state of the art buildings.”

9 comments »

Posted in Achievement Gap, AMU, CER, Charter Schools, Criticism, Edreform, Education, Harvard, Joshua Cook, Teacher's Unions

Part 2: What is a Charter School?

April 17th, 2009

This is the second in a series on the growing Charter School movement in American education. This series is being cross-posted at the Sweat & Technique.

Last week’s post discussed the state of our current public education and attempted to address the question, “Why is Change Necessary?”. The underlying assumption of this series going forward will be that America’s public education system is in a state of crisis and requires change. A quick Google Search for “public education alternatives” shows several alternatives to traditional public education, Private Schooling, Homeschooling, School Vouchers and Charter Schools being the most prevalent. This post will not attempt to resolve why any of these is superior to the others, but will attempt to clearly define exactly what is meant by Charter School.

Perhaps the most famous charter …

the Magna Carta.

I believe that a Charter School can be most clearly defined as a School of Choice. Failing all other options, enrollment in the local public school is compulsory for all American children under the age of 18, while enrollment in a Charter School is not mandatory. The same may be said of any of the other stated alternatives. Parents may choose to homeschool their children, choose to pay for a Private School or choose to receive a Voucher so that their child can attend another Public School outside of their local area. What distinguishes Charter Schools from each of these, and what makes the school more appropriately a School of Choice, is that the intent of a Charter School is to provide a local alternative to a student’s local public school. In theory, students attending a Charter School should be doing so in their local area.

In terms of enrollment procedures, Charter Schools very closely resemble public schools. Charter Schools can not charge tuition or have a religious affiliation, nor can they selectively admit students. If more students wish to enroll in a local charter than there are available seats, the school must hold a lottery to randomly admit students. If a Charter School has an available seat, they must admit a student regardless of the student’s prior educational performance. The intent of Charter Schools is not to create Magnet Schools with specialized or advanced curricula.

The purpose of Charter Schools is not merely to create choices for the sake of choice. Strictly speaking, a Charter incorporates an institution and defines its rights and responsibilities. In terms of schooling, a charter defines what the school will be, what will be its stated goals and who it will be accountable to. When states began passing laws allowing public schools to be chartered they did so with the understanding that these schools would be in more direct, local control of their day-to-day and year-to-year operations, but the trade off would be that these schools would have to show superior results when compared to the local public school they would be competing with. In this sense, a school charter is two things: 1) a granting of rights to the charter’s managing body and 2) a performance contract between this managing body and the sponsoring institution. To put it succinctly, a charter school must outperform the public school to remain in existence. To quote Spiderman’s Uncle Ben, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Charter Schools are similar to Public School Vouchers in the sense that Charter Schools receive public funding. As part of the school’s charter, a Charter School is sponsored by some institution. This may be the State Board of Education or a local School District. Charter Schools receive funding through this sponsoring institution based upon the Average Daily Attendance of their student body. Beyond receiving these funds, however, Charter Schools are legally and financially autonomous. They do not need to submit budgets for approval to their sponsoring body. They may use the funds they receive in any way provided they are meeting the goals spelled out in their Charter. In this sense, a Charter School is similar to a non-profit that has written a grant for funds, then must use the funds to complete the goals spelled out in the grant.

Currently, 40 states and the District of Columbia have Charter Schools in operation.

8 comments »

Posted in Charter Schools, Edreform, Joshua Cook, Schools

Part 1: Why Change Is Necessary

April 10th, 2009

This is the first in a series on the growing Charter School movement in American education. This series is being cross-posted at Sweat and Technique.

Charter School as defined by Wikipedia:

Charter schools are elementary or secondary schools in the United States that receive public money but have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school’s charter.

While charter schools provide an alternative to other public schools, they are part of the public education system and are not allowed to charge tuition. Where space at a charter school is limited, admission is frequently allocated by lottery based admissions. Some charter schools provide a curriculum that specializes in a certain field– e.g. arts, mathematics, etc. Others attempt to provide a better and more efficient general education than nearby public schools.

This first post is not intended to depress. It is intended to spell out in some detail why a change is necessary, i.e. why the current American public education system is inadequate. As a math teacher, I will begin with the TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). Every four years a non-profit organization based out of Washington D.C. attempts to provide “reliable and timely data on the mathematics and science achievement of U.S. 4th- and 8th-grade students compared to that of students in other countries. Throughout my credentialing program, the TIMMS report was discussed extensively, in particular, the fact the United States consistently scored in the middle despite being amongst the leaders in per pupil spending.

Again, my intention is not to depress. First and foremost, I wish to state my belief upfront that these sorts of claims are misleading. There is something unique to American education that is difficult to quantify and thus does not make itself apparent in these sorts of studies: American education is about equity. What I mean by this, is that in theory, any one individual American student has the same educational opportunities as any other one individual American student. This is not the same in most countries. For better or for worse, most countries sort students prior to entering secondary education. For better or for worse, in theory, every American secondary student has the same educational opportunities. Looking at the TIMMS, when we note that Singapore has the highest performing mathematics students on the planet, keep in mind that Singapore does not teach higher mathematics to all of their students.

Before continuing, let me say that this series will assume that equal education for all is the highest of goals. I do not wish to entertain discussions on whether our system should include trade schools or alternative educations of any type. I am operating under the belief that every American teenager should be given the opportunity to attend a four-year university. To be clear, as our economy completes its transition from an industrial into an information economy, this is absolutely necessary. Which brings me to the state of the American public education system … WHY DO WE NEED CHANGE?

Let us begin with a discussion of the current educational model. This model was developed nearly 100 years ago to confront the needs of a burgeoning industrial nation. Its stated goals were very different from our current stated goals. Where today we discus equity in education – preparing every child for university matriculation and engendering in every child higher level problem solving skills and abstract thinking – the goals of our antiquated system were much more simple. Our current public education system was built to process a large number of students in order to prepare them for the performance of some rote task, i.e. the goal was to develop industrial workers. To be clear, the preparation of industrial laborers was what the country needed at the time. We were in the midst of the Industrial Age. Most American jobs were in large factories. In order to be competitive in the global economy, America needed strong, capable workers. It makes sense then, that our public education system resembled a factory.

During this time, success could be measured in a very different way. When the vast majority of students would not be attending university, it was not always necessary that they even graduate from high school. They needed to be competent at learning a simple, repetitive task that may require some manual strength. If this is what is needed, then it makes sense to have students moved through an assembly line of classes (six 45 minute periods) and a dropout rate of 50% or more is tolerable. For the majority of the twentieth century, there were more than enough jobs waiting for these young men and women.

America’s economy is no longer based around industry. Yet our schools are still run as if they are factories. Public education is impersonal. Teachers teach upwards of 150 students at a time. Counselors have caseloads of 500 students. The focus of education is on behavior management as opposed to conceptual understanding. Often times a student’s locker may be his or her only stable point of reference during an eight-hour day. Imagine doing your job having to work at six different desks during the day. The result: students at urban schools (often disproportionately African-American or Latino) dropout at rates above 50%. Few are being prepared for jobs that use higher level thinking.

The short answer to the question: Why is a Change Necessary? We are no longer an industrial economy that needs Industrial laborers. We are an information economy that requires thinkers.

I will leave you with a short anecdote of an informal anthropological observation I have made. I live on the West side of Los Angeles near the UCLA campus and Santa Monica. For those unfamiliar with the geography of Los Angeles, the West side is the “wealthy”/”white” side of town. I teach in South Los Angeles (a few blocks from Central Avenue which would mean I teach in “South Central” Los Angeles). South Los Angeles is the “poor”/”brown” side of town.

I made an observation during a recent trip to my cell phone provider’s store front. Doing an informal count of the employees of this particular store (located at 26th and Wilshire in Santa Monica), I noted that the vast majority of the customers of this particular store were white. I then noted that the vast majority of the employees of this store were people of color (African-American, Latino). This was a jarring observation to me, particularly because the majority of these employees were just a few year older than my students and definitely of university age. Was this their destiny, to wind up as customer service employees for a multi-national cellular phone company rather than attending university? As anyone who has had to troubleshoot their cellular phone can attest to, working for the company requires intelligence. Could it be that, without a university level education, my students are destined to sell their intellect at slightly higher than minimum wage as customer service technicians rather than at healthy salaries (we assume with a substantial benefits package) as designers, engineers and executives for these same companies? This is a question that I do not yet have the answer to.

2 comments »

Posted in California, Charter Schools, Education, Joshua Cook

For Virginia Education, McAuliffe Is the Only Choice

March 18th, 2009

(by Patrick R. Riccards, Eduflack)

When it comes to education improvement, Virginia has gone about as far as it can using the system and structures that we have. For nearly a decade now, “education governors” have led the Commonwealth, with Governor Mark Warner focusing on high school improvement and Governor Tim Kaine focused on early childhood education. Both played by the rules. Both adhered to the pre-imposed structures and mores. And both demonstrated statewide progress in a state that closely holds its belief in local control.

Warner and Kaine did all they could while coloring within the lines. They maximized a strong state economy and growing tax coffers to institute changes and strengthen on K-12 offerings. But those times are over. Virginia educators are now being asked to do far more with fewer resources. We’ve raised expectations for both our students and our teachers. We’ve instituted greater assessments and accountability. We’ve raised standards. And we’ve called on every Virginian to secure a high school diploma and go on to postsecondary education. If we are going to succeed at all of this, we need a bona fide leader who can act swiftly and decisively, who is not afraid to do whatever is necessary, even if it means apologizing for it later. We need a governor who sees that education does not happen in a vacuum, and is inextricably linked with our economy. For Virginia, that means one thing. We need to make Terry McAuliffe our next governor.

Twenty-first century education has become all about innovation, improvements, and results. No one is a more passionate and experienced spokesman for those traits than Terry. In his quest to strengthen our economy, he recognizes that our public education system is our most valuable asset. Employers protect jobs where the population is effectively educated. New companies relocate to communities with strong schools. State bond ratings are higher when our school districts are strong. And unemployment rates decline when our citizens are equipped with the skills and knowledge to perform in the 21st century economy.

If we are to meet the economic challenges of the future, we need to act now, offering no apologies and providing no excuses. We must ensure that every child starts kindergarten with the educational building blocks necessary to achieve. We must provide elementary instruction that provides all students the core knowledge and skills for the future. We must offer secondary schools that are rigorous, relevant, and engaging. We must demonstrate that dropping out is never a viable option. And we must improve and expand pathways to postsecondary education, whether it be career training, community college, or university.

In essence, we must strengthen our P-20 education continuum, providing all Virginians the entry and exit points they need to maximize their opportunities. Schools in Russell County must be as strong as those in Fairfax County. A Virginia diploma from Petersburg is just as valuable as one from Bristol, Norfolk, Charlottesville, or Arlington. No matter where you live, no matter the community’s per capita income, a Virginia education should be golden.

Terry is the only candidate with the vision to transform our public schools into the centers of excellence every Virginian needs. Why? Three simple reasons:

• First, Terry knows education must begin early and it must begin strong. We need instructionally focused, evidence-proven early childhood education for all Virginians. PreK is not a time for glorified babysitting. It is our one chance to ensure all students have the tools they need to hit the ground running in elementary school. Those students forced to play learning catch up in kindergarten or first grade rarely ever hit their stride.
• Second, Terry recognizes that effective teaching is the core of effective education. The best instructional programs, the latest books and technology, and the smartest approaches have little impact if we do not have strong, effective teachers leading our classrooms. Terry is committed to investing in our teachers, providing them the ongoing support, professional development, and incentives necessary to keep good teachers in the profession, ensuring that even our most hard-to-staff schools have the quality teachers our children deserve.
• Third, Terry knows that education is the pathway to economic success. It starts with a strong K-12 system, where all students gain the knowledge and skills to perform in the workplace. It is enhanced by increasing postsecondary opportunities, where more Virginians are gaining a college education. And it is further strengthened with our educators and employers working together to build educational pathways that meet the needs of our evolving economy. This isn’t just about 21st century skills. It is about Virginia skills. Terry gets that and is committed to it.

As we listen to Terry on the campaign trail, we regularly hear about the need for innovation and return on investment. We need to put our money on changes that work and reforms we can measure and quantify. These are the approaches that will strengthen our economy, and they are attitudes that will strengthen our schools. No, we can’t turn to chicken waste to cure our educational gaps, as we can with some of economic and energy concerns. But we can put that sort of creative thinking to work to identify and implement real solutions for the real problems facing our public schools. And Terry McAuliffe is just the governor to do it.

Is his education platform perfect? No. If we are to ensure that low-income and minority Virginians have the same educational opportunities as those in high-income communities, we must be willing to embrace opportunities provided through charter schools and other such innovative approaches. Terry is right, we need to focus our efforts on improving all public schools across the Commonwealth, ensuring that they have the resources and supports they need for success. Implemented correctly, charters can strengthen our public school offerings and strengthen our public school systems. We’ve seen charters level the playing field in community after community, providing families and children the choice they need to improve the quality of education before them. In recognizing that our schools must change to keep up with our world, I’m confident that Terry will see that charters are a part of the solution. While charters are not our silver bullet for school improvement, they are a tool that school districts in need should have access to if needed.

Over the years, I’ve worked with states and communities across the nation on school improvement issues. In that time, I have spent a great deal of time in Virginia communities, talking with teachers, parents, business leaders, and students about what we need to strengthen our schools. The recognition, passion, and commitment for change in Virginia has never been stronger than it is today. We need a leader who will continue moving forward, strengthening our P-20 system and demonstrating return on investment for every education dollar spent across the Commonwealth. Terry is such a leader. Terry is the education governor we need at this time of both opportunity and challenge. Terry McAuliffe is our best hope for a stronger future, both in the schools and in our communities.

(Patrick R. Riccards is CEO of Exemplar Strategic Communications, an education consulting company headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia. He is also author of Eduflack , an online commentary on effective education reform.)

No comments »

Posted in Charter Schools, Eduflack, Governor's Race, Patrick Riccards, ROI, Terry McAuliffe, Virginia

Dropping a Deuce: Second Look at VA Gubernatorial Hopefuls on School Policy

March 16th, 2009

Brian Moran’s claim to education fame is his being crowned the 2007 Virginia PTA’s Child Advocate of the Year. This honor will continue earning him brownie points from the not-so-eduwonky crowd, as it already has over at the New Dominion Project. That’s significant.

Moran’s father was a high school government teacher, earning him a little street cred’ with educators. Notably, he grabbed the endorsement of Dr. Thomas Brewster, a leading practitioner in public schools and no stranger to public office. Brewster cites Moran’s leadership role in Virginia history’s largest K-12 investment, and his support of the Whole Child educational initiative as factors in his decision to endorse.

I’m actually quite surprised at how the Dem candidates are blurring the outlines of Virginia’s education circles. From reformer to retiree, opinions are scattered and often overlap. The robotic ambiguity of early rhetoric certainly factors. All three candidates are especially enthusiastic about pre-k, access to higher-ed, and good teachers. Cutting edge stuff.

So far, Moran seems to be walking the line even more carefully than his rivals. According to this piece in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Terry McAullife has taken a pretty strong position against charter schools while Creigh Deeds voices support.

It’s important to remember that Obama shrugged off the NEA during his campaign. Democratic primary candidates for Governor can’t afford to be that brazen, or can they? Union endorsement lost its luster? Could we actually be witnessing Virginia Dems strategizing the bore issue of education?

If so, McAuliffe seems to be positioning himself next to the NEA/VEA while Deeds may get a nod from the Obama-Duncan-Warner-Kaine education reformers. Who would you rather have in your corner? Will be interesting to see Brian Moran’s choice.

No comments »

Posted in Brian Moran, Chad Ratliff, Charter Schools, Creigh Deeds, Governor's Race, NEA, New Dominion Project, Terry McAuliffe, Thomas Brewster, VEA, Virginia, Whole Child

A Quick Peek at Virginia Governor Hopefuls on School Policy

March 15th, 2009

Following President Obama’s recent speech on education reform, Republicans are scrambling to join-hands-and-sing-praises of peace and bipartisanship while an expanding splinter movement among Democrats has shaken party unity. Popular Senator Mark Warner was one of only two Dems voting keep the DC School Choice program alive. His protégé, current Virginia Governor and next DNC Chairman Tim Kaine, was once on Obama’s short list for Secretary of Education. Toss in a heating Democratic primary race between Terry McAuliffe, Brian Moran, and Creigh Deeds, and—given the next Governor’s potential influence on federal level education policy—you have an exciting race that will have edupolicy wonks across the country tuning in.

Let’s get the party started by reading what each campaign’s website has to say about education. Simply click on the link to go find your way to Edutopia…

TerryMcAuliffe, Brian Moran, CreighDeeds

Not much to see here, Folks…stick around. The Dems are just getting cranked up. The GOP’s lone-ranger, however, recently went from parking brake to hammer-down…

Bob McDonnell

The Presumptive Republican nominee’s website reads:

“Bob McDonnell will spend 2009 rolling out exciting new policy proposals that are innovative and solve the problems facing Virginia citizens. From transportation to education to health care, Bob McDonnell will build on his record of results with a positive vision for the future. Please keep checking back here for the official policy rollouts from the campaign this coming spring and summer.”

Despite the lack of specifics on his campaign site, McDonnell wasted no time outlining his ideas of education policy with the following statement released after the Obama speech:

“I applaud President Obama for his leadership in lending his support to timely education innovations such as performance pay for teachers, and increased student access to charter schools. He is right to support efforts to reward excellent teachers and allow parents and students reasonable alternatives in their educational development. As this campaign moves forward I look forward to introducing innovative education policy ideas in the near future. I will be focused on supporting parents and students, recognizing excellent teachers, equipping principals with the tools they need, improving financial accountability, getting more resources into the classroom, and making charter schools more accessible for Virginia’s children. I thank President Obama for moving the public education debate forward with his willingness to look at new ideas. I agree with the President that it is time to find new ways to bring greater choice and accountability into our public education system.”

Pretty clear that Bob is not courting the VEA with this statement. However, I know a few moderate Dems in the education circles who will swing to the right based on school reform and education equality. These are real issues, growing more divisive with every election. Democrats had better pay attention.

No comments »

Posted in Barack Obama, Bob McDonnell, Brian Moran, Chad Ratliff, Charter Schools, Creigh Deeds, DFER, EEP, Governor's Race, Terry McAuliffe, Virginia