Ga.'s first all-girls charter school opens

Interesting.

On the flip side, a call for a all-boys charter school.

I say, the more the merrier.

Georgia Students/Parents Upset Over Charter Transportation Issue

In DeKalb County Georgia, a fair number of students have transferred to charter schools, exercising their right to do so. Yet the school system, which is obligated to provide transportation services to get those kids to their chose charter, is refusing to provide buses. The school system's response "Support your neighborhood schools." Really, that was it.

Well, here is a thought, improve the neighborhood schools and you won't see so many students transferring out. Duh!!!

The Anti-NCLB Charter School?

A Tampa area charter school will include daily classes in art and physical fitness.

So I wonder, will the anti-NCLB crowd (which generally includes those who oppose NCLB because of its over emphasis on reading, math and to a lesser extent science) embrace this kind of school?

What Do Kevin Johnson, Andre Agassi and Oscar de la Hoya Have In Common

It is not what you think, each is not only a former world class athlete, but each has demonstrated a commitment to education by founding a charter school in their hometowns.

Where are the other Kevin Johnsons, Andre Agassis and Oscar de la Hoyas? Why is it that most people don't even know that these superior athletes have done more to make a difference when they passed their athletic prime than they did while they were at the top of their respective sports? I suppose those questions are more rhetorical than they should be. The fact is, however, that we don't see in many athletes the kind of hands-on involvement exhibited by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Agassi and Mr. de la Hoya. For each, the work truly began when the ball stopped bouncing, the sweat stopped pouring and the fans stopped cheering.

In the game of life, we are ultimately judged by things other than athletic prowess, material success or popularity. Indeed, because of their steadfast commitment to the schools they founded, Messrs. Johnson, Agassi and de la Hoya are becoming legends - even in staid, traditional philanthropic circles. Each has done more than lend his name and money. Each has poured his heart and soul into the schools and the kids they serve. That is what makes them superstars.

Thank you.

Frederick All-Girls Charter High School Trying Again

Organizers of the EACH! Charter School are trying again to win a charter from the Frederick County School Board. Last year, the school board voted 6-1 against the charter.

A couple of things have changed. First, the school will limit its focus to high need foriegn languages, such as Russian, Chinese and Arabic, leaving off the focus on math and science as well as the languages. The new proposal also has the backing of a $550,000 grant from the Maryland Department of Education.

The school board has 120 days to respond to the proposal submitted on July 31.

Admittedly, at first I was opposed to this particular school. However, I believe it should be granted a charter. With the Department of Education, there is support from the state level.

Other concerns such as minority enrollment seem to be a relatively dumb reason to reject a charter proposal. Just because a school doesn't have a strong minority presence doesn't qualify as a sufficient reason to reject the entire charter. By law, a charter school must accept any student that applies (it is a public school) or hold a lottery if the number of applicants exceed the number of available seats.

So, here is hoping that the Frederick County School Board will grant this new charter. Kudos to Angela Phillps for not giving up.

Charter Schools: Doing More with Less

Edufalck highlights a study that talks about charter schools and notes:

But what is most interesting is the statistic that public charter schools receive, on average, 40 percent less funding that other public schools.

Imagine that. Held to the same academic standards by the school district and state. Teaching the same pool of students (or possibly the most difficult students in the pool). Tied to the same real estate, utility, and staffing costs as other schools in the city. Yet these charters are only getting 60 cents on the dollar to deliver BETTER results than those fully-funded schools.

First I would note that at least in Maryland charter schools must, by law and as recently interpreted by the Court of Appeals, recieve essentially the same per pupil funding as a traditional public school (with a small, probably around 3% discount for administrative costs like payroll, etc).

But that is not the point. Many charter opponents argue that charter schools are not doing any better academically than traditional public schools. Fine, but there is at least one lesson to be had if the 40% discout is indeed accurate---

You don't have to spend so much money to get the same results.

By corollary, what if the charter school was getting the same per pupil budget? What would their academic achievements look like then if they were hamstrung by budgetary constraints that don't exist for traditional public schools.

More Dumb Union Objections to Charter Schools

I saw this item yesterday and thought great news. It seems that Newark, NJ mayor Cory Booker has solicited private funds to support Newark charter schools and why not since so many states seem bent on not providing the same funding for charter schools as they do for traditional public schools.

The Newark Charter School Fund has already raised $19 million, including $16 million from four national foundations that have joined together for the first time to fund a Newark institution.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Donald & Doris Fisher Fund, Robertson Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation have each pledged $4 million while three Newark-based foundations -- the Prudential Foundation, MCJ Amelior Foundation and Victoria Foundation -- have each pledged $1 million.

The newly formed fund is the latest in a string of philanthropic organizations that have been created in Newark since Mayor Cory Booker took office to provide private funds where the public funds fall short. (links in original omitted)

However, the teachers' unions and other charter opponents seem to be stuck on stupid with their message, witness:

But Newark Teacher's Union president Joseph Del Grosso said he is concerned about the fund creating new charters that would drain resources needed by Newark Public Schools.

According to state law, charter schools receive roughly 90 percent of the per pupil dollars used to fund traditional public schools, though charter advocates say they get much less than that amount.

"They're not working collaboratively with the public schools," Del Grosso said. "A human can only give up one to two pints of blood before they die. How many pints of blood will the district's budget give up before it collapses?"

So let's see, a charter school, which is by legal definition a public school, gets 90 percent of per pupil funding that a traditional school gets. To make up the shortfall, which may or may not be 10 percent, charters will be able to resort to a PRIVATE fund for assistance. I am not sure where the loss to traditional public schools is coming into the picture. Is Del Grosso upset that charters may be able to get more money than a traditional public school? I can see how that would be upsetting. But from what is reported in this story, it does not appear that traditional public schools would be blocked from seeking aid.

Recruiting, teacher training and retention, implementation of improvement plans for under-performing schools, are among the areas that will be targeted, Leschly said. The fund could also help create new charters. Leschly added Newark Public Schools might also benefit from the initiatives, particularly the recruitment and retention piece.

Hmm, recruiting and retention is a district wide problem, it would clearly seem that the district would benefit from such programs. Helping to improve poor performing schools? Who could object to that? (Aside from Del Grosso).

Mayor Booker has made a name for himself by looking beyond simply the government to provide answers. That Mr. Booker does not wed himself to any one idea for school improvement just goes to show that some leaders on the local level are getting disgruntled with the politics as usual in school issues and is willing, indeed actively searching for ways to break out of the old mode.

What strikes me as most odd is the recalcitrant stance of the unions on the issue of charter schools. While they clearly don't like, charter schools are here to stay. The public demand and bipartisan support (Booker is a Democrat) for the idea has assured that charters will be a part of the educational landscape and will no doubt continue to grow in size and importance. Yet, the unions are fighting a 10 year old battle they lost.

But the beauty of a charter school is that all the risk is taking by the students and their families. A charter may or may not fulfill its stated goals. If it doesn't it gets closed (something that never happens in a traditional public school for academic reasons). Who loses out in such a situation. Not the traditional schools, but the charter students.

As noted in the Newark story, charter schools actually save the school district money. So the charter operates with a smaller budget and must make their own budgetary decisions. The school district is without budgetary loss and they are not held directly responsible for what happens at a charter school. The district, to a certain extent has plausible deniability.

So who has the most to lose in a charter school? The students.

All Girls Charter School Denied by Maryland

A group of parents from Frederick County Maryland were looking to establish an all-girls charter school were denied on appeal yesterday by the Maryland State Board of Education.

The school was planned to serve 360 girls from the 7th to the 12th grade with a curriculum that focused on math, science and critical need langauges like Arabic, Russian and Chinese. Although no reason has yet to be posted by the State Board of Education, the denial of the EACH Charter school's appeal means that the group of parents must now decide whether to appeal the decisions in the courts.

Last November, the Frederick County School Board denied the request, noting that the proposal had curricular weaknesses among others. There was concern among Board members about the legality of a publicly funded single sex school.

I must admit that initially, I was not just skeptical, but opposed to the EACH school's plan. But after some educational points by Angela Philips herself, I came around to the proposal.

Without an opinion by the State Board of Education to read, it is difficult to know their reasons. But the blow to educational choices for parents in Frederick County is real. There is one charter school in Frederick, the Monocacy Valley Montessori School which serves elementary age students. The only options for parents of middle and high school students are the public schools or private, usually parochial schools.

While the public middle and high schools are of sound quality, the quality of education is not the issue for me and I suppose Ms. Philips and her compatriots. Rather it is the lack of choice available to parents of normal means. It is traditional public schools or nothing for most people in Frederick and that kind of lack of choice I believe hurts education in the long run.

Over all there are 30 charter schools in all of Maryland and 22 of them are located in Baltimore City. Prince George's County Maryland has four schools, and Anne Arundel County, Frederick County, Harford County and St. Mary's County each have one. So unless you have money or you live in Baltimore City, parents have no choices for their children.

What is troubling I suppose is that the only people who are risking anything in a charter school are the parents and students of the school. If the school fails in its mission, the county and/or state can revoke the charter and shut the school down. If parents are willing to take the risk, why not permit it to go forward?

Instructivist Reform Does Not Address Poor Kids Needs

The debate about Sol Stern's City Journal article on how to best go about reforming our public schools continues. While I tend to think of the debate as it played out in City Journal's pages as largely without effect, Lisa Snell of Reason Magazine is adding her two cents to the debate, pricipally by undermining Stern's citations of the Massachusetts Miracle as the model for an instructivist reform, that is improving the content standards. Writes Snell:

Stern talks up the "Massachusetts miracle," where the state scored first in the nation in the latest 4th and 8th grade math and reading on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the nation's report card for student achievement and standardized benchmark for every state. The state's average scores on the NAEP have also improved at far higher rates than most other states. However, there is a more nuanced explanation for the uptick in student achievement in Massachusetts. We might ask, "Miracle for which students?"

To be sure, having the highest scores in the nation and highest gains on the NAEP, as Massachusetts does, is an admirable achievement. For a fuller picture of what is happening, however, Education Week's 2008 Quality Counts report for Massachusetts offers more context. Quality Counts notes Massachusetts ranks very low in terms of progress on the student achievement gap between low-income and higher income students. Massachusetts ranks 46th and 50th for the poverty gap—the difference in NAEP scores between students eligible for the free-lunch program and non-eligible students. In 4th grade NAEP reading scores, for example, Massachusetts has a 29.1 point gap compared with the national average of 26.8 points. In fact, the reading gap in Massachusetts has grown by almost 3 points between 2003 and 2007 on the NAEP. For 8th grade NAEP math scores, the state has a 31.4 gap compared to the 26 point national average.

In Massachusetts, middle class and wealthy children have clearly benefited from a focus on content and standards. However, it is less clear how this curricular focus has benefited the most disadvantaged students in the state, who are now being left even further behind.

Students with wealthier and higher-educated parents are thriving under a strong standards-based regiment. But content standards have had little impact on one of the most intractable of education dilemmas. It has not closed the achievement gap between lower and higher income students, where not even 50 percent of these students score proficient in reading or math.

That's the major reason why school reformers shouldn't place too many eggs in the "instructionist" basket. Families still need school choice. Public schools, especially in low-performing urban districts, still need competition, which gives students a right of exit to higher performing schools and gives public schools an incentive to improve in order to keep students enrolled.

As I noted in "A Pox on Both Their Houses," the debate between instructivists and incentivist (those who favor market based reforms like school choice) is largely lacking in any imagination as the two sides begin to calcify their positions as to what is important.

However, in the place where the rubber meets the road, the urban districts, the battle lines are not nearly as clearly defined. Indeed, you will see charter schools and other choice programs working with both a market approach and changes to content standards, in the same facility. The truth of the matter is that a combined approach is probably the one way in which a true change in the education of poor, minority and otherwise disadvantaged kids will occur and the achievement gap actually closed.

The debate will continue to rage as each side tries to find support for its position. Yet, we may be decades away from finding out which side is right and may even never find out. Educational entrepeneurs, on the other hand, will eventually find a way and they are the true direction finders.

Every urban school a charter at Joanne Jacobs

Andy Smarick talks about the 15 year old chater movement, and like all 15 year olds, the movement is struggling to find its place in the world:

First, advocates must answer a fundamental question: What type of relationship should the nascent charter sector have with the long-dominant district sector? The tension between the two is at the heart of every political, policy, and philosophical tangle faced by the charter movement.

But charter supporters lack a consistent vision. This motley crew includes civil rights activists, free market economists, career public-school educators, and voucher proponents. They have varied aspirations for the movement and feelings toward the traditional system. Such differences are part of the movement’s DNA: a National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) study found that the nation’s charter laws cite at least 18 different goals, including spurring competition, increasing professional opportunities for teachers, and encouraging greater use of technology.

Because of its uniqueness, chartering is unable to look to previous reform efforts for guidance. No K–12 reform has so fundamentally questioned the basic assumptions—school assignments based on residence, centralized administrative control, schools lasting in perpetuity—underlying the district model of public education. Even the sweeping standards and assessments movement of the last 20 years, culminating in No Child Left Behind, takes for granted and makes use of the district sector.

Though few charter advocates have openly wrestled with this issue, two camps have organically emerged. The first sees chartering as an education system operating alongside traditional districts. This camp contends that the movement can provide more options and improved opportunities, particularly to disadvantaged students, by simply continuing to grow and serve more families.

The second group sees chartering as a tool to help the traditional sector improve. Chartering, the argument goes, can spur district improvement through a blend of gentle competitive nudging and neighborly information sharing.

Both camps are deeply mistaken. For numerous policy and political reasons, without a radical change in tactics the movement won’t be able to sustain even its current growth rate. And neither decades of sharing best practices nor the introduction of charter competition has caused districts to markedly improve their performance.

I think in general, I fall into the market economics approach to the issue, i.e. that the market place of education needs more players. Higher education is a marketplace and an overwhelmingly effective market place.

Chaters need to take the offensive against the institutional players. Chaters and their supporters need to be vocal, loud and quite frankly confrontational with groups like teh unions, like the school boards, and others. Without a demonstration of effectiveness and solid argumentation, there will be little to show for the phenomenal growth.

Smarick's article is long and contains a number of great ideas. But what it all boils down to is that charters need to have an identity or they will remain just a sideline, almost a footnote, to public education in America and that is wrong.



Hat Tip: Joanne Jacobs

The EACH! Chater School Debate

A couple of weeks ago, the Frederick County school board voted to deny the EACH! Public Charter School application for a charter. The EACH! School was to be an all-girls high school focusing on science/math and languages. The reasoning for the denial of the chater were many, according to this Frederick News Post editorial:

Superintendent of Schools Linda Burgee, the school board, representatives from the Frederick County Teachers Association and several other local education employees associations found fault with EACH!'s application. They raised concerns about, among other things, the school's proposed curriculum, provisions for students with disabilities, and whether the institution would adequately serve the county's minority and low-income populations.

Those may be valid concerns, but the suggestion among some of the school's detractors that EACH!'s proposed all-girl student body was somehow unfair is puzzling. Why is it unfair?

By their very nature, charter schools are created to encourage diversity and choice within a school district. EACH! would fulfill that role in spades as an all-girls public school at which math, science and critical-needs foreign languages such as Chinese and Arabic would be center stage.

EACH!'s proponents, including prime mover Angela Phillips, argue that girls' lackluster math and science performance in traditional school settings needs addressing. Their belief is that girls might perform better in these subjects if they were in an environment tailored to optimize their potential.

This is not a new or novel idea. Some studies strongly suggest that girls and boys learn best in different environments. Segregating them produces better results than integrating them into the same setting, which may fail to maximize learning potential of either gender. This same reasoning has been used to promote all-boy classes and schools. Baltimore Freedom Academy, a charter school, teaches its ninth- and 10th-graders in all-boy and all-girl classes.

I must admit, at first I was not enamored of the idea of an all-girls chater school. I am still not convinced that the problem of discrimination against girls in math and science classes still exists, but I will withhold judgment until someone can prove it either way.

However, in considering this matter, I have come to the conclusion that EACH! should not be denied a charter just because there is not a "need." Part of the impetus, I will admit, is selfish. Even though my daughter is only in Kindergarten, I am not seeing that her education needs are being fully met and my wife and I are considering the only other charter school in Frederick and possible private schools. In short, I want another choice for my child. Does that make me selfish--yes and I am OK with that.

Further, Angela Phillips herself sent me an email suggesting I do a bit more research and I have. Yes, single sex schools and certainly classrooms appear to be on the rise in the United States. From what I have found, they tend to be charter schools, but some traditional public schools are experimenting with single sex classrooms. However, there remains some dispute as to the efficacy of such classrooms, as Elena Silva points out. But leaving aside the dispute as to the efficacy of single-sex classrooms, I think, at the very least, it cannot be any worse than classrooms already are and if there is improvement, even a marginal improvement, is that not reason enough to permit EACH! a charter? And anyway, how are we to determine whether single sex classrooms or schools are good for the kids unless we have single sex classrooms and schools upon which to study. Silva notes that some research is in the pipeline, but offers no indication when we will see it.

I also based my objection, in part, on a legal conclusion without sufficient legal research. I had said that a single sex school is, on its face, discriminatory. It still is, but that is not sufficient justification for opposing it, according to court rulings. I apologize to Ms. Phillips and the EACH! supporters for not doing enough research.

Of all the objections the school board cited, the only one that I think worthy of concern is the curriclum. All others can and probably legally must, be addressed. But as for the curriculum, I am not sure what is so objectionable, but let us assume that EACH! would have a science and math curriculum no different than currently offered, can the school board really be objecting to its own curriculum? Assuming that the EACH! will not be watering down the math and science curriculum (which would run counter to its stated goals), then the curriculum is not a particularly good objection.

Phillips has decided to appeal the County Board's decision to the State Board of Education.

Philips has to submit the appeal by Dec. 13 — 30 days after the local school board voted to reject the all-girls charter school application. The state board will then have 120 days to respond.

State board members will have different options – to immediately reverse or affirm the local board decision or to ask Frederick County’s Board of Education to evaluate the application again.

Even if the state board doesn’t reverse the local decision, the appeal process may help clear some questions about the charter school application process in Frederick County, Philips said.

‘‘We need the state board to assert the legality of single-sex charter schools,” she said.

Philips is also hoping the state board will clarify if charter schools are required by law to meet an existing need in their school system.

Both issues were brought up when the local school board evaluated the EACH! charter school proposal. Some board members stated that girls’ test results in Frederick County did not show a need for all-girls charter school focused on languages, math and science.

So a decision will be reached in teh early spring.

Historically, Maryland has not had a particularly good track record endorsing charter schools and I wonder what impact Governor O'Malley's recent appointees to the State Board of Education will have. Many chater schools in Baltimore have done very well serving that city's needs. But I wonder if there has to be a "need" for a chater school or if that need can be satisfied by simply having parents wanting another option.

In short, I have changed my mind and I hope that EACH! gets a charter--and soon.

Cross posted at Red Maryland.

Smarter Charter Laws

Andrew Rotherham and Education Sector have issued a new policy analysis calling for changes in the way caps on charter schools operate.

Much focus related to charter schools and the actual chartering, is devoted to the simple number of schools. While legistures and interest groups debate the issue kids who want to attend charter schools are left waiting, in large numbers.

In New York, for instance, the debate over charter schools for years largely centered on whether to lift the cap of 100 schools, focusing little attention on broader issues of charter school policy. And while the Legislature debated the cap, 12,000 students were on waiting lists to attend existing public charter schools. In Illinois 10,000 are on waiting lists, and in Massachusetts, 16,000.

In three states alone, 38,000 students wait for an opportunity to attend a charter school.

Rotherham argues that instead of focusing on strictly the numbers, the states should be focusing on the quality of schools. Rotherham suggests exempting from the caps any charter school with a proven track record of success in the top 15 percent of public school performance, however measured. Also states would need to examine their chartering authoriteis and the ability of those authorities to oversee and manage charter schools. Finally, making charters a part of any effort at systemic school reform on the state and local level.

While Rotherham makes some good point and argues that his proposition is a "grand political bargain," I am not sure how legislatures can adopt this kind of a model. The attraction of a straight numbers cap is that it is easy to measure. Sure you may get into semantics regarding the number of "campuses," but largely a charter school counts as one charter--easy to measure and easy to police. When you start dealing with qualitative issues, you have increased the complexity of management exponentially, something many states and most localities are incapable of managing.

Rotherham admits that his proposal will favor established charter management organizations, like KIPP or Green Dot, and it is an important admission. But there is something missing in all the debate--even among charter schools, we are not really seeing any true innovation in teaching and school management.

While charters can be an agent of school reform, and a powerful agent, the reality is that we are not really innovating in any significant respect in relation how kids are taught. Part of the lack of innovation is the necessarily conservative approach that education practically demands. No parent wants to have their kid be the subject of an experiment in pedagogy or curricula. Furthermore, no charter authorizer wants to put their stamp of approval on something so different from what we see today for fear of being labeld as the people that allowed "that school to come into our neighborhood." As such, even charter schools themselves are reluctant to do more than tinker around the edges of instructional design and school management. They may impose more discipline in the classroom, try longer or shorter instructional periods, cross-disciplinary teaching, etc, but nothing really substantive or different from traditional public schools.

I am not advocating that every charter school be doing something radical with its approach to education, indeed there is little room or political stomach for such widespread innovation. But at the same time, if we are really going to talk about changing the way in which charter schools are authorized and managed, something must be done to encourage, and to a certain extent protect, the innovator, whether it be a "mom-and-pop" or "one-off" type of school or an innovation from one of the established charter management organizations. I refuse to believe that there are not ideas out there that can dramatically and radically alter the manner in which our children learn. Charter authorizors should allow these innovative schools an opportunity to get established and flourish, that would be a real policy change.

CA Cheating Charter School Closed

A little over a week ago, this story about a charter school in Oakland, CA that changed grades and transcripts made the rounds of the edu blogs. Well, Darren at Right on the Left Coast notes that the school's governning board voted to close the school.This move was done by the school's management, not by the local school board or chartering authority, although it is highly likely that the school's charter would have been pulled.

When people talk about accountability in education, this is one aspect of that accountability. The school alledgedly undertook some shady practices and rather than face the long term consequences of damaging their students futures because of the inevitable questions about the accuracy of its documents, it decided to face the short term consequences of angering parents and students by closing.

In the end, the shady practices may be been the work on one or two people. But that doesn't matter, the cloud of public scandal would have followed these students even if their grades were on the level.

One thing that is important to note--had this occured at a traditional public school, the school would continue operating--possibly as before, with only one or two people getting sacked. Charters can be closed if they are failures--traditional public schools can't. Think about that when you consider whether charters are a good thing or not.

Baltimore Sun Reacts to Charter School Ruling

Normally, the Baltimore Sun is not a group of people I would agree with, but while they don't like the ruling by the Court of Appeals on charter school funding, they do make some good suggestions for future activity:

a more practical solution might be for Baltimore's school board members and new schools CEO Andres Alonso to sit down with members of the state board and try to convince them that a recent funding formula offered to charter schools by the city school system is satisfactory even under the court's ruling.

This is a common sense approach.

The Court of Appeals opinion does not enshrine the State Board of Education's funding model, only the supremacy of the State Board's rulings over local school district wishes. If a local school district can make a good case for a different model, and the charters are willing to accept it, I don't think the State Board of Education should be so inflexible as to outright reject the new funding model.

The Sun digresses badly at the end of the editorial though:

That's why the latest ruling begs for some clarification by the General Assembly, which has not gotten far with proposals that offered more-realistic calculations for charters. After all, the money for charter schools is likely to come out of money allocated for traditional schools. Pitting charter schools, which should be prized for their independence and different approaches to learning, against traditional schools is not the way to help students.

The last sentence is dead on accurate, the competition does not help anyone. But the solution to this funding issue is not for the General Assembly to come up with a one-size-fits-all funding scheme for all Maryland Charter Schools. Just because chaters are entitled to equal funding does not mean they will need or want equal funding.

Flexibility in funding will have to be the key. The Court of Appeals ruling said that services are not necessarily precluded, but are also that charters are not required to accept services in lieu of straight funding. The only body with the necessary flexibility in approaches to this question is the State Board of Education. If the Court of Appeals ruling says nothing else, it does place a great deal of faith in the SBE's judgment. Let's allow the SBE the flexibility to address the issue-either through a series of declaratory rulings or a promulgated rulemaking. Inflexible legislative solutions will do more harm than good.

Maryland Charter Schools Entitled To Equal Funding

In a big legal victory for Maryland Charter schools, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court, issued a ruling yesterday in the Baltimore chater schools case Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners v. City Neighbors Charter School. The essence of the ruling means that the Balitmore City School Board and indeed all the states county school boards must make payments to charter schools in a manner commensurate with the expenditures that are make on similar students in tradtiional public schools. The ruling could cost the Baltimore schools millions of dollars according to report by Sara Neufeld in the Baltimore Sun.

In an opinion by Judge Alan Wilner (who was sitting on the court by special appointment), the Court ruled that the funding choices made by the City board of education were inappropriate and wrong. The case starts in 2004 and 2005, two charter schools, City Neighbors and Patterson Park, sought a charter from the Balitmore City Schools and the school board essentially sat on their request, deliberatly choosing not to make a decision. Under teh Maryland Charter School law, local boards had to make a decision one way or the other withing 120 days. Applicants could choose to appeal to the State Board of Education (SBE) in the event of an adverse decision. Interpreting the lack of a decision as an adverse decision, the schools appealed. After the SBE told the local boards to make a decision in 30 days, the school board issued a conditional approval. One of the conditions was for teh school board and the charters to negotiate an agreement regarding funding. But, as Judge Wilner noted in his opinion in a forceful dig as legislative ineptitude, the law regarding funding was hopelessly vague.

Under Maryalnd education law, people and groups can apply to the SBE for a declaratory judgement on the meaning and interpretation of the state law, regualtions and policy relating to education. As such the charters applied to the SBE for a ruling on what "commensurate funding" meant. The SBE tentatively ruled that commensurate funding means the average per pupil expenditures for like students minus a 2% deduction for functions that can only really be performed by the county's central administrative office. The Baltimore City school board objected and began the appeals process. While the appeals were pending, the school board and the charters came to an temporary agreement that provided funding in cash for some aspect and the provision of services with the total "funding" being significantly less that similar per pupil funding. Eventually, the SBE handed down its declaratory ruling on the funing matter, largely leaving its temporary ruling intact and advised future charter applicants to follow, where possible, the SBE declaratory ruling.

The Baltimore school board filed judicial appeals, arguing among other things, that the SBE had not issued a declaratory ruling, but a regulation that had not followed proper regultory procedures, that the funding mechanism issued by the SBE was not supported by law and sought to have the SBE over turned. Lower courts found for the City school board and then later for the SBE and chaters before Court of Appeals took the case.

As noted before, the Court ruled against the school board. The SBE not only had the power and duty to issue declaratory rulings, but that such declaratory rulings are exempt from the normal regulatory process by specific exclusion in the Maryland Administrative Procedures Act. The substance of the ruling on commensurate funding found the SBE formula acceptable in large part due to the deference owed to the SBE's judgment and the legislative history of the Charter School Act. The Court did say that "funding" could include services, but that the charter school and not the school board makes the determination as to whether to accept payment in cash or payment in kind.

What is the effect of the ruling, beyond the immediate funding issue. First and foremost, the ruling clearly established the preeminence of teh State Board of Education in the educational policy arena. The Court, on a number of occaisions spoke of the deference the courts should afford to the SBE's rulings and rulemakings. Absent an illegal or plainly erroneous ruling by the SBE, the courts are to defer to the SBE's judgment.

While the SBE can be at best described as "charter neutral," the ruling makes it clear that for future charter applicants, at the very least they will get a relatively impartial hearing at the SBE. When contrasted with the often hostile greetings in the local school boards, the atmosphere is a welcome change.

On a more subtle level, the Court's ruling also gives warning to the local school boards--"get on board with the charter movement" or else. The tone of Judge Wilner's opinion implies that the Court is not particularly happy with the obstructionist nature of the local school boards, particuarly in Baltimore and Prince George's County, where the educational needs of students are most dire. While those two counties have the highest number of charters, the charters achieved such a status in the face of opposition if not outright hostility at the school board level.

Second, the funding issue holds a great deal of promise for future charters. The immediate effect of the ruling levels the negotiating playing field for the charters. Charters will no longer be forced to accept services as payment, although they can opt for that path. The longer term effect is that, at least to a certain extent, Maryland charter schools will be operating on something more than a mere shoestring budget.

While the ruling yesterday is clearly a victory for charter schools, the battle is far from over. Maryland chaters can continue to expect a legislative environment in the General Assembly hostile to charters.

The court's decision has already spurred political opposition and calls for legislative action to undo it.

"It was a bad decision financially," said Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, a Prince George's Democrat who has twice unsuccessfully introduced legislation to curb spending on charters. "I think it's going to result in children at charter schools receiving more than children at traditional public schools."

In Baltimore, charter advocates are awaiting the response of Andres Alonso, the new chief executive officer of the city schools. Through a spokeswoman, Alonso declined to comment on the ruling yesterday, saying he is studying it.

The biggest problem that charters face is attempting to instruct Assembly members that charter students do NOT get more money than traditional public schools students, in fact they receive less, at least 2 percent less. But the teacher's unions, whose opposition to charters is not only long standing but vocal (despite a legislative bone thrown the makes employees of chater schools eligible to be in collective bargaining units). The unions, who have the fortunate position to have a legislature that is more than 2/3 Democrats, have a largely receptive audience to the myth of funding.

Sen. Pinsky, quoted above, and his allies, however, have few legislative outlets short of keeping the cap on charter schools low or legislatively crafting a funding mechanism that shortchanges the charters. But there is a constitutional bar sitting in the way of the latter path--equal protection. By definition, charters are public schools and the state cannot fund them in too disproportionate manner without risking having their actions trashed in court.

But the political ramifications of drastically limiting the number of charters is also dangerous. Charters are performing well in Baltimore and in nearby Washington, DC. The state's most successful public school systems are in counties that many in Maryland simply cannot afford to live in, the People's Republic of Montgomery County and Howard County. Thus, there will be increasing pressure to either fix the schools in poor performing districts, like Baltimore City, or allow more charters to open. Thus, the General Assembly is caught between a rock and a hard place with a great big hammer of a massive $1.5 billion budget deficit falling on their heads this year.

Charters won an important victory, but it is simply one battle in a long war.

Charter's Financial Management Questioned

In Allentown, PA, the parents and student of Roberto Clemente Charter School have much to be proud about, but the The Morning Call thinks their austere financial management is wasting taxpayer dollars. The Pennsylvania charter school law requires the school districts provide the charters with the same funding in most categories as they would for a traditional public school. Like most states, Pennsylvania's law is not a full 100% equal funding for charters, but pretty close. Like a lot of charter schools, Roberto Clemente Charter manages its funds much better than traditional public schools, resulting in a nearly $475,000 surplus in its coffers. There are no allegations of wrong-doing on the part of Roberto Clemente, according to the story,

but the size of the overpayment shows a serious need for reform. [State Auditor Jack ]Wagner called on the Legislature to standardize the funding system for the state's 119 charter schools and 11 cyber charter schools. We agree.

Roberto Clemente has kept about 20 percent of its annual budget in a reserve fund for capital expenses and budgetary shortfalls -- on the face of it, good management. But public school districts' savings are capped by law at about 12 percent of their annual expenditures.

There are a couple of issues at play here, and I don't have all the facts underlying the case, but allow me a couple of assumptions.

Assumption #1, Roberto Clemente had to find its own spaces to operate and may be paying rent for those places.

Assumption #2, the Allentown public school district is embarassed by the ability of a charter school to manage money better than the school district. This embarassment is felt by elected officials all over.

Assumption #3, the operators of Roberto Clemente decided that a rainy day fund was better financial management than willy nilly spending.

On the savings cap score, my belief about charter schools and the point of charter schools, was to free them from some of the bureaucratic struggles that traditional public schools had to endure. One could logically infer that the 12% savings cap would be one of those rules from which the charter school was exempt. The Charter School Act does not mention the savings cap and the regulations may not as well, thus Roberto Clemente Charter simply figured, not illogically, that they were exempt.

But let us assume that the charter schools are not exempt, do we know that the surplus accumulated by Roberto Clemente Charter is not under the 12% cap? The Morning Call article noted that the school accumulated a surplus of $475,000 over three academic years, that comes to just over $158,000 per year. Was that number over the cap? Another alternative of the charter school is to simply reinvest enough of it surplus back into the school, in terms of technology, books, supplies, salaries, capital improvements or whatever to ensure that its savings rate is 12 percent.

What disturbs me the most though is that everyone thinks the solution is to limit the funding to charter schools. Charter schools vary in their funding needs, based on location, salary conditions, facility needs, and most importantly the needs of their students.

The Morning Call believes the charter school funding law is at fault for Roberto Clemente's funding surplus. However, could it be that the spending process at the public school system is at fault? One could easily make the argument that if one small charter school could wisely spend money, successfully educating students with smaller per pupil expenditures, then a larger school district operating on an economy of scale should be able to do so as well. But I would wager that the school system's operating budget is bloated by administrative costs, costs that a charter does not incur, and costs that the school district doesn't really need.

But no one, the Morning Call or the elected leaders named in the article, appear to have thought about putting tighter financial controls on the public school district. If one charter school can save $475,000 over three years, imagine what the 17,300 student public school system could do with a much larger budget.

For so long political leaders have assumed a generally hands-off attitude when it comes to school spending. Although budget increases are not without question and some lip service is paid to proper spending, in reality little is done to ensure that spending is actually achieving the school's mission--that of educating kids.

Instead of "reforming" the charter spending formula, maybe the Allentown schools would be better served asking the Roberto Clemente leaders how and where they achieved such cost savings while succeeding in their mission.

SEED To Open Boarding School in Baltimore

The SEED Foundation is set to open a public charter boarding school in Baltimore. The Foundation operates a similar school in Washington DC where 97 percent of its graduates get accepted to a four year college.

Southwestern High School, a huge concrete building shuttered last month, likely will be reborn as a public boarding school for disadvantaged students.

The nonprofit SEED Foundation is negotiating with Baltimore officials to get a 99-year lease for the site. The foundation would pay one dollar a year for the lease.

It is a fantastic opportunity," said Tom Stosur, assistant deputy mayor. "It is a unique site in the city because it is in the city but set apart."

SEED, which runs a school in Washington, won approval in the General Assembly to launch a public boarding school in Maryland to serve disadvantaged students. The group expects to open in the fall of 2008 with 80 sixth-graders and grow to become a middle and high school of 400 students from around the state.

Southwestern High School sits on a 50-acre tract, much of it wooded, near Gwynns Falls Park in West Baltimore. The school was large enough to hold at least 2,000 students, but the city school board decided to close it this year as part of an effort to break up the largest high schools and reduce excess space.

The site is attractive because it offers enough land so that the school can have a true campus with a traditional quad and dormitories around it, said Carol Beck, SEED's director of new school development in Maryland.

snip

SEED officials say students benefit from staying in a boarding school because they sometimes live in circumstances that can be disruptive to education. In some instances, their immediate families have dissolved and they are living with cousins or other relatives.

SEED has raised $5 million in capital through a gift from former Ravens owners Art and Patricia Modell, and the group is hoping to raise another $25 million in private funds to build the campus. The state will provide $25,000 per student per year for operating expenses, and about $7,000 to $8,000 will come from the student's home school district.

Both the State School Superintendant Nancy Grasmick and Governor Martin O'Malley (D) are impressed with the successes of the SEED school in Washington. Said the Governor:

"This is an excellent program," he said. "I'm so excited we're doing this in Maryland."

The governor said he hopes the legislature will allow the establishment of a second public boarding school. "There's definitely a need for another one of these things in the Washington area," O'Malley said.

I was impressed by the SEED school's record and I hope they can raise the funds to get the school opened soon.

Single Sex Schools and Classrooms

The Frederick New Post has this editorial related to a story I posted about earlier this week. A group of parents in Frederick County, MD want to open a charter school for girls that would focus on math, science and languages. As I noted earlier, I like the idea of a charter school that focuses on these subjects, but I have deep legal and personal reservations about a single sex public school (remember charters are public schools).

The Editors at the FNP write write about the issues of single sex education vs. coed education. They make some very good points:

There is evidence to support the premise that mixing boys and girls in the same classroom, or even the same school, is not the best way to proceed for either sex, yet it is the basis of the vast majority of public education here and nationwide.

Same-sex education -- all-boy or all-girl classes and schools -- is already a subject of interest here in Frederick County. Several years ago, some experimental all-boy elementary classes were proposed to test the premise that boys could do better in school if their learning environment was "boyed up" to better conform to how they learn.

This idea was proposed because there is a lot of evidence that boys don't perform as well as girls in typical learning environments, and that early failures continue to plague boys as they progress through elementary, middle and high school.

One particularly telling statistic involves the numbers of women and men in U.S. colleges and universities, where women both outnumber and outperform their male counterparts, and the gap appears to be widening.

The theory being put to the test in experimental all-boy classes involves how boys best learn. It appears that physical freedom, less structure and more flexible teaching methods are conducive to boys learning -- and that those elements are not present -- or at least prevalent -- in most traditional schools and classrooms.

Evidence does suggest that boys learn differently than girls and that perhaps some accomodations could be made to capitalize on those learning differences. To be sure, most classroom set ups in America are not done to benefit either sex in learning, but to benefit the adults in education and make their lives easier. I am not suggesting we do away with adult authority, but we need to look more closely and why boys thrive in one kind of atmosphere than in another and the same for girls.

While I am convinced that boys, as a group, learn differently than girls (of course there are exceptions), I am not convinced that girls "self-esteem and assertiveness" are damaged in coed science or math classes. It may be that the classes, as they are currently taught, match the learning styles of girls--a theory I am much more open to testing than "self-esteem" learning issues.

To this point, I am okay with the FNP's editorial, until I get to this paragraph:

Again, there is some evidence for this theory. Statistics show that boys go down the science/math/technology/computer road in much greater numbers than girls, who more often choose other careers such as teaching. Some suggest this is at least in part an explanation for the stubborn salary disparity that continues to exist between men and women.

Earlier this month, I posted this on the pay gap between men and women and how the choices of each sex in college and what they study leads to the disparities in pay more than anything else.

For once, the blame for the pay disparity among men and women is being properly attributed to personal decisions and not some insidious "discrimination" cause that no one can really prove on a widespread basis.

Please note that pay discrimination is illegal in this country and while there is nothing wrong with teaching as a profession, as a rule teachers are paid less than electrical engineers. Each person makes a choice and those choices carry consequences.

Look if Ms. Philips wants to build a charter school, good luck to her. But I think her chances of approval will be vastly increased if she said she was going to have some classes as single sex classes and allow both boys and girls to attend. I might even be willing to help in whatever way I can.

Maryland KIPP to Stay Open Amid New Questions

The Anne Arundel County school board voted yesterday 3-2 to allow KIPP Harbor Academy to stay open in a stunning reversal.

There are now two problems--space to run the school and staffing!!

A week after announcing that an Edgewater charter school would be shuttered, its divided leadership last night formally voted for the school to remain open in a stunning turnaround.

But the 3-2 vote by the board of KIPP Harbor Academy left more questions than answers: Where the school would operate? Who would be its principal? And who would staff it since 10 of the 12 teachers have found new jobs?

"We have two teachers and one staff person. ... We're in a very difficult position," said Steve Mancini, a spokesman for the acclaimed Knowledge is Power Program, or KIPP.

The decision to stay open, which came over the objections of Principal Jallon Brown, appears to keep the Harbor Academy from becoming the first among 52 KIPP schools to close because of lack of space.

So with a little less than two months before the school is to re-open, KIPP Harbor Academy lacks teachers and lacks a place to hold classes.

To keep up with the national model that calls for adding a grade a year until it has fifth through eighth grades, KIPP asked the county school board in April to lease space at Annapolis Middle School.

It has more than 900 empty seats, while KIPP needed to house 120 fifth- and sixth-graders and the expected incoming seventh-grade class of nearly 90.

The school board, however, said it needed the classrooms at Annapolis Middle for new programs and overflow space during future renovations of nearby schools.

KIPP maintained its search, pleading with churches and shopping centers, without success. Discouraged, it sent to parents a note June 20 abruptly announcing the school's immediate closure. That prompted panic - and anger - among parents and the staff.

Despite the fact that charter schools operate independent of teh bureaucratic rules that govern traditional public schools, charters have to walk through a minefield of political posturing and beg for space to hold classes. KIPP Harbor Academy's experiences are not all that new and because of all the politics surrouding the existence of charters, it is likely to face other obstacles as well.

One sort of political posturing still exists--the racial aspects. Like most charter schools in Maryland, KIPP Harbor Academy has a largely minority and poor student body:

"If this was over a bunch of white middle-class children, I guarantee you we wouldn't be facing this," said Kate Finley, a former teacher who has accepted a new job with a KIPP school in Washington. "My leaving had nothing to do with the parents, teachers or kids at Harbor Academy. I couldn't stay and work for a district that would treat its own staff and teachers this way."

Parents and community leaders are still not sure what happened or what the plan of action will be, but Finley may be right, if this were kids like the school boards kids, a plan would have been developed and in place by now.

Still no one is sure what is going to happen.

KIPP School in Maryland May Close for Lack of Space

In a symbol of the difficulties facing charter schools nationwide, KIPP Harbor Academy, a charter school in Anne Arundel County Maryland may have to close due to its inability to find adequate space to operate.

The academy told parents last week that it must close because it could not find a new location to house growing enrollment, making it the first of 52 KIPP schools in 16 states to close.

"I think we're just asking all sides involved, KIPP included, to take another look and see if anything can be done," Maxwell said in the statement.

Steve Mancini, a KIPP spokesman, said the county leaders haven't provided a viable solution. "We want a concrete proposal," he said. "All we got is a press release."

Sojourner-Douglass had offered KIPP a five-year lease, saying it needed a long-term commitment from the charter school to make business sense. But KIPP officials said that even with the construction of a new wing, the building is too small for its current enrollment of 120 fifth- and sixth-graders, not to mention an incoming class of seventh-graders.

The Maryland Hall board voted this month against housing the charter school. A spokeswoman, Donna Anderson, said yesterday it would have forced Maryland Hall to reduce enrollment from 5,000 to 4,000.

Charter schools often operate under the good graces of a larger institution, like a high schools whose enrollment is too small to occupy an entire building or some other similar location. Most charters struggle not with enrollment or staffing but simply finding space to operate.

Sojourner Douglass may not have enough space and Maryland Hall needs its enrollment in order to make money--a lease with KIPP would not be equivalent to 1,000 student's worth of tuition and fees.

I am hopeful that in the end, the Anne Arundel School Board will delay closing the school for a month or so to give the school a chance to find new spaces. I am also hopeful that someone with space will step up to the plate and offer some help.