Voters in Georgia Passed the Charter Schools Amendment, and then the Hype was Gone

Voters in Georgia Passed the Charter Schools Amendment, and then the Hype was Gone

One of the initiatives on the voting ballot this November was a proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Georgia.  The Amendment, aptly named the "Charter Schools Amendment," read as follows:

 - 1 - 

Provides for improving student achievement and parental involvement through more public charter school options.

"Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow state or local approval of public charter schools upon the request of local communities?"

Of course, many complained about indirect and ambiguous language.  Aside from the obvious critique that "improving student achievement and parental involvement" is being directly linked to "public charter options" (I've seen the research-- in some cases this assertion is true and in others it is not so accurate), the language also fails to distinguish the new addition to the Georgia Constitution-- that the state (or a state board of representatives) would be authorized to approve public charter schools separate from (or perhaps in an appellate capacity) local approval processes.  Now, the state authority to approve charter schools that would operate in local districts is what all the hoopla was about.  So, let's cut to that.

Georgia voters approved the Amendment with results of approximately 58% to 42% (or 58.5% to 41.5% depending on who you consult).


Those that Vote "Nay"
National education voices, like that of Diane Ravich suggested that the measure would ultimately "gut local control."

Other local, Metro-Atlanta columnists agreed that a NO vote on the Charter Amendment was deserved for at least 10 reasons.  See also this article on the 8 Myths of the Proposed Charter Amendment.  Persuasively for some, even the editorial board of the major state newspaper published a piece urging a NO vote.

Those that Vote "Yay"
The Vice President of the Georgia Charter Schools Association had this to say.  Further, there were even reports that President Obama supposedly supported the Amendment (which would fall in line with the President's education "Blueprint" plan (old and new) that has been a mantle piece for some time).

And the Rest...
Still other journalists tried to distill the issues for voters.  Even in my hometown of Athens, Georgia, which I lovingly remember as having an activist/involved education population, there were open forums and discussions on both sides of the issue.

More than Just Georgia
According to the New York Times, here's more on the political breakdown:

• "Alice Walton, the daughter of Walmart’s founder, Sam Walton, has contributed to campaigns supporting the measure"
• "several companies that manage charter schools, including K12 Inc., Charter Schools USA and National Heritage Academies" supported
• "committees supporting the ballot measure have collected 15 times as much as groups opposing the measure, according to public filings."

 A Mixed Bag
Many tried to cast Amendment 1 as a partisan issue, but I believe it is a bit more complicated than attaching an "R" or "D" label.  (I acknowledge that Republicans were supposedly responsible for the language of the Amendment.).  Evidence shows that some Democrats joined Republicans in support of the Amendment.

"conservatives who typically champion decentralized government are giving the amendment full-throated support. Meanwhile, some Tea Party members have joined Democratic legislators, including State Senators Jason Carter and Vincent D. Fort, in opposing the measure. The state’s school superintendent, John D. Barge, a Republican, has come out against it as well." (NYT)

Further, as the creation of Democrats for Education Reform attests, the policies of U.S. education splice creed, regionalism, and background.  I could continue with the examples, but I think you get the point.


So what's my point?
Well, my point is that there was all this political speech-- ads for a YES vote, ads for a NO vote all over the airwaves on this issue.  Even among my friends, there were chatty talks about "the future of public education in Georgia."  But now?  Radio silence.  I hear not one chirp, besides the articles that I am digging up for this blog post, about what the passage of the Amendment means for Georgia charter schools-- and Georgia schools more broadly.

And, I would like to hear more.  I'll keep you tuned.

quick detour

Entering a new world

I graduated yesterday from Harvard University.  Harvard Kennedy School first and then Harvard Law School, to be precise.  And I feel whole.

I feel whole because now I’ve completed all of the formal education that fulfills my innermost desires, and now I can begin to act on the changes that I would like to see in the world.  For me, formal education has been about taking steps towards an end—obtaining the means by which my achieving the ends I desire will come with the respect it inherently would have deserved on its own, save these other “prerequisites.”  So, I have attained those.  Any now, the excitement begins.

[TEASER ALERT] Excerpt from my Master's Thesis, CRITICAL INCIDENTS IN EDUCATION: USING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE TO CREATE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS AFTER A SCHOOL DISTRICT CHEATING SCANDAL

The following writing is excerpted from the beginning pages of my Master's Thesis submitted to the Professors and Administrators of the Harvard Law School and Harvard Kennedy School Joint Degree Program in Law & Government as part of my Integrated Written Work Requirement. Submitted on April 20, 2012, I retain all original rights and privileges. For followup questions or inquiries, email eharrison@jd12.law.harvard.edu. 

Abstract

Atlanta Public Schools is in the process of adopting more functional administrative policies in response to the system-wide cheating scandal that caused national attention last year.  This research is offered to help the new APS administration fill a potential gap in input from key stakeholders.  It argues that policy solutions must be grounded in Atlanta-specific contexts so that they are sustainable even after administrative leadership changes.  By applying the critical incidents technique to field interviews within a larger reflective practice framework, three key insights emerge about the scandal and potential solutions are proffered to the district.

More after the jump.

Which ideas and policy proposals should be translated into ESEA reauthorization (NCLB) legislation? How does that happen?

An evaluation of ideas from Scott Abernathy, No Child Left Behind and the Public Schools (2007).

Money, resources, efficiency. Abernathy writes that money matters such that “careful thought into where it goes and on what basis it is handed out” become important (p. 133). An ambitious proposal would be for local education agencies (LEA) to encourage cultures of efficient spending to stretch each federal dollar farther—but this is more of a policy opportunity than a legislative proposal.  However, this might be done legislatively by larger appropriations for technical assistance to LEAs and through guidance that encourages LEAs to let accounting and budgeting contracts to companies that can partner with the school district central offices.  (Abernathy echoes that rewards (and resources) “should be both financial and bureaucratic” (p. 134).)

Expanding charter advantages.  Abernathy takes the ideology of choice and charters head on in boldly suggesting “we should consider extending the bureaucratic advantages of charter schools to all public schools” (p. 137). I think this suggestion is worth policymakers really considering for several reasons. First, because it does call into question why traditional public schools that house high-need student populations should bear burdens other schools don’t.  Secondly, because it would ironically create real public choice in the market, as traditional schools are unhinged to actually compete with charter and private counterparts.  And, thirdly, because it would require a serious analysis of whether the fewer burdens on charter schools have produced the raving results people often associate with them—whereas researchers and education policywonks acknowledge the mixed results (Abernathy, p. 136). I read what Abernathy proposes, however, as different from the flexibility for local schools rhetoric that some Congressmen have displayed. Instead, he is asserting that accountability still be in place but bureaucratic requirements lessen (whereas some congressional proposals use the term flexibility to reject some accountability measures altogether). Upon consideration, however, it appears that this proposal might actual bifurcate political groups—especially those that position themselves in favor of public choice but fundamentally against traditional schools or those that rely on teacher unions because unions contracts may strain school flexibility in some areas. 

Assessment of Managers as part of school culture.  Abernathy hits the nail on the head when he notes that teachers’ assessments of principals regarding school performance is needed in NCLB modifications (p. 139). Let’s call this a school culture metric.  Since much of the performance-accountability structure is adapted from private sector metrics, Abernathy’s observation points out a fatal lack of fidelity to accountability models. “It is difficult to imagine a private-sector system that fails to incorporate subordinates’ assessments of their managers in assessing whether those managers are performing adequately” (p. 139). I concur! Teacher retention data attributable to school management practices might be a part of the school culture performance metric as well.  Perhaps this can be done legislatively by including teacher satisfaction surveys with leadership as school culture metrics, which are but one of the many achievement indicators (alongside traditional indicators like graduation rates and student test scores).

The Status of Georgia Race to the Top and What should be done moving forward

This memo assumes that there is a new governor in Georgia as of 2013 for the purposes of an assignment from my HGSE course, Federal Government in the Schools. However, in reality, Georgia's elections for governor fall on mid-term years.  That said, the recommendations for Georgia work out just right if none of that is assumed. So, enjoy the substance, nevermind the exact audience.

Fictional Assignment -- What is the Status of Georgia's Race to the Top Implementation? What are your recommendations for a new governor?

This memo outlines challenges Georgia faces in implementing nearly $400 million in incentive funds received from the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”) for a successful Race to the Top (“RTTT”) application. Georgia’s challenges are not drastically different than those of other RTTT winners, but our issues were mostly around data systems, timeline delays, and increasing charter opportunities. These and other issues can be addressed using eight strategies. Four of the eight strategies should be championed by the Office of the Governor: (1) require implementation checks for future RTTT applications, (2) garner local district enthusiasm for Georgia’s state-wide Innovation Fund, (3) maintain vigilance over graduation rates and teacher supports, and (4) encourage and support state legislative efforts to expand equitable opportunities for local charters. The other four strategies, discussed on page 4, should be implemented by the Georgia Department of Education (“GaDOE”). The sections below are instructive. 

More after the break...

If you received a grant for in-school clinic services, what would YOU use it for?

The assumption for this response is that a grant recipient (from the Johnson Foundation) would be able to create a full service healthcare wing of the middle or high school that would be staffed with at least two nurses each of the 5 school days a week.  Given this assumption, here is the plan for specific healthcare services.

More after the break...

Head Start has to keep its Federal Support

Data suggests that enrollment in Head Start is not determinative of whether a child is a successful elementary school student or whether a child is a higher-functioning learner through elementary grades.  Hence, those waiting for Head Start to be the silver bullet to end the achievement gap are sentenced to wait some more.  What Head Start does do (as supported by this study) is ready young children for kindergarten and deliver them to a high-quality kindergarten teacher as eager little sponges ready to grow to their next level of learning (see Exhibits 3a and 3b showing statistically significant cognitive impacts of Head Start for the four-year-old cohort and three-year old cohorts, respectively (p. xxiv-xxvi)).  This is what we should want for all children—to have the skills and readiness to begin to learn.  A program that ensures our nation’s children are ready to learn when they reach school is a program worthwhile.

But the prompt asks whether Head Start is still relevant, which probes not just into the effects of the program (though, excitingly the random assignment of this study allows us to be able to determine actual causality of Head Start), but asks us to explore whether Head Start should continue to take up policy space, research, and public priority.  Should the federal government continue to support the program?

I point to two reasons why Head Start should continue to be supported by the federal government:  (1) the alternative to no federal government support is likely state-only support (rather than no support at all) and states are not currently in positions to take on this additional responsibility and (2) the federal government has societal interest in the secondary benefits Head Start has shown to produce in low-income children and families.

See why after the jump.

Closing the School-to-Prison Pipeline [Conference]

Blogging from Harvard Law School Advocate 4 Education’s 1^st Conference on the School-to-Prison Pipeline

March 8, 2012

                The purpose of the conference is to generate multi-disciplinary dialogue about the challenges and foster solutions to the school-to-prison pipeline.  There’s a call for people to work on specific areas of the pipeline, but a greater call for people to see how these pieces fit together.  The speakers are both legal and non-legal, non-profits, juvenile justice officials.  The audience includes service-providers, policy advocates, lawyers, teachers, and students.  Most dynamic, the closing session will be a dialogue from each of the panels applied to a vignette in hopes to find creative ways to approach the particular case.

Panel 1: Education—How do educational institutions add to the problem and how can they solve it?

Moderator:  Susan Cole:  HLS Director of Ed Law Clinic of Trauma and Law clinic

Dr. Laura McNeal, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute

• ·         Research projects are underway that look at some of the causes of disparate impact that policies have (like “zero-tolerance”).  Also developing research tools that will quantify unconscious/implicit bias in order to push public policy change.

Alana Greer, Advancement Project

• ·         Work with community groups and national organizations to get their voices heard at the policy table.  See various takes on what the exact issues are.  Works in LA (truancy tickets for walking to class late or criminal record), Philadelphia (transfers to alternative disciplinary schools, zero-tolerance, out-of-school suspensions).  There’s a background principle being applied that students are different than they were and are more violent and need a police state.  One of the goals is getting administrators’ discretion back so that boyscouts stop getting disciplined for having sporks and students with scissors from gift-wrapping stop getting put in alternative schools.

Daniel Losen, UCLA Civil Rights Project, Director of Center for Civil Rights Remedies

• ·         Focus on school discipline problem—the number of children getting kicked out of school for discipline issues.  For successful remedies have to get to school resources, implicit bias, effective preschool because expulsion is the outcome of these things.  Has promoted a borrowing a disparate impact analysis from administrative law—requiring that a method of administration that has an adverse impact on protected groups (even though it’s facially neutral) can still violate Title XI.  The structure of that disparate impact analysis includes (1) adverse impact on protected group, and either (2) the practice is educationally unsound or (3) less discrimination option exist.  Discipline isn’t just about safety, it’s about students getting time back in school.

Dr. Tim Lisante, New York City Department of Education

• ·         Spent time in Rikers Island in NYC (where there are many jails) teaching and being a principal with students who were sent to the center from their home school.  At this stage, being in the center is pre-adjudication for the students until they have been through their court process.  Now he’s a bureaucrat (J) and a parent of three sons in NYC.  Works on home-school re-entry to transfer students back into their schools once finished in the court systems. (NYC has over 500 high schools).

Back to the Question: Is a FEDERAL Department of Education Necessary—notes from academia [summary]

So to wrap it up...

The federal government has a role in ensuring that individuals can participate in the liberties that have been secured to them. And while the Supreme Court has not explicitly recognized a fundamental right to education, it has gone a long way to imply that a basic education is a prerequisite for enjoying other democratic rights that are enumerated and protected.  I believe there should continue to be a federal department of education.

·        I am persuaded by Hess + Darling-Hammond’s four duties of the federal government, though I would quibble with their “transparency for school performance and spending” role because I think transparency should also encompass resources available, constraints, and inputs not just the politically convenient ends, outputs, and outcomes that transparency usually means.  I’d also like for spending disclosures to go beyond raw data and encompass best budgeting practices and cost accounting.  Further, I see the federal government having a role in in incentivizing and supporting state education agencies to make their own administrative and structural changes that might unlock best practices for reducing bureaucracy and supporting local education agencies.

·        Of course Madison’s Federalist No. 10 supports a federal department of education because his proposition extended means that there are factions that exist to act from the outside on education decisions—and logically also factions that exist within education to act on decisions the public should make about education.  These individual factions, working from within and working from the outside, level out in a representative environment such that only those ideas worth bringing to a higher, next level decision-making get discussed: those ideas that are duplicative of efforts in other places, those ideas that are deeply believed, those ideas that are innovative enough to curry favor, and/or those ideas that are so much a part of the identity of the representatives that they cannot be left behind. 

·        However, I am unmoved by Friedman’s economics-based justification for no federal administrative role in education, though I do appreciate the separation of the two questions about what the federal government should finance versus what the government should administer.  I see obvious problems with the voucher idea—for practical reasons and for definitional reasons. Putting black markets aside, a successful “free market” voucher system also relies on parents/individuals having the same access and amount of information about each educational choice and not having transaction costs (like the amount of time it take to pursue the voucher purchase, energy to devote to education research, distance and means to travel chosen schools, etc.).  I don’t see this happening practically.  By definition, a voucher would not, as Friedman wants it to, reveal an individual/parent’s absolute preference for schooling because as long as money can be added to the voucher to indicate an increased preference, individuals/parents will be faced with a substitution calculation choice—do I add money to the voucher I have to reflect my absolute preferences for education or do I accept my comparative preference and use the additional money to do something else that will bring me closer to fulfilling my basic needs?  I don’t see how this escapes some of the conundrums we have now.