[Durham INC] Fw: Charter School Bill (short update)
Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 1 13:13:22 EST 2011
The bill has been pulled from today’s agenda – this is good news –gives
us/Durham the chance to get ahead with the Board of Education Resolution
tomorrow at 4pm at the Fuller Building. The Resolution is simply asking the
legislature to slow down and work on creating a bill that is good for all public
school age children.
Hopefully the House will be more conducive and respectful of
recommendations/concerns from all sides of the issue than the Senate was.
Melissa (Rooney)
From:durham-allies-for-responsive-education at googlegroups.com
[mailto:durham-allies-for-responsive-education at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Nancy Cox
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 1:47 PM
To: durham-allies-for-responsive-education at googlegroups.com
Subject: Charter School Bill lengthy update and call for action
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/20110301/38b9e7a6/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/20110301/38b9e7a6/attachment-0004.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/20110301/38b9e7a6/attachment-0005.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/20110301/38b9e7a6/attachment-0006.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/20110301/38b9e7a6/attachment-0007.png>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list