{"id":50,"date":"2011-04-17T15:31:35","date_gmt":"2011-04-17T20:31:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bakeramitchell.com\/?p=50"},"modified":"2011-04-17T15:31:35","modified_gmt":"2011-04-17T20:31:35","slug":"is-that-really-rain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/2011\/04\/17\/is-that-really-rain\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cIs that really rain?\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p align=\"left\">\u00a0<strong>Raleigh \u2013 April 17, 2011<\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"left\"><strong>Background:\u00a0 <\/strong>On March 1,<strong> <\/strong>SB8 version 8 lifting the cap on charter schools was passed by the Senate and sent over to the House for their approval.\u00a0 After six weeks of wrangling in the House, however, it morphed through amendments and substitutes \u00a0into a tangled mess that serves no one well.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">In this morphed form it passed the House and went back to the Senate for concurrence where it failed <em>unanimously <\/em>on Thursday, April 14. Now the bill is in conference to be reconciled.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\"><strong>Problems with the House version:\u00a0 <\/strong>On Friday morning after failing concurrence, the NC House released a note (See<a href=\"http:\/\/bakeramitchell.wordpress.com\/wp-admin\/%20http:\/bit.ly\/hqisWB\"> http:\/\/bit.ly\/hqisWB<\/a> \u00a0) to \u201cclarify some of the concerns\u201d raised by long standing charter leaders and others (the entire Senate?) intimately involved in charter schools. (See <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nccivitas.org\/2011\/sb-8-time-to-walk-away\/\">http:\/\/www.nccivitas.org\/2011\/sb-8-time-to-walk-away\/<\/a> and, less diplomatically, <a href=\"https:\/\/bakermitchelljr.com\/2011\/04\/08\/clueless-caucus-crushes-charters\/%20\">https:\/\/bakermitchelljr.com\/2011\/04\/08\/clueless-caucus-crushes-charters\/ <\/a>)\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">The very fact of having to \u201cclarify\u201d the bill should raise some red flags, but let\u2019s deal with the bill and these clarifications.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\"><strong>The Cap<\/strong><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">Recall that the Republicans ran on the promise to \u201celiminate\u201d the 100-school cap, and this was done in the Senate version. The clarification of the House version states, \u201c<span style=\"text-decoration:underline;\">That cap will be removed<\/span>.\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration:underline;\">\u00a0<\/span>But it goes on to admit that after removing that cap, the bill demands that a new cap of 50 new schools per year be imposed. \u00a0So let\u2019s be honest; the bill does not eliminate the cap; it merely raises it each year.\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Please don\u2019t tell us that the cap will be \u201dremoved\u201d by this bill when it is just being replaced by another form of cap.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>\u00a0<\/em>The note further states that, \u201cWe believe that 50 charters are more than would ever be approved in a year due to the application process.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">First, why have an application process that is so cumbersome that it bottlenecks the approvals to less than 50 in a year. And if that is indeed the case, then it is unnecessary to impose any statutory limit \u2013 just let the bureaucracy strangle the applicants and create a line at the window.\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Again, please don\u2019t tell us the cap will be \u201cremoved\u201d when you then admit that the bureaucratic application process will serve as a new capping mechanism.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0Second, if there are more than 50 qualified applicants, the House bill does not give any criteria for ranking the top 50 to receive their charters.\u00a0 The current statute clearly defines a ranking criteria that the applicants shall be graded as to the degree to which they will best further a district\u2019s educational goals.\u00a0 No such basis is available to sort out the winning 50 in the new uncapped capped version. The bill could at least suggest a lottery among the qualified applicants \u2013 a method which the Governor would undoubtedly approve.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">Finally, the note asserts that charter status awarded directly by the SBE to district schools in the \u201cRestart\u201d model <em>\u201cdo not count against the yearly limit\u201d<\/em> [cap? \u2013 supposedly removed!].\u00a0 I\u2019m glad the House is sure of that, because in the original statute it was deemed necessary to insert a statement that granting charter status to these schools does not count against the cap.\u00a0 These words are removed in the House\u2019s bill.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 If they were felt necessary before, what does it hurt to leave them in?\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Please don\u2019t tell us that \u201cRestarts\u201d don\u2019t count against the new \u201climit\u201d when the original drafters clearly thought they did and included language to that effect which you removed.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0In summary, we have gone from eliminating the cap to an annual cap of less than 50 per year due to a clot in the application artery.\u00a0 And in the event the clot dissolves, there are no clear criteria to prioritize the applications.\u00a0 And the SBE could possibly use up all the charters for its low-performing district schools. (Wisconsin recently authorized 49 charters in Detroit alone.)\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\"><strong>Governance<\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0The Senate bill SB8 version 8 that went into the House clearly left more control of charters in the hands of an independent commission.\u00a0 The commission was not required to seek approval on any measure from the SBE.\u00a0 Only by a 2\/3 vote could the SBE veto a commission action.\u00a0 (Even this degree of control is still a major concern to most charter leaders: <a href=\"https:\/\/bakermitchelljr.com\/2011\/04\/07\/170-elected-reps-bow-to-11-appointees\/\">https:\/\/bakermitchelljr.com\/2011\/04\/07\/170-elected-reps-bow-to-11-appointees\/<\/a> )<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0In contrast, the House bill surrenders completely and allows the commission only the power to \u201crecommend\u201d measures to the SBE. The SBE must approve, by a positive vote, anything and everything the commission wants to do.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0But the clarification mystifies one by claiming, \u201cThose who favor less interference with charters by the State Board of Education should welcome this new proposal.\u201d Really?\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Please don\u2019t tell us that your system of submitting \u201crecommendations\u201d requiring \u201capprovals\u201d constitutes \u201cless interference\u201d than unilateral actions that must be vetoed. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0To perhaps \u201cclarify\u201d this point, the clarification states that in the bill SBE approval cannot be unreasonably withheld nor can disapproval be arbitrary or capricious.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">Over the last decade, I have personally witnessed a number of decisions handed down by the SBE.\u00a0 Despite being an unaccountable body of appointees who prohibit public comment at their meetings, I have never seen an arbitrary or capricious ruling &#8211; only decisions earmarked by abysmally terrible judgment and\/or total ignorance of the facts.\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Please don\u2019t tell us that your prohibitions of arbitrariness or capriciousness will result in \u201cless interference\u201d when bad judgment, ignorance, and anti-charter bias are the real concerns.<\/em>\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"left\"><strong>Accountability<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">Nowhere is the House bill more misguided, more confusing, and misinformed than with the accountability topic. Whomever is furnishing analysis or advice to the House leaders has done a terrible disservice to them and to the entire education community.\u00a0 But this \u2018accountability\u2019 section wins the prize for confused, misinformed, ambiguous language.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">The current law, passed in 1996, requires that the academic goals be stated in the application and made a part of the charter contract.\u00a0 Termination or non-renewal for academic reasons is based on the school\u2019s failure to meet its promised goals as set forth in the application and mutually agreed upon between the parties.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">For example, if the charter founders of an inner-city school promised to raise local performance composites from 35% to 55% in 5 years and that goal was accomplished, then they would be renewed.\u00a0 If it was to be a gifted and talented charter and the founders promised 90% performance and they only achieved 85%, then they might be subject to termination or nonrenewal.\u00a0 Termination and nonrenewal depended upon non-fulfillment of the contract by the school.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">So under current law, at the awarding of the charter, the charter group and the state mutually agree upon the academic performance goals and if the charter fails to reach these mutually agreed-upon goals, then it is subject to termination. (\u00a7 115C\u2011238.29G)\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">In December of 2009, the SBE tried to supersede this law by adopting a policy whereby they could shut down any school that failed to make 60% composite performance on the state\u2019s EOG tests for two out of any three years.\u00a0 This policy has yet to be codified after nearly a year and a half.\u00a0 See TCS-U-001 whose heading declares: <strong>THIS POLICY HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE NC STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, BUT IS STILL PENDING CODIFICATION IN THE NC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.\u00a0\u00a0ALL CODIFIED RULES MAY BE ACCESSED BY GOING TO THE\u00a0<\/strong><a href=\"http:\/\/reports.oah.state.nc.us\/ncac.asp?folderName=Title%2016%20-%20EducationChapter%2006%20-%20Elementary%20and%20Secondary%20Education\"><strong>OAH WEBSITE<\/strong><\/a><strong>.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The clarification note characterizes the new House bill as being \u201cmore lenient\u201d than this still-uncodified SBE policy. Because the bill implies that the three-year 60% threshold is an average?\u00a0 But what about the current law? Is a one-size-fits-all 60% more lenient than the current law\u2019s breach of contract?\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The note also attempts to \u201cclarify\u201d that the bill\u2019s phrase \u201cno growth in student performance\u201d \u2013 an undefined phrase in state statistical jargon &#8211; equates to the well-defined phrase \u201cnot meeting or exceeding expected growth.\u201d Many would argue that these two phrases have different meanings and would need to spend some money in obtaining a judicial opinion to sort out this issue.\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Please don\u2019t tell us that a vague undefined growth criteria and a 60% threshold are \u201cmore lenient\u201d and should usurp the criteria that were mutually agreed upon by the parties at contract signing as specified by current law.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0The clarification further claims that this \u201clenient\u201d 60% is important: \u201cThis is important because many charters specifically target &#8220;at-risk&#8221; students.\u201d Many charters do specifically target at-risk students. The note also properly praises Rep. Marcus Brandon as being the lone Democrat to support this bill. A check of DPI ABC results for Mr. Brandon\u2019s district reveals that last year 19 of 46 elementary schools had performance composites of less than 60%. Yes, they can use help; but who would invest years of effort and untold funds only to face possible termination in spite of performing above the surrounding area schools. In attempting to defend the needs of his district, Mr. Brandon\u2019s courage and good intentions are without question, but this bill will not achieve his desired result. The most prudent place to put a charter under the House bill is in a high income area that already has high academic achievement.\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Please don\u2019t tell us how important this accountability section is for at-risk students when in fact it can force closure of schools that are outperforming the nearby traditional schools and when it chills opening new schools in high-risk areas.<\/em>\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"left\"><strong>Funding<\/strong><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">Hooray! The <em>clarification<\/em> gets it correct: historically, a student who transfers to a charter school leaves behind 20% to 30% of the funds that his traditional school received.\u00a0 He brings only 70% to 80% of his original funding with him to his charter school.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">However, this <em>bill<\/em> gets it wrong and under legislation passed last year, this gap can widen because counties can remove even more funds from being shared with charters by hiding money from charters in new \u201cSpecial Programs.\u201d\u00a0 The Senate bill fixed this loophole and placed charters on a more equal footing.\u00a0 The House bill reopens the loophole and returns charter children to second-class status.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">The clarification puzzlingly attempts to comfort charter proponents by stating \u201cthe funding mechanism established for [charters] ensures that traditional public schools <strong><em>get more resources per student<\/em><\/strong> as and when more charters are established [and charter will, therefore, get less].\u201d [emphasis added]\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Please don\u2019t tell us that we should not have concerns when the House bill has the net effect of actually widening the funding gap between traditional and charter schools.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0<strong>Other \u201cAdvantages\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">The clarification asks us to consider a chief advantage to the House bill \u201cis that for the first time counties <strong><em>would be allowed, at their option,<\/em><\/strong> to provide capital money for charters.\u201d<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0<em>Please don\u2019t tell us that counties now will be flooding charters with capital funds when these counties are fighting tooth and nail to resist even allocating the amounts that are statutorily required.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>\u00a0Besides, this was one area that was left intact from the Senate version.<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0In summary, please don\u2019t whiz on my boots and tell me it\u2019s raining.<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0Regardless, the House is owed a debt of gratitude for their efforts on behalf of the education system of our state.\u00a0 Majority Leader Stam has a number of other bills that will prove truly very beneficial.\u00a0 But as mentioned earlier, they have been badly advised and been given some very defective data on this charter bill.<\/p>\n<p align=\"left\">\u00a0Let\u2019s hope the House seeks better counsel in the upcoming conference committee. But bring a towel to dry your boots \u2013 just in case it \u201crains.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u00a0Raleigh \u2013 April 17, 2011 Background:\u00a0 On March 1, SB8 version 8 lifting the cap on charter schools was passed by the Senate and sent over to the House for their approval.\u00a0 After six weeks of wrangling in the House, however, it morphed through amendments and substitutes \u00a0into a tangled mess that serves no one [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-education-k-12","category-politics-nc"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}