Posted: 28 May 2010 04:40 PM PDT
One consequence of the charter cap legislation passed in Albany today is clear: it’s now possible for 114 new charter schools to open in New York City over the next four years, more than doubling the number of charters and students in them. Statewide, the door is open for 260 new charter schools to open by 2014.
But the new law also includes a slew of changes to the way the schools are opened and run, leaving advocates, officials and observers with at least five big unanswered questions.
1. What’s the deal with the new Request for Proposals process?
Under the old charter school law, educators could ask to open charter schools simply by applying to do so. Now, prospective school leaders will have to formulate their applications as responses to Request for Proposals. These will be issued by both the Board of Regents and the State University of New York’s Charter School Institute.
Advocates and union officials today disagreed on exactly how the RFP’s will be used. One school of thought is that the RFP will be a tool for limiting charter school leaders’ freedom to open in a location of their choosing. Indeed, the law declares that operators that receive an endorsement of their school district will have a leg up in the RFP process. That could make it harder for operators to open schools in some upstate districts whose school boards strongly oppose charter schools. (Or imagine a less charter-happy mayor in New York. Mayor de Blasio?) WAIT TILL THE HEDGEFUND OPERATORS GET TO HIM; OR WHO EVER ELSE WILL BE RUNNING. THEY WILL HOLD OUT THEIR MILLIONS AS THEY HAVE TO CUOMO AND OUR STATE SENATORS.
In an interview today, city teachers union President Michael Mulgrew said that the union plans to “advocate through the RFP.” He meant, he explained, that the UFT will lobby authorizers not to issue RFPs for schools in neighborhoods deemed overwhelmed with charter schools.
But charter school advocates said they aren’t concerned about the RFP process. Beyond creating more bureaucratic hurdles for authorizers and new charter schools, they said, the process will not significantly change how authorizers determine which schools should open. “The difference may appear larger than it actually is,” said James Merriman, head of the New York City Charter School Center. FOR ONCE I AGREE WITH MERRIMAN. UNLESS I’M MISSING SOMETHING, IT’S HARD TO SEE THIS AS A BIG CHANGE.
2. Can the New York City schools chancellor continue to authorize charter schools?
Until today, the city Department of Education’s charter school office played a similar role to SUNY: It accepted applications for new charter schools, reviewed and approved them, and then passed the applications on to the Board of Regents for final approval. The city acted as the main authorizer for those schools, monitoring the schools and shutting them down for poor performance.
Under the new law, the schools chancellor can still recommend charter school applications to the Regents — and now can also recommend schools to SUNY for approval. And that recommendation matters to some degree: The rubric authorizers must use to evaluate applications gives preference for schools with a district endorsement. But it’s unclear whether the city will retain the power to oversee and shut down failing charters.
John White, a deputy chancellor for the city, noted that the law still names the chancellor as one of the state’s three “charter entities” who legally have power to oversee schools.
But Jonas Chartock, the head of SUNY’s Charter School Institute, said that his reading of the law suggests that his center will retain the ultimate oversight over schools it authorizes.
“To me, it’s not exactly clear,” said Merriman. “A reading of the bill would allow either interpretation at this point. It’s something that I think we have to see how counsel for the various parties…view that.” MORE CONFUSION LEADING PROBABLY LEADING TO MORE LAWSUITS. THANKS ALBANY!
3. How does the law force charter schools to accept more English language learners and special education students?
The law requires that charter schools maintain a certain number of English language learners and special education students over time. Schools are supposed to hit targets for both student enrollment and student retention that match neighborhood schools. Here’s what the law says authorizers have to make sure of:
THAT SUCH 37 ENROLLMENT TARGETS ARE COMPARABLE TO THE ENROLLMENT FIGURES OF SUCH 38 CATEGORIES OF STUDENTS ATTENDING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITHIN THE SCHOOL 39 DISTRICT, OR IN A CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN A CITY HAVING A POPULATION OF &n
bsp; 40 ONE MILLION OR MORE INHABITANTS, THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN WHICH 41 THE PROPOSED CHARTER SCHOOL WOULD BE LOCATED; AND (2) THAT SUCH 42 RETENTION TARGETS ARE COMPARABLE TO THE RATE OF RETENTION OF SUCH CATE- 43 GORIES OF STUDENTS ATTENDING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITHIN THE SCHOOL 44 DISTRICT, OR IN A CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN A CITY HAVING A POPULATION OF 45 ONE MILLION OR MORE INHABITANTS, THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN WHICH 46 THE PROPOSED CHARTER SCHOOL WOULD BE LOCATED; AND But it’s not clear how that requirement will be enforced. Among other implementation problems is data-keeping. “SUNY’s going to need access to data we’ve never been able to obtain,” Chartock said.
THEY’VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN DATA ON ENROLLMENT IN THEIR OWN CHARTERS? WHY NOT?
THIS PROVISION IS NOT JUST HARD TO ENFORCE – BUT HARD TO DEFINE “COMPARABLE.” ANOTHER SERIOUS FLAW IN THE LAW.
4. Does the law change relationships between charter schools and district schools that share space?
The new law creates a “building council” to coordinate collaboration between schools housed together. Right now, co-located schools have building councils that include only principals from each school. The new councils will include principals, teachers and parents from each school in a building.
THE CHANCELLOR RETAINS THE UNILATERAL POWER TO IMPOSE HIS WILL AND DECIDE ON CO-LOCATIONS. THE COMMUNITY AND PARENTS HAVE NO VOICE. HE WILL DEVISE THE BUILDING PLAN, AND THE BUILDING COUNCIL WILL BE LEFT TO ARGUE AND FIGHT AFTERWARDS. THAT’S POWER? THE LAW ALLOWS COMPLAINTS TO THE COMMISSIONER; BUT SO WHAT? THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLAINTS. NO CHANGE THERE.
The council does not have the power to veto the city’s co-location plans. But it will be able to draw public attention to the plans.
AFTER THE FACT. AND WE’VE HAD PLENTY OF PUBLIC ATTENTION AND WHAT HAS IT GOT US?
And public attention isn’t without its own kind of power: The new mayoral control law created public hearings when schools were recommended for closure.
The hearings created quite a firestorm and arguably played a role in the recent court decision overturning city-enforced school closures.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ANTICIPATE MORE LAWSUITS (IF WE CAN FIND ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT US) BUT THIS IS NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT LAW. PARENTS LOSE OUT AS USUAL.
5. Where does the money come from?
The increased bureaucracy and oversight required by the new law will require resources. Given the state’s doomsday fiscal climate, it’s unclear where that money will come from. Already SUNY’s Charter School Institute, which will see the number of charters it oversees double, is facing a proposed 70 percent funding reduction under budgets proposed by both the Senate and the Assembly.
The law also includes a provision requiring that any improvements to a charter school facility worth more than $5,000 must be matched in the district schools that share its building. The measure was widely praised on all sides as a way to assure equity between charter and district school students.
“But I want to be very, very clear,” Merriman said. “We do expect that the mayor and the chancellor step up and meet their commitment to provide such funding so that charters and district school students attend school in equal and high quality facilities.”
HIGH QUALITY FACILITIES? JUST FOR THE STUDENTS IN CO-LOCATED SCHOOLS? WHERE HAS THIS GUY BEEN?
THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE FORCED TO ATTEND SCHOOL IN OVERCROWDED AND INADEQUATE FACILITIES; AND THE RAISING OF THE CAP WILL MAKE THIS CRITICAL PROBLEM EVEN WORSE. SLAP ON SOME NEW PAINT; BUT KIDS WILL CONTINUE TO GET EDUCATED IN HALLWAYS AND CLOSETS.
ALTOGETHER THIS LAW IS THE WRONG ANSWER TO THE WRONG QUESTION.
Leonie Haimson
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011
212-674-7320
classsizematters@gmail.com
www.classsizematters.org
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011
212-674-7320
classsizematters@
www.classsizematter
http://nycpublicsch
Make a tax-deductible contribution to Class Size Matters now!
Subscribe to Class Size Matters news by emailing classsizematters-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe to the NYC education news by emailing nyceducationnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
__._,_.___
to subscribe, send an email to: nyceducationnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Grassroots Education Movement - GEM" group.
To post to this group, send email to Grassroots-Education@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Grassroots-Education+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Grassroots-Education?hl=en
2 comments:
A staff member of a state assemblymen states that the state teachers union NYSUT did not agree to the current law but, that the UFT pushed for it. I believe this to be true, if so, what is the deal? Is there a deal? Could this lead to the retirement incentive? Hold the pattern for the contract?
None of the above?
There is absolutely no way the UFT and NYSUT are ever on different pages since the UFT absolutely controls NYSUT. They always install a president from outside the city and use their people as VPs. Don't get fooled by the flack.
Post a Comment