Articles in the Privatization category

The week in blogs: High school reports spark more discussion

Two reports on high school rigor, which came out within hours of each other last week, have sparked an online discussion about the need to make secondary school more relevant for all students. 

“Are Disparities Creating an Educational Caste System?” the provocative title of Maureen Downey’s Get Schooled blog in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, quoted reports on the status of high school from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, and NSBA’s Center for Public Education. Among the more striking statistics from the government report — 3,000 high schools serving almost 500,000 students don’t offer algebra II – a gateway course to college and career success.

“Without algebra II, you probably don’t go to college,” Center director Patte Barth told Downey and other reporters. “If you go, you are probably going to end up in remediation. Without it, you don’t become an auto mechanic. You don’t get into one of the growing service jobs in growing fields like communications.”

The Center’s report notes that a rigorous math curricula, Advanced Placement courses, dual high school-college enrollment, and early college programs can all enhance the curricula of American high schools.

Moving on, we turn to a blog we missed last week but is too important to let slide: Diane Ravitch, who recently addressed the Louisiana School Boards Association, speaking on Gov. Bobby Jindal’s truly draconian plan to privatize education.

And lastly, concerning the latest skirmishes in the parenting wars, we’ve written about “Tiger Mothers” and the new homeschooling trend among progressives (or is that “mini-trend?”). Now it’s time to consider the French. The French? Well, do they do parenting any better over there? Apparently not, writes blogger Joanne Jacobs, who links to a new commentary in the Atlantic magazine.

 

Lawrence Hardy|March 16th, 2012|Categories: 21st Century Skills, Center for Public Education, High Schools, Privatization, School Vouchers|Tags: , , , |

Education headlines: Pennsylvania school boards blast voucher plan

An editorial by Tom Gentzel, executive director of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, explains why taxpayer-funded tuition voucher legislation – supported by massive amounts of pressure and dollars spent by out-of-state interest groups –is a bad idea for his state and education policy. Read more in the Philadelphia Inquirer…

The New York Times examines Impact, a fast-growing teacher evaluation system being used in the District of Columbia and other school districts… Florida Gov. Rick Scott praised school choice as he signed five education bills that aim to expand charter schools, virtual schools, school vouchers and a program that allows students to transfer out of low-performing public schools, the Sun Sentinel writes. Education advocates say the measures will lead to the privatization of education and benefit for-profit companies…

In a recent commentary for the Huffington Post, NSBA Executive Director Anne L. Bryant calls for relief from the most onerous requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act to allow more funds and resources to be used for the critical purpose of teaching and learning. NSBA has asked Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to use his regulatory power to help school districts by the beginning of the 2011-12 school year… Bryant also responded to a question posed by the National Journal on the regulatory process, noting that NSBA has concerns about a plan put forth by Duncan that would require states states to apply for waivers in exchange for specific reforms.

Joetta Sack-Min|June 29th, 2011|Categories: Announcements, Educational Legislation, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Privatization, School Vouchers|

The week in blogs: Now about that asterick…

It’s summer — time to break the routine. So, in that spirit, let me begin this column with a subject that is truly dear to my heart:

Interesting Facts About Your Week in Blogs Editor

Readers, did you know that:

A) I’m a champion swimmer*

* in the struggle-across-the-pool category

B)  My wife says I have distinctive taste when it comes to home decorating*

* distinctively bad taste

I could go on, but, you get the point: Place a qualifying asterisk (*) after almost any assertion, and you can pretty much claim anything. It doesn’t make much difference when the subject is my swimming ability or home decorating prowess. But if I did the same with, say, a piece purporting to compare the relative advantages of charter school start ups to traditional public school turnarounds, the consequences might be  greater.

To his credit, Mike Petrilli does indeed qualify his assertion in a Fordham Institute blog entitled Charter start-ups are 4 times as likely to succeed as district turnarounds* (Note big asterisk). But that doesn’t stop him from making sweeping policy pronouncements based on data from just 19 schools. That’s the number of schools (in 10 states studied)  in which 1) the start up charter was near a traditional school with state reading and math proficiency in the bottom 10 percent, and 2) either school subsequently increased its performance to above the state average.

Those 19 schools further break down to 15 charters and just four traditional schools, meaning, Petrilli concludes, that serious questions must be raised, “about the wisdom of the federal government pumping $3 billion into school turnaround efforts instead of using some of the money to replicate and scale up successful charters.”
(more…)

Lawrence Hardy|June 10th, 2011|Categories: Announcements, Charter Schools, Privatization, Week in Blogs|

NSBA: Supreme Court’s Arizona ruling may promote state voucher schemes

A divided U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped the major issue in a case involving an Arizona scholarship program that effectively funnels public money into private religious schools, ruling 5-4 that Arizona taxpayers bringing the case did not have standing to sue because they weren’t directly affected by the program.

The decision announced Monday in Winn v. Christian School Tuition Organization, was a setback for NSBA, which had filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.

“We’re disappointed,” said NSBA General Counsel Francisco M. Negron Jr. “The court’s ruling encourages bad educational policy that serves small numbers of children and discriminates on the basis of religion.”

In ruling that the plaintiffs did not have standing, the court majority drew a distinction between tax breaks and direct government funding of sectarian schools. That position drew a lengthy dissent from Justice Elena Kagan, who noted that “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government objective — to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.”

The program gives state income tax breaks to donors who provide tuition for children to attend private, predominately religious schools. NSBA argued that the program violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from advancing religion. But the high court never got to the constitution issue itself, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a “swing voter” on controversial cases, writing the majority opinion.

“By ruling solely on the question of standing, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to set aside legislative schemes aimed at diverting public tax dollars into private, sectarian hands,” Negron said.

In its brief, NSBA noted that most of the students in the program had been attending private schools before receiving scholarships and that the program was too small to give public school parents the financial support to send their children to private schools.

Joining NSBA in the amicus brief were the Arizona School Boards Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the National Education Association, and the Arizona Education Association.

Lawrence Hardy|April 4th, 2011|Categories: Privatization, Religion, School Board News, School Law, School Vouchers|

Vote for ineffective D.C. voucher program is a waste of money, NSBA says

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 225-195 on March 30 to allot $20 million a year to vouchers for students in the District of Columbia and reopen the program to new students.

NSBA urged members  to vote against H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity Results (SOAR) Act, which would renew and expand the failed District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program, the only federally-funded voucher program. The program stopped accepting new students in 2009.

“Today’s vote hurts the school children of our nation’s capitol,” said Michael A. Resnick, NSBA’s Associate Executive Director for Federal Advocacy and Public Policy.  “Vouchers have been proven ineffective in raising student achievement and this failed federal voucher program is unnecessary spending that will cost U.S. taxpayers $100 million over the next five years. Congress must focus on investing in and improving public schools, where the majority of our children attend, as public schools are currently facing budget shortfalls, laying off teachers, and cutting programs that advance student achievement.”

The pilot voucher program, which based on federally-mandated studies, has repeatedly failed to show effectiveness in improving student achievement over the last seven years, a letter issued March 28 from NSBA’s advocacy department states.

The $14 million program has given vouchers of up to $7,500 for about 1,700 students each year, but the new legislation would expand that amount. While the program technically expired in 2008, it was funded for additional years in the FY 2009, FY 2010 appropriations bills and the FY 2011 continuing resolution. The current program, based on a 2009 compromise bill, allows participating students to continue in the program and stipulates that no new students will be added.

President Obama has announced his opposition to the bill, but has not threatened a veto, according to the Washington Post. The bill could become part of negotiations for an Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization or other education bill, the Post reports.

The SOAR (Scholarships for Opportunity and Results) Act was introduced in January by Speaker of the House John Boehner.

NSBA notes that numerous studies have found no significant gains in the reading and math achievement of students who had attended traditional public schools in Washington. A report by the General Accounting Office, Congress’s watchdog agency, found numerous accountability problems, including federal taxpayer dollars paying tuition at private schools that do not even charge tuition, schools that lacked a legally-required city occupancy permit, and schools employing teachers without bachelor’s degrees and/or certification. That report also noted that children with physical or learning disabilities were underrepresented compared to public schools.

Joetta Sack-Min|March 30th, 2011|Categories: Educational Legislation, Privatization, School Board News, School Vouchers|

Arizona voucher program is unconstitutional, NSBA tells high court

(updated on Nov. 4 with link to SCOTUSblog podcast)

The National School Boards Association (NSBA) is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional an Arizona school scholarship program that grants donors state income tax breaks for providing tuition for children to attend private, predominantly religious schools

The high court heard oral arguments in the case, Winn v. Christian School Tuition Organization, on Nov. 3. NSBA has filed an amicus brief on behalf plaintiffs challenging the program, which funnels millions of dollars to private schools without public accountability.

“It is bad public policy to support voucher programs, like Arizona’s, that divert public money away from public schools where a vast majority of children are educated,” said NSBA Executive Director Anne L. Bryant.

In the amicus brief, attorneys for NSBA argued that the program “appears to have the effect and purpose of advancing religion.”

“The program’s ostensible educational purposes are a sham,” the brief says. “Unlike some other school choice programs, it does not provide free choice among public, secular private and religiously affiliated schools, and does not assist low-income or educationally disadvantaged students.”

NSBA General Counsel Francisco M. Negron Jr. appeared in a podcast for SCOTUSblog to further explain the argument taken by the public school advocates. Listen to the podcast here.

The brief noted that most of the students in the program had been attending private schools before receiving scholarships and that the program was too small to give public school parents the financial support to send their children to private schools.

Joining NSBA in the amicus brief were the Arizona School Boards Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the National Education Association, and the Arizona Education Association.

Lawrence Hardy|November 3rd, 2010|Categories: Privatization, School Board News, School Law, School Vouchers|

Five years later

Over the weekend, the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina dominated many of the news stories, including this one in the Christian Science Monitor and if you were like us, you were still stunned by the devastation in New Orleans and the surrounding area.  While it may be five years, and a lot of great work has been done (including some celebrities building very “green” housing there that may be groundbreaking for the rest of the county), education and schools were also inserted into the dialogue.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, guest host Brian Williams hosted a discussion that included praise for the New Orleans Recovery School District (RSD).  It was stated that in an awkward and somewhat perverse way, the hurricane was the best thing that happened to New Orleans Schools (we’re not paraphrasing here).

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So we decided to go back into our archives a bit to get some perspective on what BoardBuzz was saying five years ago.  We have about six postings of coverage about how school boards associations in the effected states were handling things, how local school boards were pitching in, and efforts nationwide while many of us watched what was happening on TV.

Educators around the country have been watching and will continue to watch what happens in New Orleans schools.  A new study said the city is the most reform friendly city in the U.S. for education, and while the scores and graduation rates continue to go up, there is still debate over whether the strategies used there would work in other urban districts around the country.  Meanwhile, take a trip back in time and see how this city has captivated us since 2005.

Kevin Scott|August 30th, 2010|Categories: Governance, Multimedia and Webinars, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, Privatization, Urban Schools|

Do charters = reform?

Edu-watchers know that the big news tomorrow will be about the second round of Race to the Top winners, but another report on charter schools popped up recently and with all eyes on anything that has the terms reform, turnaround, and national standards, we thought we’d look at old favorite, a classic, if you will–charter schools.

Charter schools are a blessing and a curse, depending on where you live, and the verdict is still out on whether they will solve all of the woes in education or cause more problems.  Even Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said that there are both good and bad charter schools out there and the bad need to be shut down.  Often, those involved in the debate have something to lose or gain when the findings of a new study come out.  Let’s just say that the funders of charter schools make interesting partnerships with those doing the studying (sometimes).

A randomized study would be really beneficial in a situation like this, and our friends at EdWeek‘s Inside School Research wrote a blog about the results of a study that say there really isn’t that big of a difference in student achievement in charter schools, except in urban areas.  According to their blog and the study:

For instance, several studies show that charters are more successful with disadvantaged students in urban school systems and less effective with suburban populations…”From the perspective of a researcher, that’s encouraging,” Gill [study's researcher] said, “and it suggests that maybe, in fact, we can conduct nonexperimental studies that can replicate the experimental findings.”

This made us start to wonder a bit about the emphasis put on “choice” in many suburban public schools.  The emphasis on charters is often in urban districts, because that’s where achievement is very low, but in many districts, the line is blurry between urban and suburban, and the school board has to make the difficult choice about where to place charter schools.  If charters are helping students in urban districts, maybe the emphasis on innovation and experimentation should reside in a select few urban districts, then studied, before duplicating.  What’s clear now is the “Race to be Different” (i.e. charter schools) can sometimes blow up in the face of the well-intentioned adults making decisions, and then you have a group of students who are steps behind their peers instead of steps ahead.  And that is an injustice to students in urban districts who cannot afford to be left behind.

Kevin Scott|July 26th, 2010|Categories: Educational Research, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, Privatization|

Districts should be chartering authority

The charter school movement is poised for a new round of growth nationwide — and this could “play out wonderfully for your school districts or prove terrible for your districts.”

So warned Thomas Hutton, a former NSBA staff attorney who now works with the law firm Patterson, Buchanan, Fobes, Leitch, and Kalzer Inc.

Speaking at a preconference session of the Council of Urban Boards of Education (CUBE) today, Hutton, who has long studied charter school issues, told urban educators that charter schools can help school boards to expand the educational options available to families.

They also can serve as a laboratory for innovative instructional models.

But such promise is possible only if school boards are the authorizing body for charter schools and have some control in guiding the educational services these schools provide, he said.

The goal, Hutton suggested, is collaboration and coordination. School boards should encourage charter school applications that supplement the traditional schools’ academic program or target the needs of students who would benefit from a new school site.

“There should be incentives for collaborative relations between school districts and charters,” he said. “The whole point is the impact on districts [and student education] as a whole.”

That’s not the model promoted by many charter school advocates. Many want to establish their schools solely based on their agendas, which can create a competitive relationship pitting charters and traditional schools against one another for scarce education dollars, Hutton said. Competition can mean a duplication of services that doesn’t really offer any benefit to students and their families.

School boards are well positioned to advocate for improved policies on charter schools, particularly if they argue that the community should be more engaged in developing an overall local education strategy, he added.

“School boards are all about civic engagement,” Hutton said. Besides, “it’s a better argument than ‘we hate charter schools’ . . . . One of the most powerful messages we have is that we’re the advocates for all children.”

Del Stover|April 9th, 2010|Categories: Charter Schools, Educational Legislation, NSBA Annual Conference 2010, Privatization, School Board News, School Reform, Urban Schools|

No make or break factor in RTTT

The Race is definitely on…and the finalists are: CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KY, LA, MA, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, and DC.

At first glance, there seems to be no common patterns among these states for the phase I competition — about half of them are right-to-work states; some have charter school laws; some don’t; some have policies that link student achievement to teacher evaluations; some don’t. However, geographically, they tend to be from the south; Colorado is the only state from west of the Mississippi.

Boardbuzz was encouraged to hear Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, say that no one element is a make or break factor for states to be selected to receive a portion of the $4.35 billion RTTT funds. For example, Kentucky, which has no charter schools, was among the chosen. “Folks didn’t understand there are many factors (the peer reviewers) are looking at,” Duncan told reporters on a press call yesterday. “Every state has relative strengths and weaknesses. Charter will never be a determining factor.”

Neither will a state’s ability for mayoral takeover be a determining factor, Duncan added.

NSBA had been concerned about the tone of the administration’s emphasis on charter schools when the RTTT criteria were first proposed. There appeared to be a push for more charter schools regardless of whether they are of high quality.

The finalists will come to Washington to present their proposals on March 15. Duncan predicted that there will be “very few” winners for phase I and plenty of funds will be available for phase II. States that did not receive funds in phase I can apply for phase II.

To learn more about these competitive grants, NSBA has created numerous resources concerning RTTT.

Katherine Shek|March 5th, 2010|Categories: Educational Legislation, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, Privatization|
Page 2 of 9«12345»...Last »