UW's CRPE Dumbfounds with Lessons on Charter Law
Over at UW's Center for Reinventing Public Education, they wrote a one pager about "lessons for Washington State" on getting high-quality charter schools. I have to laugh as I wonder if they even read I-1240.
Highlights:
• Strong authorizing is key to quality
o Districts cannot be only authorizer, but authorizers need to build competency
o Weak or negligent authorizing leads to many low-performing schools
- Promote authorizer clarity/accountability in law, implementation
So the CRPE must be against I-1240 because:
- the Charter Commission does NOT have to be pre-authorized in the same way School Boards do. It seems odd that an elected board would have to go through a process that the members of the Charter Commission don't. (This isn't explained in the initiative.)
- also, CRPE doesn't like "weak or negligent" authorizing? Well, unfortunately, the Charter Commission has no oversight, elected or otherwise AND there's no way to remove low-performing members. So much for strong authorizing (and accountability).
You cannot get good schools without paying for them
o Provide for equal access to resources (state, local, federal funds) and facilities access or funding
- Predictability, flow of funding are as important as amounts
Well there's a knee-slapper. Yes, we do need to pay more for our schools and yet we're not discussing that. We're discussing how to divide up the funding to be in even smaller amounts with charters.
And "predictability" of funding? I think charter schools will be quite surprised how many people will not be voting for levies if charters come in. That Seattle has to run a levy every three years for 23% of its operating budget is not "predictable". Lose that and see how many fewer dollars will flow to charters.
• Provide strong autonomy and accountability
o Do not bother to create more schools with limited autonomy (charter lite)
o But balance that freedom with no-nonsense accountability (i.e., closures)
Again, they must not like I-1240 because it has vague accountability.
• Clear language,oversight, and financial incentives are best guarantees for equal student access to charters
o Special education and other pots of funds should follow kids
o Avoid quotas or other rigid input requirements
I don't know what they mean by "financial incentives" for charter schools to guarantee equal student access.
Well that's odd. CRPE well knows that Special Ed money is federal money and DOES follow the student. But the problem is that charters don't like to have to set up programs for those kids and they counsel them out in high numbers.
Interesting about the quotas and "input requirements" because that's not what public schools do except for magnet programs. Hmmm, why would you have to say this if charters are public schools?
But the two biggest whoppers on this list?
• Do not expect to get it right the first time
• Do not expect the law to take care of quality
I thought we went through all this figuring out in the OTHER 40 states and their experience. I thought this was best charter law ever written. And now, the experts at the Center for Reinventing Education are saying probably not?
Not too reassuring.
And it's not possible to write a law tight enough to have solid expectations of quality, like making sure that we get the most high-performing charters?
Again, not too reassuring.
Why do we want charters again?
Highlights:
• Strong authorizing is key to quality
o Districts cannot be only authorizer, but authorizers need to build competency
o Weak or negligent authorizing leads to many low-performing schools
- Promote authorizer clarity/accountability in law, implementation
So the CRPE must be against I-1240 because:
- the Charter Commission does NOT have to be pre-authorized in the same way School Boards do. It seems odd that an elected board would have to go through a process that the members of the Charter Commission don't. (This isn't explained in the initiative.)
- also, CRPE doesn't like "weak or negligent" authorizing? Well, unfortunately, the Charter Commission has no oversight, elected or otherwise AND there's no way to remove low-performing members. So much for strong authorizing (and accountability).
You cannot get good schools without paying for them
o Provide for equal access to resources (state, local, federal funds) and facilities access or funding
- Predictability, flow of funding are as important as amounts
Well there's a knee-slapper. Yes, we do need to pay more for our schools and yet we're not discussing that. We're discussing how to divide up the funding to be in even smaller amounts with charters.
And "predictability" of funding? I think charter schools will be quite surprised how many people will not be voting for levies if charters come in. That Seattle has to run a levy every three years for 23% of its operating budget is not "predictable". Lose that and see how many fewer dollars will flow to charters.
• Provide strong autonomy and accountability
o Do not bother to create more schools with limited autonomy (charter lite)
o But balance that freedom with no-nonsense accountability (i.e., closures)
Again, they must not like I-1240 because it has vague accountability.
• Clear language,oversight, and financial incentives are best guarantees for equal student access to charters
o Special education and other pots of funds should follow kids
o Avoid quotas or other rigid input requirements
I don't know what they mean by "financial incentives" for charter schools to guarantee equal student access.
Well that's odd. CRPE well knows that Special Ed money is federal money and DOES follow the student. But the problem is that charters don't like to have to set up programs for those kids and they counsel them out in high numbers.
Interesting about the quotas and "input requirements" because that's not what public schools do except for magnet programs. Hmmm, why would you have to say this if charters are public schools?
But the two biggest whoppers on this list?
• Do not expect to get it right the first time
• Do not expect the law to take care of quality
I thought we went through all this figuring out in the OTHER 40 states and their experience. I thought this was best charter law ever written. And now, the experts at the Center for Reinventing Education are saying probably not?
Not too reassuring.
And it's not possible to write a law tight enough to have solid expectations of quality, like making sure that we get the most high-performing charters?
Again, not too reassuring.
Why do we want charters again?
Comments
I'm finding the "financial incentives" odd. I've not heard anything about this.
"Evidence suggests that paying teachers bonuses for the achievement of their students does not raise test scores. Between 2006 and 2009, teachers in Nashville, TN, were selected at random and offered bonuses of $15,000 for getting their students' achievement to match the highest 5 percent of students, with lesser bonuses of $10,000 and $5,000 for matching the highest-performing 10 and 20 percent respectively. An evaluation of the incentives found that the scores of the students taught by teachers who were offered the bonuses were no higher than those taught by other teachers. (Springer, et. al., National Center for Performance Incentives, 2010)
Many economists are surprised by such results. They assume that people are motivated primarily by economic rewards and so offering cash incentives for people to try harder must surely increase results. They forget that such incentives work only when people are not already trying as hard as they can. There are, no doubt, some teachers who do not care about how well their students do, and for this small minority of teachers incentives may work. But the vast majority of teachers are trying everything they can to increase their students' achievement. There is certainly no evidence that there are teachers who are holding on to a secret proven method for teaching fractions until someone pays them more money. So performance-related pay is impossible to implement fairly, does not seem to work, and even if it can be made to work, will make a difference on ly for that small minority of teachers who are not already trying their best."
--Dylan Willam "Embedded Formative Assessment" pg. 18
CRPE shows once again how full of CRAP they are...
Dora
Mirmac, no one answered the question I asked about clicking through the ads in the July 10th open thread. A quick googling implies that bloggers do earn more money if people click on their ads, but I don't know (1)if that is true, or (2)if the advertiser actually pays more. I can imagine they just pay a set fee to a middle man and the middle man may or may not pay the blogger more for more clicks. I can imagine that the blogger may only get paid more if reader signs up at a site or buys something. Does anyone know for sure?
Too bad no one ever bothers to look at educational history. It's important to know where you've been so you can better figure out where you need to go next.
But I understand th world has changed, and facts-schmacts - if it doesn't fit in your worldview, just make it up, like Faux News and the eager charter people.
-CT
So, no, Robin Lake couldn't possibly have read I-1240 before she wrote it. It may be that CRPE IS disappointed in I-1240, I hope Ms. Lake schedules that coffee she proposed in her comments here, I would be interested in hearing her perspective.
•Clear language, oversight, and financial incentives are best guarantees for equal student access to charters
o Special education and other pots of funds should follow kids
The paper is pretty minimal (obviously an executive summary of a larger body of work), but I honestly don't see what you find so ridiculous about it.
But whether it was written yesterday or a year ago, it still applies to 1240. If they believe those things are the hallmarks of good charter law, I-1240 is not it. And, if they believed then that a law won't work the first time. As for quality, if the law isn't strong enough to make sure that authorizers - as they authorizer and oversee - will provide quality, I don't know what they think will.
@CRPE_UW
Reporters: Qs re: WA state charter initiative? contact crpe@uw.edu. See also these resources: http://bit.ly/LlT864 and http://bit.ly/OAZSgN
False advertising. They should flat out say "we like I-1240, even though it's not supported by our research." And the AP "reporter" (and I use the term loosely) Donna Blankinship retweeted it as well. She should go work for the Seattle Times editorial page.
"In this one-page brief, Robin Lake summarizes key lessons for creating high-quality charter schools."
So yes, it's was one page and not a summary.
Maybe the Times will not print it, but there is no harm in trying. It would be helpful to include what has happened with charters on a national level. Print readers who do not see online comments or this blog need more information to counter the Times editorial bias. Please write to them.
S parent
as long as the coach bag crowd come out 'for the children', then, it must be
ForTheChildren
Someone brought to my attention that you've been asking in these comments about the coffee sessions that I suggested. Sorry to leave that hanging. Charlie and I were having trouble finding a time that would work for both of us. Let's do this: I'll be at Uptown Espresso (500 Westlake) this Friday at 2pm. Anyone who is interested in having a civil conversation about the research on charter schools and the specific language in I-1240 is welcome to join me. I'll bring my copy of the initiative so you'll know how to find me there.
Maureen, since you'd indicated interest in meeting, let me know if that time doesn't work and I'd be happy to find another time that does work for you. Please email me at rlake@uw.edu.
Robin
"Strong authorizing is key to quality"
I would agree.
I would also agree with putting this at the top.
Unfortunately there is no reason to believe that the State Commission formed by the iniative would be a strong authorizer. And there is certainly no reason to believe that any school districts that choose to become authorizers will be strong authorizers.
The charter school deal is, essentially, a swap of one type of accountability for another. Instead of school district bureaucrats holding these schools accountable for quality - please don't laugh; that really is supposed to be the public school structure, the charter school authorizers are supposed to hold the schools accountable for meeting their pledges please, stop laughing. It is difficult to have a serious discussion in the face of this derisive hooting.
We seem to have found our problem. We are switching a form of hopelessly inept and ineffective accountability for a form of hopelessly corrupt and ineffective accountability. It's no improvement.
"Good schools can and should be replicated"
Yeah, nothing about this in the initiative.
"Clear language, oversight, and financial incentives are best guarantees for equal student access to charters" The problem here is that the funding for special education students doesn't cover the costs of serving special education students. So the financial incentives just aren't there.
"Do not expect the law to take care of quality" This is an obvious bit of advice, yet the people promoting the iniative say - falsely - that the quality is written into the law. It isn't. It can't be.
I think that Dr. Lake has given excellent advice. I think this advice would have led to a different law than we see in the initiative.
It is disrespectful to this blog to keep knocking our lively discussions. That your organization and LEV and Stand have to make sure every comment goes your way and do NOT allow full discussions is how YOU work.
But we strive to have OPEN conversations while remaining respectful.
You don't need to tell us that.
Maureen
Melissa, my own personal interpretation is that 'civil' means: no shouting or bullying. I'm from the east coast and can handle snark, but shouting in public crosses the line for me. I do try to keep in mind that others may have different standards than I do.
I am from the northeast, the wrong side of the tracks.
In the northwest, in 'liberal' kind of politics, "civil" means everyone agrees with me, or, they're wrecking the solidarity, they're wrecking the unity, they're wrecking the positive with their mean negative, and the wreckers are the reason we lose.
Shouting & Bullying ?? ha ha. Then you're angry, and you need pot or prozac or a couple of Judy Garland electroshocks to the squash.
AMEANLiberal
You'd also have to define "bullying" in this context because I don't know what that would be.
My party line on discourse has always been: no name-calling, no swearing and no shouting.
Whatever the definition of "civil", I don't need Ms. Lake to wag her finger at my readers.
So, I assume Robin means the most obvious -- no shouting, interrupting, name calling, swearing. And for my part, I will impose on myself the further meaning that the meeting is not for the purpose of going in with a bitter, entrenched set of grievances (I have a small basket of those that I carry around with me, I guess) that I will defend against all comers.
I will hope it does NOT mean the "smiley my way or the highway, and anything but consensus is uncivil definition that AMEAN liberal notes (and that I have also encountered) -- because I think there are two possible issues to debate:
1. Given their performance/nonperformance in other states, why would Washington want to experiment with charters AT ALL -- clearly, some folks I know and like a good deal would be willing, in the abstract, to go there, in the right circumstances. I used to be, but am no longer, in light of how they have worked out in the other 41 states (not school by school -- but overall). Not sure this will (or should) get discussed, though it is a backdrop for No. 2.
2. Assuming for the sake of argument that charters, in the abstract, could be a useful thing to have a few of -- is this good charter legislation. I of course think that it is deeply flawed and potentially very damaging. I am hoping that Robin will explain why she either thinks the existing legislation is actually just fine -- or why she thinks it doesn't matter that we pass bad legislation!
If nothing else, I may get to meet Maureen, and that will be a good thing!
And as a final note -- I do agree, Melissa, that the addition of the "civil" comment was off-putting. Ordinarily, you do not invite people to meet to talk with you -- but only if they agree to remain civil, unless in fact, you are presuming the probability of "incivility." I have seen you and Charlie (and some of the commenters, to the extent I know their names) in action and I am not aware that anything that either of you (or any of us) has done justifies a presumption of incivility.