The Echo

From today's NJ: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110730/NEWS03/107300329/Laurel-district-dire-straits

LAUREL -- State cuts to education have put the school district in danger of running out of money by next spring, officials said this week as they announced an austerity plan.


Laurel's schools are in "dire" financial straits thanks to the state's "extreme" cuts, acting Superintendent Dorothy Nave told a group of about 40 community leaders, residents and district employees at a school board meeting Thursday night.

While I will concede that Laurel is still experiencing the fall-out from it's own financial scandal - its former finance manager, William Hitchens, as he defaults on his court-ordered repayment plan - the crisis at hand in Laurel sits squarely on Jack Markell's shoulders.  Hitchens theft of district funds is still small peanuts in education's grand financial picture.

Markell spearheaded a campaign two years ago to push off a rolling 25 % of transportation costs onto districts. While initially rebuked by the legislature, Markell succeeded in sending 10% down to the districts beginning in fiscal year 2011-12.   That's 10% comes from a district's local share - school taxes.  Some districts are able to assume the costs, but many more are struggling with how to carry this additional burden.  It's not like we can move our schools 10% closer to our students' homes...  Today, in Laurel, we are seeing how that transfer of ownership is crippling a district.

Does this make a case for consolidation?  Maybe.  Perhaps Laurel could blend with another district.  In a state with as many fiefdom's as Delaware has, it appears to be an easy answer - if the neighboring districts are solvent themselves.  But, when Delawareans yell "consolidation," they tend to think of the bigger districts, like my own.  They tend to think they want to see county-wide districts.  While numerous studies over the years seem to indicate cost savings in a county-wide district model system, no one really knows for sure if that would be the case.  If it was certain, it would have happened already.  Districts would likely realize much of the same operational efficiencies if they united in a buying collective, but that would require districts to adopt similar/same materials, etc.   And, in NCCo some of the district business managers have already moved to a "collective" model for some resources.  I can't speak about the Kent or Sussex districts. 

As for consolidation - proponants tend to argue the need to pare down administration.  They believe the districts are top-heavy.  I've never seen a comparative report of school district in Delaware as to how they rank with districts nationwide.  But, my own experience on my board leads me to believe that much of the top-heavy admin sits in the Delaware Department of Education.  DOE needs to cut out its waste and it has plenty.  Then perhaps, districts can follow suit.  Though, I still struggle with which positions in Christina could be considered "wasteful," especially as DOE passes down more and more mandates under RTTT and the Partnership Zone program. I am watching my administrative positions grow - positions solely funded by RTTT that will eventually fade away as the RTTT grant dies, unless Delaware reforms its funding system.  Which, based upon Markell's historical behavior, does not appear to be in the works.

So, I leave you with this question:

Will Laurel be the first casualty of the Markell Education-Spending Plan?  Only time will tell...

Synopsis

What it is: Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Why you do it: Well-meaning elementary school teachers told you to "believe in yourself."
Your punishment in Hell will be: You'll be broken on the wheel.
Associated symbols & suchlike: Pride is linked with the horse and the color violet.
http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/pride.html

In What World Are Trainee Teachers 'Highly Qualified'? In Mine

By Candice Johnson

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/07/22/37johnson.h30.html?tkn=MUQFcpY%2BJfK%2BTveGiIiYU0Yx7DzuhP%2B1lnrt&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

In May, I traveled from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., for the first time in my life. It was exciting to visit the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. But I wasn’t there to go sightseeing. I was there to ask my elected representatives why students at our country’s most challenged high schools are being taught by unqualified teachers, and why Congress is letting this happen.

They didn’t give me the answers I was hoping for. But I’m not about to let it go.
I am a graduate of Washington Prep High School in the Los Angeles Unified School District. My school is the kind of school the No Child Left Behind Act was supposed to “fix.” It’s one of California’s lowest-performing schools. Forty percent of my freshman-year classmates didn’t graduate. The student body is also mostly low-income, and a majority of the students are African-American like me or Latino. There were only a handful of white students in the entire school of 2,000 when I graduated a year ago.
I was one of the lucky ones—I’m currently in college, pursuing my dream of becoming a nurse. But my high school math experience sure didn’t make it easy for me. When I first got to college and took the freshman math-placement test, I looked at those questions and got a terrible sinking feeling in my stomach. I realized that I didn’t understand a majority of the problems on the test. As a result, I was placed in remedial classes that won’t count toward my degree.

Looking back, I realize my math problems started in my freshman year of high school, when I had a full-time trainee-teacher for Algebra 1. California calls these teachers, who take classes at night and on weekends to learn how to teach, interns. My instructor hadn’t completed his teacher training, and he couldn’t control the class. It was a free-for-all in there. We hardly did anything, and a lot of kids ended up “ditching,” or skipping class all together. I just kind of floated by, happy to finish. Like most of the interns who showed up at my school, he was gone by the time I graduated, so I don’t know if he ever learned how to be a more effective teacher.

What I do know is math gets harder, not easier. Geometry and Algebra 2 didn’t make sense without an understanding of Algebra 1. Was that teacher the only reason that I’m struggling with college math now? Of course not. And are there also experienced teachers who can’t control their classrooms? Yes. But that doesn’t make putting most of the intern teachers in schools like Washington Prep right.

I found out that more than a quarter of the teachers at Washington Prep are in their first or second years of teaching, and one-fifth are interns. You just don’t find that in richer school districts. It seems as if someone made a choice to make schools in the poorer areas the revolving door for all the new teachers who are still in training.

While I was hardly the perfect student, I think that my success in other courses proves that getting qualified teachers really does make a difference. Luckily for me, when it came to English, I had a wonderful teacher for both my junior and senior years. She had years of experience and really cared about my education. Her class was one of the few I looked forward to, and when I got to college, I was able to test out of remedial English.

“I asked: ‘Why is it OK for students like me to be taught by teachers-in-training? If intern teachers are good enough for me, why aren’t they good enough for the students down the road in Beverly Hills?’ ”But here’s the crazy thing. According to Congress, my English teacher and my Algebra 1 teacher are both “highly qualified.” How can that be? It doesn’t make sense, but last December, legislators passed a temporary law that calls intern teachers like my Algebra 1 teacher “highly qualified” even though they are still learning how to teach. The law also allows them to be concentrated at schools like Washington Prep.

That brings me back to my trip to Washington. I didn’t get to meet with any actual legislators, but I did speak to several congressional staff members. I told them what it feels like to be the student on the other end of the lie about teacher quality. I asked them to own up to that lie when Congress ultimately reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the most recent version of which is the No Child Left Behind Act. I asked: “Why is it OK for students like me to be taught by teachers-in-training? If intern teachers are good enough for me, why aren’t they good enough for the students down the road in Beverly Hills?”

A few of the staff members seemed interested and looked me in the eye. But some looked right through me and just said, “OK, thank you” when I finished. (I may be 19, but I’m old enough to know what that really meant: I don’t care.) Some told me that this definition of “highly qualified” was necessary because there weren’t enough fully certified teachers who would take jobs at schools like mine. But I want to know why the federal government is more interested in hiding the fact that poorer schools are more likely to get poor-quality teachers. Don’t tell me you’re giving me highly qualified teachers when you’re actually giving me teachers who have only just started their training and have never been in front of a group of students before. And don’t pretend you’re giving me the same quality of teachers that kids down the road in Beverly Hills are getting.

If interns really are the best you can get to teach me, my elected representatives should own up to it—and make my school district and state own up to it, too. Parents, students, and the public deserve to know what’s really going on. Then we can start working together to bring fully prepared and effective teachers to my school.

Look, maybe my story isn’t the worst out there. At least I was lucky enough to pass my math classes and get through high school. I still have a shot at a college degree and the career in nursing I’ve always wanted.

But I think those opportunities mean I have an even greater responsibility to speak up and make sure that what happened to me doesn’t happen to my younger sisters and the other students going through the system today in South Central Los Angeles.

So I went to Washington. I’m not sure my legislators heard me, but hopefully others will listen. The future of millions of kids around the country depends on it.



Candice Johnson is a member of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, or ACCE, and a freshman at California State University, Los Angeles. She is also a plaintiff in Renee v. Duncan, a legal challenge to the U.S. Department of Education regulation that permits intern-teachers to be labeled highly qualified and concentrated in poor and minority schools.

To the Pencader Family:


We are pleased to announce today that after a discussion with Secretary Lowery’s staff at the Department of Education, the Secretary will recommend to the State Board of Education that Pencader Charter High School will remain open for the 2011-2012 school year.

The State Board of Education will vote to finalize the Secretary’s recommendation at its meeting in Dover this Thursday at 1 p.m. Mrs. Minnehan and Dr. Lewis will represent Pencader Charter High School at the State Board of Education meeting tomorrow.

The Board, administration and staff of Pencader Charter High School wish to thank Secretary Lowery for this decision and the faith she has shown in our school. We are sure you will join us in working hard throughout the next school year to show Dr. Lowery that her faith in Pencader is justified.

We also wish to thank all of those who joined together and supported our school. During the past few weeks we have shown that by working together, there is nothing that the Pencader family cannot achieve. There will be a meeting this Monday July 25th at 7p.m. at the school at which time the Board would like to thank everyone involved in the campaign to save Pencader for all of their hard work and dedication. The Board and administration will also be available at that time to answer any questions the community might have regarding Secretary Lowery’s decision. Thank you all again for all you have done in our efforts to keep our school open. “We are not going anywhere!!”


Sincerely yours,

Harrie Ellen Minnehan                          Ann E. Lewis, PhD.

President, Board of Directors               School Leader

A lot of activity on the Save Pencader Facebook Page today indicating that Lowery has recommended that the school continue to operate! 

What we already knew, reconfirmed.

From the NY Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/education/18rand.html

Highlights:

“We did not find improvements in student achievement at any of the grade levels,” said Julie A. Marsh, the report’s lead researcher and a visiting professor at the University of Southern California. “A lot of the principals and teachers saw the bonuses as a recognition and reward, as icing on the cake. But it’s not necessarily something that motivated them to change.”

The results add to a growing body of evidence nationally that so-called pay-for-performance bonuses for teachers that consist only of financial incentives have no effect on student achievement, the researchers wrote. Even so, federal education policy champions the concept, and spending on performance-based pay for teachers grew to $439 million nationally last year from $99 million in 2006, the study said.

The study, commissioned by the city, is to be published Monday by the RAND Corporation, the public policy research institution. It compared the performance of the approximately 200 city schools that participated in the bonus program with that of a control group of schools.

City officials did not dispute the study results, but they said they did not believe the money was wasted, and indicated that they would continue to seek a merit pay model that worked.

We KNOW it doesn't work, but we're going to keep trying it anyway???  Brains, anyone?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonie-haimson/post_2205_b_899493.html

Rupert Murdoch, Joel Klein, and Wireless Generation.  All in one succinct article.  If it comes from Huffington, it's got to be good!

TITLE 14
Education
Free Public Schools

CHAPTER 4. SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT CHOICE PROGRAM
§ 401. Establishment; statement of purpose.

(a) There is hereby established an enrollment choice program within the public school system of this State.
(b) In establishing this program, it is the goal of the General Assembly to increase access to educational opportunity for all children throughout the State regardless of where they may live. It is therefore the intent of the General Assembly that this chapter be construed broadly to maximize parental choice in obtaining access to educational opportunities for their children.
(c) For the school year commencing July 1, 1996, and each succeeding school year, a parent residing within this State may enroll that parent's child in a public school in any school district in the manner provided in this chapter.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;

§ 402. Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) "District of residence" shall mean any reorganized school district in which the parent of a student resides.
(2) "Good cause" shall mean a change in a child's residence due to a change in family residence, a change in the state in which the family residence is located, a change in a child's parent's marital status, a change caused by a guardianship proceeding, placement of a child in foster care, adoption, participation by a child in a foreign exchange program, or participation by a child in a substance abuse or mental health treatment program, or a set of circumstances consistent with this definition of "good cause."
(3) "Parent" shall mean parent, relative caregiver pursuant to § 202(f) of this title or legal guardian of the person of the child.
(4) "Receiving district" shall mean any reorganized school district other than the district of residence in which a student seeks to enroll. Where the district of residence includes more than one school or more than one program within any school providing instruction at a given grade level, and a parent of a child entering such grade level applies to enroll that parent's child in a public school program within the district of residence other than the program in which the child would normally be enrolled based on the child's place of residence, the district of residence shall also be considered to be the receiving district for all purposes of this chapter, except for the purposes of § 408 of this title.
(5) "Working days" shall mean working days as determined by a school district's administrative calendar.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 242, § 6; 75 Del. Laws, c. 48, § 1.;

§ 403. Pupil application; withdrawal.

(a) Any parent of a school age child may apply to enroll that parent's own child in a school or program in a receiving district by submitting a written application, on a form provided by the Department of Education, to the receiving district and to the district of residence on or before the second Wednesday in January for enrollment during the following school year in a program in grades 1 through 12, or on or before the first day of the school year for enrollment in a kindergarten program during that school year.
(b) If a parent of a school age child fails to file an application by the deadline established in subsection (a) of this section, and good cause exists for the failure to meet the deadline, the receiving district and the district of residence shall accept and consider the application in the same manner as if the deadline had been met.
(c) The parent of a school age child may withdraw the application at any time prior to action on the application by the board of the receiving district by giving written notice to the boards of the receiving district and the district of residence.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 387, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 20; 71 Del. Laws, c. 242, §§ 4, 5; 75 Del. Laws, c. 48, § 2.;

§ 404. Receiving district procedures.

(a) Within 10 working days of receiving an application, the receiving district shall transmit a notice to the district of residence that it has received the application.
(b) The board of the receiving district shall take action no later than the last day of February of the school year preceding enrollment to approve or disapprove an application for admission to a program in grades 1 through 12, and no later than June 15 of the school year preceding enrollment to approve or disapprove an application for admission to a kindergarten program.
(c) With respect to any application filed in accordance with the provisions of § 403(b) of this title, the board of the receiving district shall take action to approve or disapprove the application no later than 45 days after receipt thereof.
(d) The board of the receiving district shall transmit a notice of the board's action to the parent of the child, and to the board of the district of residence within 5 working days after board action.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 387, § 2.;

§ 405. Criteria for approval or disapproval.

(a) Each receiving district shall adopt and make available upon request a policy regarding the order in which applications for enrollment pursuant to this chapter shall be considered.
(b) Prior to the applicable application deadline established in § 403(a), each receiving district shall adopt and make available upon request a policy establishing criteria for acceptance or rejection of applications and setting priorities for acceptances. Such criteria shall be reasonably related to the nature of the program or school for which the application is submitted. Such criteria shall include the authority of the receiving district to reject an application based upon the requirements of any applicable existing individualized education plan relating to an applicant who has special needs. The policies adopted by each district shall, at a minimum, give priority to the following categories of students in the order listed:
(1) First, to returning students who continue to meet the requirements for the program or school, including students graduating from 1 school to another within a single program;
(2) Second, to students who meet the requirements for the program or school and who seek to attend based upon the residence of the student's parent within the designated feeder pattern, if any, for the school; and
(3) Third, to the siblings of students already enrolled in the school, provided that any siblings seeking priority under this paragraph meet the requirements for the program or school.
(c) A receiving district may disapprove an application because of lack of capacity in the district. It may also disapprove an application for a particular program or school because of lack of capacity in the program or school. For purposes of this subsection, "capacity" shall include but not be limited to such considerations as space, class size and enrollment restrictions reasonably related to the nature of the program or school for which the application is submitted.
(d) A district which is subject to a court-ordered desegregation plan may approve and disapprove applications in accordance with § 406(a) of this title.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 242, § 7.;

§ 406. Racial balance.

(a) If approval of all of the applications for transfer into or out of a district would result in the district being out of compliance with any applicable court-ordered desegregation plan, the district shall establish the number of majority and minority group pupils who may transfer into or out of the district.
(b) Any action by the board of the district of residence to disapprove the application pursuant to this section shall be taken no later than March 15 of the school year preceding enrollment.
(c) The board of the district of residence shall transmit a notice of the board's action pursuant to this section to the parent within 5 working days after board action.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3.;

§ 407. Duration of enrollment in receiving district.

(a)(1) A pupil accepted for enrollment in a school or program pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled to remain enrolled therein until graduation from the school or completion of the program provided that the pupil continues to meet the requirements for such school or program, provided however, that upon the concurrence of the boards of both the district of residence and the receiving district, a pupil's right to remain enrolled may be terminated prior to graduation from or completion of the program where such termination is based upon the pupil's
a. Failure to continue to comply with the receiving district's requirements for attending school or class, or
b. Multiple violations of, or one or more serious violations of, the receiving district's student code of conduct.
(2) A pupil accepted for enrollment in a school or program pursuant to this chapter shall remain enrolled therein for a minimum of 2 years unless, during that 2-year period,
a. A pupil graduates from the school or completes the program;
b. The pupil's parent or parents cease to be residents of the pupil's original district of residence;
c. At the conclusion of any academic year during such 2-year period, the pupil ceases to meet the academic requirements for such school or program;
d. If daycare was indicated on the relevant choice application as a reason for seeking enrollment, or if daycare was a reason for granting priority to consideration of or granting of the relevant choice application, or the provider of daycare services to the pupil ceases doing business or relocates to a location so distant from the original location as to render the original combination of daycare and choice enrollment no longer reasonably practicable for the pupil or the parent or parents of such pupil; or
e. The board of the district of residence, the board of the receiving district, and the parent or parents of the pupil agree for any reason to terminate such enrollment;
f. The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)a. through (a)(2)e. of this section shall apply unless the receiving district, at its sole discretion, agrees to maintain a child in a choice placement. Due to the unique educational and developmental needs of primary age children, on a case by case basis, districts may grant exceptions to allow students in grades kindergarten through grade three to remain in school choice even if they fail to meet required educational standards.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a parent may apply to terminate that parent's own child's enrollment in the receiving district prior to the expiration of the minimum period established in subsection (a) of this section by submitting a written application, on a form provided by the Department of Education, to the child's then-existing district of enrollment no later than December 1 for enrollment during the following school year.
(c) If a parent of a child fails to file an application by the deadline of December 1 and good cause exists for the failure to meet the deadline, the child's then-existing district of enrollment shall accept and consider the application in the same manner as if the deadline had been met.
(d) The parent of a child may withdraw the application at any time prior to action on the application by the board of the child's then-existing district of enrollment.
(e) Within 10 working days of receiving an application to withdraw, the child's then-existing district of enrollment shall transmit a notice to the district of residence that it has received the application.
(f) The board of the child's then-existing district of enrollment shall take action to approve or disapprove the application no later than December 15 of the school year preceding enrollment.
(g) The board of the receiving district shall transmit a notice of the board's action to the parent of the child and to the board of the district of residence within 5 working days after board action.
(h) The action of a board in a child's then-existing district of enrollment to accept an application to terminate enrollment pursuant to this section shall be final; however, nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a board in its sole discretion from conditioning its approval of termination pursuant to this section upon acceptance of the child into another district or program pursuant to an application submitted in accordance with chapter.
(i) Unless accepted for enrollment in a school or program in another district pursuant to this chapter, a child whose enrollment in a receiving district concludes or terminates pursuant to this section shall automatically be re-enrolled in the child's district of residence for the ensuing school year. Any such student shall be enrolled by the district of residence according to the feeder pattern in which the child's parent resides unless, pursuant to the provisions of § 405(b) of this title, all available space has been filled by returning students, in which case the student shall apply and be considered for enrollment in any other school in the district of residence in which there is space available in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 20; 71 Del. Laws, c. 242, §§ 1, 2; 72 Del. Laws, 1st Sp. Sess., c. 258, § 138.;

§ 408. State and local education funding.

(a) A pupil enrolled in a receiving district pursuant to this chapter shall be included in the unit count of the receiving district for all purposes relating to the allocation of all state and federal education funding and shall not be included in the unit count of the district of residence for any such purposes.
(b) If a parent of a pupil enrolled outside the district of residence pursuant to this chapter moves during the school year to a district different from either the district of residence or the receiving district, the child's first district of residence shall continue to be responsible for payments to the receiving district for the balance of the school year pursuant to subsection (e) of this section. The child's new district of residence shall be responsible for all such payments during succeeding years, and such payments shall be calculated as the lower local cost per pupil, as defined in subsection (d) of this section, of the new district of residence and the receiving district.
c) The Department of Education shall annually calculate the local cost per pupil expended by each school district for each type of pupil for the school year immediately preceding and shall annually certify each district's local cost per pupil expenditure by September 1 of each year.
(d) Local cost per pupil as used in this section shall be calculated as follows:

Total Operating Expenditure in Preceding Fiscal Year
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Division I Units minus Special School Units
Number of Pupils per Unit
Where:
Total local Operating = Sum of all expenditures
Expenditure in from local sources minus
Preceding FY local expenditures for
tuition minus local expend-
itures for debt service minus
local expenditures for Minor Capital
Improvement minus local cafeteria
expenditures minus any other local
expenditures deemed by the Secretary
of Education to be inappropriate for
inclusion for the purpose of this chapter.
Division I Units for each = Division I Units certified by
District or Special School the Department of Education
as of September 30 of each
year
Pupils per Unit = Number of Pupils required for
one particular unit of funding
as specified in § 1703 of this
title

(e) The district of residence shall, except as provided for in subsection (h) of this section, pay to the receiving district the lower local cost per pupil expenditure of the 2 districts, adjusted by an inflation factor specified annually in the annual appropriations act, such payment to be made by November 30 of each year. In the case of a district of residence that has a higher local cost per pupil than the receiving district, the district of residence shall pay in to a special fund to be known as the "School Choice Fund," the difference per pupil between their local cost per pupil expenditure and that of the receiving district. The Department of Education shall establish and administer the School Choice Fund as an appropriated special fund account. Deposits by districts of residence to this account shall also be completed by November 30 of each school year.
(f) Once all payments have been made pursuant to subsections (b) and (e) of this section, the full amount in the "School Choice Fund" account shall be allocated to all receiving districts that had a local cost per pupil, as defined in subsection (d) of this section, that was higher than the district of residence for pupils choosing to attend schools in districts other than their district of residence. These funds shall be provided in a pro-rata fashion so that the gap that exists in a receiving district between the local per pupil cost in the receiving district and the amount paid by the district of residence is closed by an equal percentage in each receiving district.
(g) Once all payments have been made pursuant to subsections (b), (e) and (f) of this section, the State, from the annual appropriations made for Division III Equalization and/or that portion of the Growth and Upgrade Contingency that represents actual Division III Equalization unit growth, will provide funding to all receiving districts that had a local cost per pupil, as defined in subsection (d) of this section, that was higher than the district of residence of pupils who choose to attend school in said receiving districts. This funding will be provided to each such receiving district so that the gap that exists in such receiving district between the local per pupil expenditures in the receiving district and the amount paid by the district of residence is closed by an equal percentage in each receiving district to the extent that the actual appropriations allow.
(h) Any pupil, who because of educational need, requires services that are appropriately financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 6 of this title, either at the outset or subsequent to a decision to enroll in a public school other than a school in the pupil's district of residence, shall remain the financial responsibility of the district of residence. The amount of the financial obligation shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6 of this title.
 (i) Any payment received by a local school district pursuant to this section may be used for current operations, local share of minor capital improvements, local debt service payments or to make tuition payments.
(j) In the event of any mid-year termination of a pupil's enrollment under this chapter, nothing contained in this section shall prevent the district of residence and the receiving district from entering into an agreement providing for the pro-ration of student funding between or among the district of residence, the receiving district, a successor district of residence and/or a successor receiving district.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 132, §§ 362, 363; 71 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 21; 71 Del. Laws, c. 242, § 3; 71 Del. Laws, c. 354, § 384.;

§ 409. Transportation.

The parent of any child enrolled in a district other than the district of residence, or enrolled in a school within the district of residence other than the school in which the child would normally be enrolled based upon the residence of the child's parent or parents, shall be responsible for transporting the child without reimbursement to and from a point on a regular bus route of the receiving district.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 132, § 369; 71 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 22; 76 Del. Laws, c. 280, § 404.;

§ 410. Interscholastic sports.

A student enrolled in grades 10 through 12, inclusive, in a receiving district shall not be eligible to participate in interscholastic athletic contests or competitions during the 1st year of enrollment in any receiving district if the student was enrolled in a different receiving district during the preceding school year unless the interscholastic sport in which the student wishes to participate is not offered in the receiving district in which the student was enrolled in the previous school year.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3.;

§ 411. Pupils suspended or expelled in district of residence.

If a child for whom an application has been submitted pursuant to this chapter has been suspended or expelled in the district of residence, the board of the receiving district may, in its sole discretion, refuse to consider the application or refuse to approve the application, or refuse to enroll the child in the receiving district until the child has been reinstated in the district of residence, provided, however that nothing in this section shall be construed to enlarge upon the authority of any district to accept for re-enrollment any student who has been expelled from a school district in this State, as such authority is limited by the provisions of § 4130 of this title.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3.;

§ 412. Credits; graduation.

A pupil who has been enrolled in a receiving district and who has met that district's graduation requirements shall be granted a diploma by that district. That district shall accept credits toward graduation requirements that were awarded by another district.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3.;

§ 413. Discipline not affected.

Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to affect or alter district policies with regard to disciplining students, including suspensions or expulsions.

70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3.;

§ 414. Intra-district choice.

Where the district of residence includes more than one school or more than one program within any school providing instruction at a given grade level, a parent of a child entering such grade level may apply to enroll that parent's own child in any public school program within the district of residence other than the program in which the child would normally be enrolled based on the child's place of residence in the manner provided in this chapter, and in such cases, the district of residence shall also be considered to be the receiving district for all purposes of this chapter, except that the provisions of § 408 of this title shall not apply to any such applications or changes in enrollment.
70 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title14/c004/index.shtml

Let's break this one down.  I'm in purple:

Reach Academy has earned right to a future

11:31 PM, Jul. 14, 2011
5Comments

New life for Reach Academy Charter School can't just turn on the fact that 200 girls would be thrust into traditional public schools well after the school choice options have closed.

The NJ attributed this same misfact regarding school choice to me in its Pencader story last week.  That time, it was apparently added after the story went to the editors.  School Choice law allows for Good Cause.  A student can choice into any Delaware school that has space.  Reach's closure would surely constitute good cause. 

• (2) "Good cause" shall mean a change in a child's residence due to a change in family residence, a change in the state in which the family residence is located, a change in a child's parent's marital status, a change caused by a guardianship proceeding, placement of a child in foster care, adoption, participation by a child in a foreign exchange program, or participation by a child in a substance abuse or mental health treatment program, or a set of circumstances consistent with this definition of "good cause."   http://delcode.delaware.gov/title14/c004/index.shtml

After a miserable first year of financial mismanagement and staff changes, Reach's survival must now rest on its credibility in getting the money right.  

Actually, Reach's survival rests upon two things: Yes, they must get the money right.  But, they must do so without negatively affecting the classroom.

On Tuesday, Delaware secretary of education Lillian Lowery recommended the charter be allowed to reopen on probation, which indicates the new school board met this priority.

And it did so by accepting the willing hand of Brandywine School District Superintendent Mark Holodick, to guide it in financial management.
This 'good neighbor' partnership includes access to David Blowman, Brandywine School Districts' chief financial officer. Blowman is a former executive assistant to Lowery's predecessor Valerie Woodruff.

In 2006, he was among the original state advisers sent to assess the scale of financial problems in the Christina School District that Lowery uncovered soon after being named its superintendent.

That team determined the district was bankrupt and in need of a $20 million loan, which it finally repaid to the state this year.

I wish just one editor at the NJ would fact check! The state offered Christina $20 million in 2006 with a five year repayment plan.  But, the district only accepted $15,007,624.  That's a difference of five million dollars - peanuts to the Journal, but a very meaningful number to tax payers.  And the loan was not just "finally repaid to the state this year." The significance of the language chosen by the NJ would imply that Christina's repayment was not timely. In fact, all loan payments were made to the state according to the five year repayment plan established in 2006. 
Lowery is not over the top when she frames the partnership as "huge," because Reach's issues were not about academics.

"It was the fiscal piece ... they have the right people now to vet them appropriately," she said.

They have the "right people now to vet them appropriately."  Dr. Lowery, they always had the right people - they had you and your department who, despite the appearance, is beholden to the laws that govern education in Delaware, including the responsibility to inform and assist charter schools in developing the Citizen Budget Oversight Committees.  Delaware legislators may be willing allow the laws they pass to langish, but the people who elect them are increasingly of a different mind! 

And while I am certain that Mark Holodick and David Blowman are good 'peeps,' simply because they are known to DOE does not automatically qualify them to vet Reach.  Within in my term as a board member, I have developed a respect for Public-Charter Partnerships, and believe it would behoove Delaware to develop them, I am concerned that this in fact a back door move to transfer Reach's charter to the public district - a process simplified by the changes to the law that the legislature passed this June - a bill that langishes on Markell's desk.  I bet my bottom dollar that Markell signs it at Reach!

That alone is enough for the state Board of Education to vote to keep Reach Academy open for a second year during its meeting next Thursday.

NJ - Reach should remain open because it has merit and a strong financial plan, not because it added a couple well-known to DOE Delawareans to its CBOC.  It isn't who you know - it's what you do with that knowledge.  And that's what your opinion piece here, completely missed.

What a mistake!  The NGA will cripple themselves with the appointment of a classic self-serving, double talking, politician.  Lucky You!  Quotes from today's News Journal.  My comments are in yellow.

"I don't want to get Gov. Markell in trouble, but he's probably my favorite Democrat," said Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican. "Unlike some in his party, he appreciates that government at its best promotes the flourishing of private life..."

Added Daniels: "I think Jack could be a really persuasive spokesman for us."

He's a phenom, Mitch, especially if you don't mind the lies he eschews to further his own political career... And clearly, spewing untruths works as he's moving up the line for a great reward. 

 

"Markell's direct pipeline to Vice President Joe Biden also is seen as an advantage for the NGA in negotiating with the White House on pertinent issues facing the state.

"That's why he's great for us, because he has such a great relationship with the vice president," said Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, the outgoing chairwoman of the NGA.

Christine, everyone in Delaware thinks they have a great relationship with the vice president. Even Delawareans who can't stand him still claim two degrees of separation in our small state.

"When we're together, we don't really care -- I certainly don't care -- if an idea is a Republican idea or a Democratic idea," Markell said. "If there's an idea that's very creative and effective, I'd like to borrow from it."

Hey, NJ, I think you got another quote wrong.   As a governor, he doesn't care about anything but his political aspirations, least of all campaign promises and transparency.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110718/NEWS02/107180320/Markell-line-lead-governors?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Home|s

Last Wednesday I attended the public hearing on the future of Pencader Charter School.  For several weeks prior to the hearing I had received correspondence from Christina constituents regarding the Charter School Accountability Committee's recomendation to revoke the schools charter.  I chronicalled much of their fight here on C&E 1st.  I also approached the school's leaders to discuss the schools financial viability and history of achievement and rates of graduation.  I arrived at my own personal opinion regarding Pencader's place in Delaware's educational landscape.  I presented those opinions during the public hearing.  Mine was but one short statement during a hearing that ran nearly five hours, far exceeding the two hours originally allotted by DOE. I was not the only elected official to offer a statement - Sen. Margaret Rose Henry sent a representative on her behalf to request that Pencader continue to operate.

I made statement 1) knowing that there would likely be repercussions back at home from those who are unable to speak frankly about Christina's acheivement struggles 2) acknowledging that this was an opportunity to have honest discussions about achievement and the current state of education across Delaware, and 3) betting that some media outlet would fully distort my message (which absolutely occurred in the Thursday News Journal and was finally partially rectified online Saturday night.)

Today, I am posting my entire statement, as it was presented during the hearing in Dover:

Good Evening,                                                 July 12, 2011


I am Elizabeth Scheinberg. While I am a school board member in the Christina School District, I am not here to speak on behalf of the Board. However, I have been asked by my constituents to share my personal concerns for the Christina Students who attend Pencader Charter High School.

I am fully aware of the status of Pencader’s finances. Their deficit is not insurmountable and pales in comparison to the debt that my own district actualized only five short years ago. It was our legislative champions who recognized the dire need for the Christina School District to continue operating. Today, that same dire need exists for Pencader. To that end, our dedicated legislators have acted to impart the necessary safeguards through HB 205. As of today, the bill is before the Governor awaiting his signature. His hesitation should not be held against Pencader or any other charter school.

I’d like to talk to share my thoughts on the impact of closing Pencader Charter High School and my concerns for the approximately 308 Christina School District Students who have choiced to Pencader. If Pencader were be closed, 308 Christina families will be forced into a mad dash for placements for their children. Some may, although it’s highly unlikely, find a home at other existing charter schools. Those who are economically advantaged may seek out Delaware’s private schools, space permitting.

However, in all likelihood, the majority of my 308 Christina students will return to their home schools, Newark, Christiana, and Glasgow. I welcome those students back with open arms. However, in doing so, I am ethically-compelled to address the hard reality of Christina’s achievement history, especially that of my comprehensive secondary schools. It is an unpopular decision to vocalize these concerns. But, these are the hard conversations that must occur if we are to improve achievement outcomes for all students in Delaware.

Christina is currently a district under academic watch.

Newark High School, traditionally referred to by the community as our college prep school, is in Academic Watch. Newark High School is closed to choice due to capacity limitations and will likely remain so for some time to come. Only those Christina students who naturally feed into Newark High can be accommodated at NHS.

Glasgow High School is also under Academic Watch, in addition to undergoing an intense, disruptive, and destabilizing transformation as part of its selection into the Partnership Zone. As we prepare to re-open Glasgow for the 2011-2012 school year, we have already completed assigning students into academies according to preference. While Glasgow will have a business academy, that option is only available to freshman and sophomores, and only if space permits. Juniors and Seniors who transfer to Glasgow will be required to join the Success Academy. Even though Christina’s s juniors and seniors at Pencader have already demonstrated a commitment to completing their secondary education with a business focus, the business academy will NOT be available to them.

Christiana High School is currently under Academic Progress, a rating shared by Pencader. However, CHS spent much of the 2010-11 school year in triage after the loss of its foundation, when our capable principal left to work with the Department of Education. It was spring before Christina was able to hire a permanent replacement. While I am confident that CHS will rise above its recent instability, it should be noted that

1) DCAS data and AYP achievement are embargoed until the July 21st State Board of Education Meeting, and until the embargo is lifted, it is nearly impossible for the constituents to determine if CHS has continued to improve achievement and therefore could be a good fit for any of Christina’s Pencader students.

2) There are prolific rumors abounding regarding which schools will be selected by the Department of Education to be a part of the final cohort of Partnership Zone schools. Many in our community deeply believe that CHS will go into the PZ, the net result of which would be prolonged de-stablization while turnaround plans are created, approved, finalized, and implemented. I am troubled because I cannot assure my constituents that CHS will not be chosen for PZ intervention.

As a district, Christina is working hard to improve our educational offerings and increase student achievement. I applaud the many dedicated employees in Christina who have made student success their number one priority. But if student success is to be the pinnacle priority, we must admit the reality – Pencader’s businees offerings do not innately streamline with Christina’s academic offerings or electives, nor can we offer Christina’s Pencader students a seamless transition into a comprehensive high school that performs on par or better than Pencader.

While many of us are here today to support the continued operation of Pencader, I have come to support Christina’s children and families, who have chosen Pencader for their academic future. I understand why many of these Christina families choiced out of the district. For at least a decade, Christina leadership fostered an environment of status quo failure. While I am certain that today, the Christina board is driven to mitigate the failures of our predecessors, we still have much heavy lifting to do. The families at Pencader have made their choice and I believe that given a solid plan for financial solvency, it is our moral obligation to continue to respect the decisions of those families and allow their children to remain at Pencader.

Turning families out at the end of July is morally-reprehensible. Again, I reiterate that I believe Pencader will be solvent. However, should closure be the ultimate recommendation, we owe our families a comprehensive exit plan. I urge the decision-makers to approve Pencader’s operation for an additional year, to prove their solvency, and provide accountability regarding said solvency in January 2012. Should Pencader fail in this task, such a delay would allow for DOE and the receiving districts and schools to plan appropriately for the transition of the affected students, while providing parents and guardians with the time to research which school would be the best option for their family. I believe that given such a plan, Pencader will prove successful and continue operating for years to come.

I urge you to support Pencader Charter School, and respect the work of their reconfigured board and school leadership. When we speak of student achievement, we speak of haste, of racing – the time is now! Despite Pencader’s financial woes, Pencader’s student achievement was NOT impacted. Their time is now and we, educators, tax payers, and Delawareans, need to give this school a second chance.

I'd like to share some thoughts regarding Christina's Public Board Meeting last Tuesday at Bancroft Elementary School.  These thoughts do not constitute official minutes of any kind, nor do they represent the opinions of the Christina Board or District.  They are mine and mine alone.

1) Congratulations to our new board leadership, Pres. Eric Anderson, and V Pres. Fred Polaski. 

2) Thank you to all the Wilmington constituents who came out to our board meeting.  It was refreshing to see the influx of concerned citizens.

3) There is not now, nor has there been in my term, a recommendation to cease having our monthly public board meetings in the City of Wilmington. There is not now, nor has there been in my term, a recommendation to change the frequency of our meetings in the city.  For those who came to the meeting believing that Christina's board was vacating the city, you have been lied to.

4) There is a board action item regarding the locations of our monthly meetings. 

• The board is studying whether limiting ourselves to a singular location in each portion of the district would increase community and parent involvement.  Traditionally, our meetings engage far too few members of the public.  I have heard from suburban-based constituents on multiple occasions that our schedule of constantly changing locations has a tremendous impact on their decisions to attend meetings.
• Until Tuesday night, I had never received any feedback from my Wilmington constituents as to their preferences for our public meetings.
• In June, the board began a discussion as to whether we should enact changes regarding locations.  The rotation of meetings would stay the same and we did approve the dates.  Staff was requested to determine which locations would be the most appropriate.  Should the board choose two singular locations, administration recommended Sarah Pyle Academy and Kirk Middle School.
• Before the board could even begin a discussion on this topic with the requisitioned information, we received considerable public comment from community activists and elected city officials regarding their desire to continue the meeting schedule as it has been for the last 30 years.  There was a lot of angry rhetoric aimed at the board - much of stemming from the falsifications that someone has been propagandising.  Therefore, I want to share a heartfelt statement with all Christina constituents:

I do not believe that there are any among us, members of the Christina board, who have any interest in disaffecting any of our constituents.  We began the process of evaluating locations in order to determine whether a change to a 30-year-old process would warrant greater involvement.  I do not believe that the existing 30-year-old practice is adequate nor successful. It simply has not driven in the community engagement that this board desperately wants to compel.

I listened to our constituents Tuesday night who articulated the desired propagation of the current practice.  As such, I motioned that the board continue to rotate our locations in the city as our constituents requested and to dedicate a single centralized location in the suburbs as my Newark constituents have requested.  This was to be a best of both worlds compromise.  It was met with a former board member grandstanding - after public comment had long ended - about how the City and Suburbs should be treated equally followed by blasphemous blame upon the current board for 30 years of division and inequality between those portions of the district separated by 15 miles of highway.  My motion failed along with a couple others.  Ultimately, Mr. Young presented a motion to maintain our rotating locations district wide.  It passed.

As for the board workshops - this discussion will be continued July 26th at our Gauger-Cobbs workshop.
It's important to note to that the provision for monthly workshops is a mechanism that the 2010-11 board implemented.  These meetings are not a part of the boards 30 year history. With the increased demands being placed upon school boards due to the state and national education climate, some board members have found some of its work cannot be given due consideration during the regular monthly business meeting provided for in state law. The workshops allow board members, administration, and the public to sift through pertinent education issues - and is some cases, less-pertinent, yet strategic ideas.

Again, I believe our board genuinely wants unity and equality across our district. I was three years old when the deseg order came down to Delaware.  I was not a part of the board that utilized forced busing as required by law nor of the board that attempted to close schools or implement neighborhood schools.  After thirty years, Christina has a rich, though sometimes troubled history. We are stymied by problems inherent of disparate poverty throughout our district.  Poverty doesn't care about the 15 miles of highway.  We are officially a minority-majority district, as well as the largest district in the state.  Our board is one attempting to rise above decades of failure, and a fairly recent financial meltdown to spur achievement regardless of where within Christina our children reside.  While there is much to be learned from our history - and it can never be forgotten - I cannot stress enough that berating our board for having difficult conversation about the best way to balance our constituents requests and achievement goals is simply an ineffective strategy.  Yes, some past Christina boards may not (personal experience here - refused to) listen to the public, I ran for my seat in Christina, because I was determined to change our district's culture.  Because I believed that we, as a board, could do better in setting policy and expectations and in responding to the needs of our families and communities.

As stated, our board will continue to tackle the topic of workshop locations, later in July.  I sincerely hope that our constituents now realize that someone told them vicious rumors intended to question the integrity of the board.  I am certain that it was by design and not error. It is important to note that should our constituents have such mind boggling concerns in the future - board members are available every day to set the record straight.  We each avail ourselves to the public through the publication of our personal contact information on the district website.  Please do not hesitate to reach out to us.  And please, when you hear something as ludicrous as the the flat-out lies shared last week, don't wait for our once a month business meeting!  Call us immediately!

Well, snookered isn't the word they used.  But, apparently, Kennedy Communications is taking credit for Markell's election.  Get a good look at this, a case study based upon their work for the Markell campaign (Gee, I thought it was anti-Minnerist Democrats that lost Carney the party's nomination.) I'm not sure I'll ever look at my junk mail the same way again:

From:  http://www.kennedycommunications.com/markell.html

Overview

In the September 2008 Democratic Primary, State Treasurer Jack Markell faced Lt. Governor John Carney, the presumed successor to Democratic Governor Ruth Ann Minner. Increasing dissatisfaction within the electorate (51% of likely primary voters felt the state as moving in the wrong direction, compared with only 21% in 2007) created a potential opening for Markell. Carney, a longtime fixture of Delaware government and a popular figure in Democratic politics, enjoyed both high name recognition and steady favorability ratings. Markell faced an uphill challenge—defining himself not only as the change candidate, but also as an experienced leader with a comprehensive plan to move Delaware forward.

The Challenge

As the presumptive Democratic nominee, Carney benefited from powerful Union and Democratic Party supporters. And while Markell enjoyed good name recognition, he still lagged behind the popular Lt. Governor’s name identification and remained largely undefined as a candidate. Few primary voters knew about his experience creating jobs as a businessman, his successful initiatives as State Treasurer or his plan for a better Delaware. Markell needed to channel the electorate’s increasing dissatisfaction into a positive movement for change while convincing voters that Markell had the experience to get the job done. Working with Markell’s media consultants (the Campaign Group) and his pollster (David Petts), we helped the Markell team prepare a unique strategy combining change with a concrete plan for action.

The Result

Kennedy Communications designed a two-part, 12-piece mail program. The first four pieces, mailing in mid-July, defined Markell as the change candidate with a comprehensive, detailed plan for Delaware. After this first wave of mailers, Markell experienced a bump in the polls. The second wave mailing in mid-August highlighted Markell’s plans for job growth, universal health care and education reform, while consistently underscoring the change message. We presented Markell as a fresh break from the past while keeping the tone entirely positive. In a major upset, Markell won the September primary and was elected Governor in November.

Thanks to Jodi for sharing the link, I wouldn't have found it otherwise.  Comfort to me, now I know I am not crazy for having expectations for DOE.

Charter 2.0: Revamping how charter schools in Delaware work

By Larry Nagengast
June 27, 2011

While moving ahead with its procedures for revoking the licenses of two charter schools, the Delaware Department of Education faces a major charter school issue of its own: the department is working with an application, monitoring and review system that a national evaluating agency rates as “undeveloped” or “minimally developed” in most aspects.

The evaluation was delivered to the state Department of Education (DOE) in March, a month before the department began its formal review of the Pencader Business and Finance Charter High School and resumed a suspended formal review of the Reach Academy for Girls.

The results of the evaluation by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) were not unexpected, said John Carwell, charter schools officer in the Department of Education since last August.

“I knew coming in that there was some work to be done,” Carwell said, adding that the state sought the review by NACSA “to help benchmark ourselves against high-performing charter school authorizers from across the country.”
The evaluation found that:
•DOE does not have an established process or the tools to evaluate new charter school applications in their entirety.

•DOE’s monitoring of academic, financial and operational performance is limited, and there is no consensus within DOE or its Charter School Office on how to monitor academic performance.

•DOE has not prepared and submitted an annual report on charter schools, required by state law, since 2006.

•DOE does not define, in a clear and transparent way, measurable and attainable goals and standards that schools must meet for renewal.

•DOE does not grant increased autonomy to schools that perform well, and its current authorizing practices discourage autonomy and innovation.

A WHOLE LOT MORE HERE:  http://www.delawarefirst.org/1_government_and_politics/charter-20-revamping-charter-schools-delaware-work/

For only $64.25 you can get your own genuine Jack Markell tote bag and IPAD cover here:  http://www.zazzle.com/cr/design/pt-speckcase/?customize_it=true&pd=176957388727164934&qty=1&get_started_dialog=false

Report flagged 60 Pennsylvania schools for possible cheating
By Liz Goodwin
National Affairs Reporter
The Lookout

A Pennsylvania government report has found statistical irregularities that suggest cheating on standardized tests may have happened in 60 state schools, according to The Notebook blog.

The irregularities--including erasures from wrong to right answers and improbable gains over the space of a year--do not necessarily mean that cheating occurred. But the state never followed up on the report's findings to ensure that it did not, The Notebook found. In one school, the odds of the wrong-to-right changes occurring naturally were less than 1 in 100 trillion.

The finding comes on the heels of a massive cheating scandal in Atlanta, where more than 80 teachers have admitted to personally erasing and re-filling in answers on their students' answer sheets. Another 38 principals are "implicated" in the cheating in dozens of schools, a Georgia state report found.
Meanwhile, the Department of Education told The Washington Post it is involved in an investigation into whether cheating occurred at D.C. schools under the watch of education reform darling Michelle Rhee. And a USA Today investigation found more than 1,000 classrooms around the country where students made statistically improbable gains on standardized tests over the course of just one year.

Testing is only going to become more central to American schools in the years ahead, however, as many districts and states are rolling out plans to evaluate (and even pay) their teachers based at least in part on how their students perform on tests. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that teachers who confessed to cheating said they were worried about getting fired if their students didn't improve.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is staying on message however, arguing that  high-stakes testing does not encourage cheating and is necessary to ensure schools are adequately educating their students.

"Lots of places are seeing tremendous reform, are moving forward, doing great and doing it the right way," he told the Journal-Constitution. "The saddest thing here is the Atlanta public schools were making real progress. And now that's buried in this story."

Dear Mr. Duncan,

The Atlanta public schools were NOT "making real progress."  They were CHEATING!  You must learn to discern between the two.  Now that high stakes testing has become a part of culture (ugggh), you can expect that high stakes cheating shall rise along with it. 

Thanks a bunch for all you're doing to deform education!  While I am sure your business cronies appreciate it... It's not worth wasting my breath...

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/hawaiinews/20110710_Conflict_hampering_public_school_reforms.html

Continuing turmoil surrounding a new contract for public school teachers could delay key Race to the Top education reforms that require union approval, including several the state pledged to launch in the approaching school year, observers say.


Lawmakers, education analysts and others said strained relations between the state and Hawaii State Teachers Association will almost certainly make for harder discussions about such issues as revamped teacher evaluations, the tenure system and incentive pay.

They also point out those matters, in the short term, are unlikely to be tackled until the overall teachers contract is resolved.

Whether the wrangling could jeopardize the state's $75 million federal Race to the Top grant Hawaii received last August after pledging to make ambitious improvements of its public education system isn't clear.

But several onlookers agreed the contract dispute -- and the absence of negotiations for now -- highlight just how tough making important portions of the state's Race reforms will be.

More Here: http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/hawaiinews/20110710_Conflict_hampering_public_school_reforms.html

Since ed-deformers have found a way to snake their way into our wallets, it only seems apropo that the true reformers have a method for funding their vital work for education.  Support your grassroots reformers today!




Front and Back

 

More Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/no-child-left-behind-montana-nclb-education-funding_n_893504.html

Montana 'At A Point Of No Return' For No Child Left Behind Compliance

Faced with potentially losing federal funding after publicly challenging No Child Left Behind's student performance mandates, Montana's education chief Denise Juneau is now in discussions with the Department of Education in search of compromise, she told The Huffington Post Friday.

The conflict began after Juneau, Montana's State Superintendent for Public Instruction, decided she'd had enough of federal policies and incentives that require extensive data collection and reporting, which she said had paralyzed her small office.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/07/gop_proposes_unprecedented_flexibility_in_ed_spending.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1

GOP Proposes Unprecedented Flexibility in Ed. Spending

By Alyson Klein on July 7, 2011 5:18 PM

States and districts would get unprecedented leeway to move around federal money under the latest in a series of bills to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But the measure is already being decried by a top Democrat as a "backdoor" way to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and as an attack on students' civil rights.

The bill, introduced today by Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, envisions a very different role for the federal government when it comes to telling states and districts how to spend their money.

Instead of directing states and districts to spend a certain amount on a particular population—say, English-language learners—states and districts could move the dollars out of that program and spend them on a wide range of activities authorized under the ESEA (whose current version is No Child Left Behind).


That would mean that districts could, for instance, move all of the money out of Title I grants for disadvantaged students, and spend it on, say, professional development under the Teacher Quality State Grants program. States and districts would still be required to fulfill reporting requirements for all programs, even if they move all of the money out of them...


Go Here for the rest of the story including supporters and detractors:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/07/gop_proposes_unprecedented_flexibility_in_ed_spending.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1

C&E 1st says:  If you are going to read just one story about a bill that is likely to go nowhere this year, this is it!

Find the latest update on the signing of HB 205 here: http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed  Markell Spokesperson also confirms that 205 likely won't help Pencader or Reach. Wonder if its sponsors knew that?

The whole state is waiting for the Gov to sign 205 and effect the legislation to provide safeguards for Charter Schools.  What's the hold up, Gov? Our legislators passed it in breakneck speed. Can't you find a pen? 

Here, borrow one of mine:



Conspiracy Theory # 1:  With three new charters slated to open in 2011-12, Aspira, First Responders, and Gateway, it could be an assumption that the develoers of one of these schools would not pass the background check and the Gov. is covering for him/her.  Is that it, Gov? 

Your silence speaks volumes.

What's your conspiracy theory?  Share with us at C&E 1st. 

Well, kids, its been a helluva week for education in Delaware - AG intervenes to keep the SBOE from reading your email, Reach hearing moved-up, Gov. holds off signing Charter bill, but successfully passes more transportation costs to districts...  And now a lull has descended upon us..

So, let's turn our attention back to the lovely NACSA report, commissioned by Sec. Lowery and SBOE President Teri Gray. 

http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/files/2011/06/NACSA_DE_Eval_REPORT_FINAL.pdf

The following content can be found on page 18. My thoughts - in color, Greater Emphasis NACSA text- bolding or larger font.

• "The authorizer lacks rubrics, protocols or systems of ongoing oversight of charter school academic performance." Pencader or Reach anyone?
• As applied, the authorizer's Technical Assistance Manual contains references to site visits, but in practice the visits that do occur are informal or reactive and do not rise to the level of monitoring or oversight visits.
• the authorizer does not evaluate schools' academic performance against the measures contained in the Performance Agreements on an ongoing basis, or as the basis for renewal decisions.
• authorizer does not have a prescribed approach to monitoring school academic performance.
• Moreover, the authorizer does not provide any reports or feedback to schools on academic performance until the renewal cycle begins

The following content is from page 19:

• As applied, the authorizer does not engage in a systematic approach to monitoring school operations on a recurring or annual basis, but it is able to respond to some problems that arise because pertinent data is readily available via DDOE data systems.
• The authorizer lacks established financial oversight policies, standards, and processes. Financial performance requirements are not spelled out in approved charter applications. Independent annual audits of charter schools are not required by statute. Instead, charter schools undergo audits by the state on the same basis as traditional public schools -- every three years, and per audit standards applied to traditional schools.
• In practice, the authorizer knows how schools are doing financially. Charter schools are state entities and therefore participate in state administrative (human resources, benefits, payroll, and pensions) and financial (budget and accounting) systems. CSO and DDOE financial staff have ready access to the Delaware Financial Management System (DFMS), in which accounting and transactional data for charter school financial transactions is stored, and feedback is provided to schools if financial problems or trends are detected - albeit from analysis that is not systematized or sophisticated.
• Because most charter schools do not undergo independent financial audits, the authorizer cannot review audits on an annual basis. Therefore, the authorizer is unable to examine year-to-year audited financial performance and conduct best practice ratio and trend analysis, which no doubt contributes to financial monitoring focused primarily on cash flow and cash availability, rather than on school progress toward developing financial viability over time. The authorizer also gives little attention to determining the extent to which schools are building adequate financial planning and management capacity.

On Special Populations, from Page 20:

As established, applications require adequate information and compliance assurances for serving some groups of students with special needs. The application and the review form used by the CSAC focus for the most part on students with disabilities and contain little reference to English Language Learners (ELL), exceptional children, or severely at-risk students.

As applied, the authorizer does oversee compliance with special education obligations. Monitoring of special education compliance requirements is one aspect of oversight for which DDOE has developed a detailed monitoring rubric. In addition, special education compliance oversight is conducted on an ongoing and annual basis by the DDOE. The authorizer also has a record of compliance issues that have arisen in the form of documented correspondence with operators. The authorizer's Technical Assistance Manual states that charter schools must conduct an annual evaluation of ELL programs; however, it is unclear whether or how the authorizer monitors compliance with any of the ELL-specific requirements.

• The authorizer has no established process, tools, instruments, or mechanisms to monitor or provide feedback to school operators on any aspect of school operations. The authorizer's Technical Assistance Manual spells out the right of the authorizer to engage in site visits and access student records; however, the authorizer has developed no process or protocol for conducting monitoring-focused site visits.
• The authorizer evinces little evidence of systematic monitoring and oversight. Monitoring is conducted largely on an ad hoc basis. The authorizer provides feedback to schools only when problems directly tied to compliance with statutory provisions arise - such as when schools fail to meet minimum annual enrollment thresholds.
• Similarly, the authorizer responds when problems or issues identified by DDOE -- or called to its attention -- surface with regard to a school's financial viability, compliance or reporting requirements, or legal status. in such cases, the authorizer has responded to complaints (or issues it has flagged) and has engaged in comprehensive and diligent information gathering and fact finding in order to make and support decisions. But such actions were not defined or prescribed by policy or clear and transparent guidelines and process.

C'mon, Jack, sign 205!

For two weeks Pencader families emailed the DOE asking for protocol for the public hearing.  When they received no answer from countless DOE authorities, they asked Sen. Peterson to intervene.  Once Peterson made an official request, the information finally flowed to Pencader, late last week.

Yesterday, John Carwell, the head of the Charter School Office, also finally responded.  The response is below.  But, what really stood out to me was the date of the memo, July 5th.  To me, it indicates that previously there was little-to-no written guidance on the hearing process prior to Pencader's repeated requests.

Here's the memo:

PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR FORMAL REVIEWS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS


July 5, 2011

Public comment on Charter School matters are welcomed by the Secretary of Education, the Department of Education and the State Board of Education. All parties want comments made in a way that allows what is said to be considered when decisions about Charter Schools are made. During a Charter School formal review process, if the accountability committee reports probable cause for the remedial measures of probation or revocation, a public hearing is held. This hearing is conducted as a joint public hearing with the Department of Education and the State Board of Education.

At the public hearing, the Charter School has opportunity to respond to the accountability committee’s report and members of the public have the opportunity to comment. Written and electronic comments maybe be received at or before the public hearing, and must be received by the Department of Education’s Charter School Education Associate no later than the beginning of the public hearing to be included in the record. The current Education Associate for Charter Schools is John Carwell; his email address is jcarwell@doe.k12.de.us.

The Secretary of Education and the State Board of Education must base their decision on the formal review of a Charter School on the record. After the joint public hearing conducted as part of the formal review process is concluded, the record is complete and no other evidence may be considered. The State Board of Education’s rules for public participation at its meetings do not allow for public comments at a meeting where action will be taken on a matter which has a defined record on which a decision must be based. State Board of Education decisions on formal reviews of Charter Schools must be based on the record as it exists at the conclusion of the joint public hearing, so no additional comments can be made at the Board meeting. However, all oral comments made at the joint public hearing and all written or electronic comments given to the Charter School Education Associate at or before the public hearing will be part of the record provided to the Board for consideration in making its decision.