[Durham INC] Fwd: Charter School Bill lengthy update and call for action
Melissa's yahoo
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 28 21:52:07 EST 2011
Pls see the message below in which Nancy outlines very specific and rational problems w the current (Senate version) of the NC charter school bill, to be discussed by the NC House Ed Committee tomorrow at 10 AM. Please consider cutting and pasting Nancy's requests/comments and/or emailing your own list of concerns to the House committee members whose email addresses are listed below (you can easily cut and paste the whole list). And please do so tonight. Thanks!
Melissa Rooney
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
The bill from Senate approval last Thursday:
> http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/sessions/2011/bills/senate/html/s8v4.html
>
>
>
> The bill will go tomorrow to the House Education Committee at 10am – I am guessing it will be streamed and broadcast:
>
>
>
> The NC Senate is in session and they will be debating the charter school bill. WRAL has live coverage of the debate at this link:
> http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/video/9161020/#/vid9161020
>
>
> You can also listen to the debate by following the link below:
> http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Audio/StreamAudio.pl?stream=senate
>
>
>
> Folks – the bill has so many problems mainly because the normal process of deliberating the bill with the opposition has been completely circumvented – you always get a better product when you allow all parties to engage in healthy dialogue with the goal of reaching a compromise. The supporters are intent on honoring their goal of doing this within 100 days and that is NOT GOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN!
>
>
>
> Below are the emails for the members of the House Education Committee – please email these folks and let them know they have to slow down to create a stronger bill.
>
>
>
> Bryan.Holloway at ncleg.net, James.Langdon at ncleg.net, Martha.Alexander at ncleg.net, Marilyn.Avila at ncleg.net, Tricia.Cotham at ncleg.net, Mark.Hilton at ncleg.net, Linda.Johnson2 at ncleg.net, Marvin.Lucas at ncleg.net, Larry.Bell at ncleg.net, John.Blust at ncleg.net, Angela.Bryant at ncleg.net, Becky.Carney at ncleg.net, George.Cleveland at ncleg.net, Leo.Daughtry at ncleg.net, Jimmy.Dixon at ncleg.net, Jerry.Dockham at ncleg.net, Bill.Faison at ncleg.net, Susan.Fisher at ncleg.net, Rosa.Gill at ncleg.net, Mitch.Gillespie at ncleg.net, Rick.Glazier at ncleg.net, Ken.Goodman at ncleg.net, Charles.Graham at ncleg.net, Mike.Hager at ncleg.net, Larry.Hall at ncleg.net, Craig.Horn at ncleg.net, William.McGee at ncleg.net, Gaston.Pridgen at ncleg.net, Paul.Luebke at ncleg.net, Frank.Iler at ncleg.net, Maggie.Jeffus at ncleg.net, Bert.Jones at ncleg.net, Jonathan.Jordan at ncleg.net, Ric.Killian at ncleg.net, Pat.McElraft at ncleg.net, Marian.McLawhorn at ncleg.net, Mickey.Michaux at ncleg.net, Earline.Parmon at ncleg.net, Ray.Rapp at ncleg.net, Johnathan.Rhyne at ncleg.net, Deborah.Ross at ncleg.net, Efton.Sager at ncleg.net, Winkie.Wilkins at ncleg.net, Phil.Shepard at ncleg.net, Paul.Stam at ncleg.net, Sarah.Stevens at ncleg.net, Joe.Tolson at ncleg.net, John.Torbett at ncleg.net, Harry.Warren at ncleg.net
>
>
>
> Share this with your listserves today please.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here are a few key points with my thoughts:
>
>
>
> Student test scores on EOG’s and EOC’s for students who leave a charter and return to a district school within 45 days of the administration of the test should have their scores reflected in the charter’s report and not the district’s report ( and vice versa).
>
>
>
> Charters should not be entitled to dollars in our local special expense fund for things such as rental fees for district buildings, student parking fees, activity fees that the district charges. Honestly, this could prevent us from renting our buildings which would not be good for our community. The following is provided from our Financial officer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Grants that school boards take affirmative action to secure for programs that charter schools choose not to offer (such as Head Start, More-at-Four, JROTC and Free and Reduced Lunch) will also be subject to sharing with the charters.
>
>
>
> District should not have to share fund balance/rainy day funding. Through its financial prudence, the district has saved money knowing that we would again face a shortfall this year especially since federal relief funds will expire. When the District put these savings into play to offset deficits which translates into teacher layoffs, charters, as the bill is written, will be entitled to their share of these funds.
>
>
>
> I think it bears reminding that an intention behind Charters is that they would be driven by market place economics – parents would vote with their feet and dollars and other resources would be forthcoming from sources outside of state and local dollars. Charters accepted the charge to in fact work within tight, streamlined budgets. I certainly want the children in these schools to receive their fair share because I want to be sure all the children have what they need to learn and that they are in safe buildings that are in federal compliance with Americans With Disabilities Act but I feel there is some level of hypocrisy going on here when Charters basically admit that they can’t be any more innovative then the district schools unless they have the financial resources equivalent to the District schools. How does this make the Charters any different from the District Schools? In my view it doesn’t and thus I have to ask why are we then supporting Charters as the transformational model?
>
>
>
> We are also would like to at least see equal treatment - Charter schools may apply for and secure grants for specific programs at their schools with no obligation to share such monies or donations with any local school system. This could easily result in huge funding disparities in favor of Charter schools where they reap the benefit of the total local student expenditure, the state allotment, and the additional dollars that they generate for their students. Please consider how this will play out between Charters. Charters that end up serving a stronger middle class population will most likely see significant financial contributions which will lead to better facilities such as new buildings with all amenities, greater technology, stocked libraries and Charters that honorably serve disadvantaged students may not fare as well. In the District, we strive to provide equal resources, and give more when more is needed. The taxpayers in our county have been incredibly generous to insure that all of our children have the tools, structures and resources they need to achieve –the Bill is not in line with the philosophy of our community in this regard.
>
>
>
> As you are well aware, the district works to strategically place schools that we can most effectively serve the entire geographic community. The prospect of a charter opening right next to one of our schools make no sense – certainly some compromise language could be created here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is too long – in 10 years, a school could literally fail to have served a student for the bulk of their k-12 educational experience. District schools are subject to two years under AYP before being placed on severe restrictions and schools in turn around status lose principals after just two years, even when the principal is new to the school. 5 years before a review of operations is too long. Again, compromise is crucial on a point as important as oversight of the school’s academic progress and success.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is called “parent trigger” language and this has to be tightened up. In, I believe, San Diego, numerous charters were created by supposed, representative parent groups which in too many cases turned out to be groups that were politically motivated. Just asking that we raise the percentage of staff and designate a percentage of parents that must vote. Want that concession but this language worries me greatly. Right now we are One Voice, One Durham – this language has the potential to splinter our district and worries folks like me who still believe that too many of the people behind the charter movement are really about segregating our schools based on race and socioeconomics. I also worry that there are potential monetary gains driving these kinds of provisions. When we want change in a school, we have mechanisms to work through including an elected body – your School Board, as well as through School Improvement Teams and Plans, advocacy efforts through PTA and other community-based groups. Finally, a splintered system dissipates efforts made through partnerships with groups like Duke, and NCCU as well and the Business Community. Currently partnerships is one of Durham Public School’s greatest strengths and we grow in this area every year. How will a Wells Fargo or a more local business like Mechanics and Farmers Bank figure out who to support in this splintered system that this language creates? Also, please note the way the writers insure that local boards of education, that you elect, are truly shut out of this process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The current bill removes the minimum number of students necessary to form a charter school, thereby potentially diverting public funds for education to small groups of private individuals or homeschoolers. They aren’t allowed to have religious affiliations. My concern here is one of oversight – how will the Commission, State Board of Education and the Department of Public Instruction provide oversight under these conditions. Your tax dollars will be supporting these small schools and the oversight will be costly. We must have language that puts a minimum number of students to form a school. If they have a compelling reason, for example, serving severely, profoundly handicap children, then there can be language to ask for a waiver.
>
> (12) The number of students to be served, which number shall be at least 65, The number of students to be served, including the grades to be served each year for the full term of the charter, and the minimum, planned, and maximum enrollment per grade per year for the term of the charter.and the minimum number of teachers to be employed at the school, which number shall be at least three. However, the charter school may serve fewer than 65 students or employ fewer than three teachers if the application contains a compelling reason, such as the school would serve a geographically remote and small student population.
>
>
>
> Final point – this confuses me – the District does not work under a rule based system –we work under a performance based system which will be even more evident with the adoption of the Common Core Standards and our participation in the Race to the Top Grant at the state level. Of course we want to be performance based – this is one of the key “Purposes” for the creation of Charter Schools but it is what Districts are already doing…
>
>
>
> system;system.
>
> (6) Hold the schools established under this Part accountable for meeting measurable student achievement results, and provide the schools with a method to change from rule‑based to performance‑based accountability systems.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your time in considering the weaknesses in the bill – please don’t hesitate to contact me with questions at 419-6369.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110228/15417962/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 272433 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110228/15417962/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 39454 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110228/15417962/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 36077 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110228/15417962/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13457 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110228/15417962/attachment-0007.png>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list