BESE OKs new charter rules

A committee of Louisiana’s top school board Tuesday approved new policies aimed at making it easier to open charter schools.

The plan, which stems from a law passed earlier this year, is expected to win final approval on Wednesday from the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Charter schools are public schools run by nongovernmental groups.

BESE has approved nearly 100 of the schools in the past seven years.

About 45,000 students attend the schools in 15 parishes, including East Baton Rouge.

The change requires local school boards to use the same timelines, standards and common charter applications as BESE.

Under the rules, BESE will have to approve the local applications by June 30.

Charter school advocates have said in the past that varying rules from district to district have held down the number of charter schools.

They say that was part of an effort by officials of traditional public schools to bottle up potential competitors.

Under the new rules, local school boards are to initially release charter applications by Sept. 10.

They are due by Oct. 19, with approvals announced by Jan. 31, 2013.

Other changes in the new law abolished the rule that most charter school teachers have to be certified and now allow charter operators in school districts rated D or F by the state to apply directly to BESE.

The applications cover issues like the mission of the school, leadership, the education program, teaching, governance and financial management.

Backers contend the schools offer students in troubled schools another option to attend quality classrooms, without much of the red tape that they say is common in traditional public schools.

Nearly 80 percent of students in New Orleans attend charter schools, and backers say many of those students have shown striking gains compared to their previous performance at other schools.

Opponents contend that charter schools have failed to deliver on promises of major education gains and that they are diverting vital dollars that otherwise would go to Louisiana’s roughly 1,300 traditional public schools.

The changes were approved by BESE’s School Innovation and Turnaround Committee.

Once the new rules are approved by the full board they are subject to public comments before they are finalized.

Comments

1) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 19/08/2012

It is still inserting a %20 in the middle of these when they are posted... simply copy and paste them, then delete the %20 that appears about midway. Thanks! Tach gurus? What is happening? :)

2) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 19/08/2012

Thank you Monsignor! Let me repost the links... I think sometimes, even though I am copying and pasting, that extra letters or numbers get inserted... not sure how or why! My apologies to all! On the Myth of High Poverty High Performing Schools: http://educatorsforall.org/mythcontent/2012/3/10/myth-we- have-schools-in-louisiana-that-prove-that-poverty-do.html On the reality of Why Charter Schools Do Not Save Communities Money: http://educatorsforall.org/blog/2012/3/20/why-charter- schools-do-not-save-communities-money.html To understand why some school fail (and it is NOT what the reformers would have you believe) see: http://educatorsforall.org/blog/2012/3/8/why-schools-fail-or- what-if-failing-schoolsarent.html My apologies.

3) Comment by monsignor - 19/08/2012

Noel Hammatt: I get a 404 error (page not here) and searched and found your article..........you must do the following in order to correctly link this page to your page: remove the space between "-" and "schools" http://educatorsforall.org/blog/2012/3/20/why-charter-schools-do- not-save-communities-money.html LINK WORKS http://educatorsforall.org/blog/2012/3/20/why-charter- schools-do- not-save-communities-money.html LINK DOESN'T WORK

4) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 17/08/2012

For the truth about how charters destroy local school district budgets see http://educatorsforall.org/blog/2012/3/20/why-charter- schools-do-not-save-communities-money.html Would love people to comment, criticize or critique these!

5) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 17/08/2012

See http://educatorsforall.org/blog/2012/3/8/why-schools-fail-or- what-if-failing-schoolsarent.html and http://educatorsforall.org/mythcontent/2012/3/10/myth-we-have- schools-in-louisiana-that-prove-that-poverty-do.html

6) Comment by yankyny - 17/08/2012

The most interesting part: "root cause."....hm, what do you think? http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/diane-ravitch

7) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 16/08/2012

@yankny Part 1: I try to be cautious about my statements on here, sometimes with more and sometimes with less effectiveness. On the matters you raise, I will again point out come important distinctions between what I wrote in my posts, and what you have claimed that I wrote. In your recent post you said "you [meaning me] attribute 15-25% of total student achievement to teachers." What I wrote was "if we look at research examining different factors impacting student achievement, teaching and school factors usually represent from 15 to 25% of the total impact on student achievement." There is quite a bit of difference between the two. First, since I am not wont to plagiarize and since I didn't conduct the research that came up with varying numbers, I carefully said that "if we look at research" that examines factors impacting student achievement those factors representing both school AND teacher factors represents "usually" around 15 to 25% of student achievement. Since this is not a scholarly journal, I don't prove reference such as I would in those venues. In my own work, I have actually suggested that approximately 17% of differences in student achievement (as measured by standardized tests) can be explained by a combination of in-school factors such as the teaching and the school climate. This latter is important, because it does bear on a part of your question. To see some of the data and research that suggests how we might parse out the impact of different factors I can suggest several sources. The collective work of J. Coleman, known colloquially as the "Coleman Report" is one of the earliest examples of research parsing out the impact of different factors, and while there are many good critiques, it is still a very useful first look. "Pic-Parsing" I and II by a key researcher at the Education Testing Service might be useful, as is the work of the Lubienskis. Yes, two of them. Also, for a wonderful read that outlines how some of the factors I mentioned earlier in my posts you can read the 2004 book by Richard Rothstein: "Class and School: using Social, Economic and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap." All of these, to a greater or lesser degree, attempt through forms of hierarchical linear modeling to put a number, so to speak, on the different factors impacting student achievement. Anyway, back to what I think you were inferring in the latter part of your post. (I am not certain of this, because it looks like some of your comments were truncated or lost in posting.

8) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 16/08/2012

@yankny Part 2: Here is what your last sentence says: " Again from my perspective, you are advocating or implying such programs leading to the expansion of public education as we know it today vice accountability (grading school performance)." Given that it follows on the thread dealing with "low expectations" I will try to respond to what I think are your questions or concerns. What has been attributed to President Bush (W) is the statement ending with "the subtle bigotry of low expectations." He has a point, as do you. If teachers believe that students are inferior, incapable of higher-level work, then that can play out in very harmful ways to students. It happens, and I not going to pretend that it doesn't However, I can tell you from lots of experiences that sometimes the low expectations are NOT in the minds of teachers, but in parents, or the students themselves. Almost every teacher out there can give you examples of this. So it happens that way too! Low expectations CAN become the reality, so there is real truth in the axiom "if you believe it you can achieve it." Yet, careful here… it doesn't mean that we can suddenly believe that each of us can run a 4 minute mile, even if we believe it. Anecdotes do not data make. When I point to the incredibly powerful relationship[ of poverty in a school to that school's "School Performance Score" I am not reporting on "expectations," but instead I am simply the messenger of a troubling (to many) truth. This pattern of scores decreasing as poverty increases (and no, I didn't say the relationship between the two was perfect…. I suggested that, in districts not distorted by magnets, charters, and a plethora of private schools) "approaches a perfect 1." This means a linear relationship between the percent of poverty and the school performance scores. A very, very high correlation. I won't repeat the caveats here about how it is not the "poverty" itself producing the relationship, but suggest again that the underlying conditions that play out (on average) by income levels do, in fact, produce these relationships. To see how it can be argued that failing schools are not necessarily failing, I again suggest http://educatorsforall.org/blog/2012/3/8/why-schools-fail-or- what-if-failing-schoolsarent.html as a great resource.

9) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 16/08/2012

@yankny Part Three: Finally, perhaps if I change the wording a bit in your last sentence, you are asking if I am "advocating or implying" programs such as early childhood education, medical and nutritional programs "leading to an expansion of public education as we know it today (and I think you meant "versus" instead of "vice" here) accountability. Let me state clearly that all of these factors are incredibly powerful factors impacting student achievement, I will now also clarify that I have never called for these to be provided by any particular source. I have always said that the most important school is the home, and the most important teacher is the parent! I don't really care where the resources come from, but I insist we will all pay for the cost of NOT ensuring that students have the resources they need to succeed.

10) Comment by yankyny - 16/08/2012

You touched on a concept which I find interesting, you attribute 15-25% of total student achievement to teachers. That is the first time I've heard such quantifiable data, I wonder what other variables and respective percentages can be similarly quantified. Without any information, I defer to your experience and research, for my own education, I'll start with google scholar. However, another interesting point you mentioned that is not quantifiable is the low expectations. Your information about poverty and the perfect relationship to low student achievement lead me to wonder if teachers are already entering teaching consciously or unconsciously looking for low income students to fail. Since these students do not have access to early childhood education, medical and nutrition services. Again from my perspective, you are advocating or implying such programs leading to the expansion of public education as we know it today vice accountability (grading school performance).

11) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 15/08/2012

@yankyny: There is no "blame" anywhere in my posts, so I am not sure where you found it, other than "from your perspective.". I specifically ask the state and "reformers" to stop blaming schools and teachers, but in no way do I blame parents. Now, I move on to your point that student achievement is impacted by a combination of factors. Of course it is, and in fact we have, together, only touched on a few of the points, yet this is not the thesis of my arguments herein. In pointing out that there is NO EVIDENCE in the state's current accountability plan that in any way accounts for differences in student achievement that may be attributable to teacher quality, or "school policies or practices. Absent this evidence, the state should immediately cease all claims about "failing schools." Why, because nothing, I repeat, nothing in the state's current accountability plan accounts in any way for factors that are much more powerful than teacher effectiveness. Researchers have in fact pointed out that teachers are the largest "in-school" factor impacting student achievement. That is correct, and it took years of work for some of us to get the state and reformers to quit lying about "teachers are the greatest factor impacting student achievement." Notice the difference between the two? Now, if we look at research examining different factors impacting student achievement, teaching and school factors usually represent from 15 to 25% of the total impact on student achievement. Not that much, yet teachers and the schools are given 100% of the responsibility for student achievement. THAT is the reason why the accountability system in place is seriously flawed. The correlations (you use the "cause and effect" terminology, not me) of poverty (as indicated by the percent of students in a school qualifying for free meals) to school performance scores, in districts where it is not skewed by magnet schools, charters, and other special programs approaches a perfect 1. Seldom do we find such strong correlations in social phenomena yet we find it in these relationships. If you have followed my posts, you know that I nearly always point out that it is not the poverty itself that "causes" low academic performance. There are, however, underlying factors such as the number of books in the home, television watching habits, travel and mobility issues, lead paint, and on and on, each of which is known to impact student achievement, on average. In addition, studies such as Hart and Risley and those of Shirley Brice Heath have found clear patterns of linguistic practices by income levels, on average, that also impact student achievement, and these happen prior to students arriving at the schoolhouse door. All this is to say that yes, teachers matter, but not to the extent the state would have us believe in its accountability system, and they matter even more in terms of the personal and lasting impact they can have on students that may, or may not show up in measured achievement. After teaching at LSU for over 20 years in the College of Education, and asking questions of students about these very issues, these matters are recognized by most students I taught. Just as importantly, none of these justify low expectations, or "giving up" on students, and in fact I have found very few examples of either of these. On the other hand, the high teacher turnover in high-poverty schools is OFTEN caused by pressure from the administration and the state, and community members who have been fed a diet of "student achievement is a direct function of teacher quality." Really! …and totally false. To all the great teachers out there who teach, each and every day, with patience, caring, and heartfelt appreciation for the role they play in the lives of their students, regardless of public apathy or misguided blame. Thank you!

12) Comment by yankyny - 15/08/2012

I would agree that the letter grade is not a direct function of poor teaching and administration. But, the direct cause and effect that is implied between poverty and student achievement is another fragile reason used to explain poor student performance. It's not solely poverty or teachers causing poor student performance, but a combination. Although, that combined concept can be derived from the extended posts, poverty is highlighted as the main culprit, thus releasing schools from any responsibility. Because, what can a teacher do about a student’s poor parents? However, there is no mention of the retention rates of experience teachers in low-income communities for myriad of reasons, lack of teacher support in those same communities from both parents and school administrators for example. Parent from a higher income community-implying higher level of education, have the time to reinforce teaching concepts where a low income (possibly lower education level) does not have the time because after their 9-5 job, they have to go to their 6-2 job and they rely on teachers to not only be average in teaching, but effective. Please stop solely blaming parents and their economic situations. You may think you are not, but from my perspective they are being blamed.

13) Comment by timesright - 15/08/2012

When I read the word easier, I about fell out of my chair. If anything, the charter rules should be more difficult. These proposed changes are enabling further demolition of the public schools. These proposed changes will further empty the funding source for public schools. It will reduce services, it will cut back valuable curriculum offerings for a well-rounded education. It will bring about an increase in class size in our public schools because their will be no money to hire teachers and other personnel that are crucial to helping students. Reducing class size is a proven means to improving school success not increasing the number. It will produce more layoffs. While providing a way to destroy public schools, in turn it will bring in more of the pro- profit reformers. Just wait and see. It won't take long. It will see parents and children alike be taken in by all kinds of promises. It will not begin to solve the real problem which is poverty.

14) Comment by spqr - 15/08/2012

No where in this article does one read of the 47 Schools in New Orleans taken over by the state reporting school performance scores of D or F.

15) Comment by mikedeshot - 15/08/2012

Thanks Noel. Your analysis of Louisiana's highly misleading school grading system is correct. Adding more charter schools and vouchers will only squander our tax dollars while many children are denied the services they need. Jindal has opened a floodgate exposing our MFP to greedy opportunists and the online virtual schools like the one paying its CEO five million dollars to con us and other states out of our school taxes. Get ready for a barrage of advertisements for these bogus schools, also paid for with our tax dollars!

16) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 15/08/2012

Please read my comments starting at the bottom, so they will be in logical order. Thanks. I broke them up at the request of fellow posters who said it would help them.

17) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 15/08/2012

And please, for those who want to make comments about "socialism" or "big government" as their knee-jerk reaction, or to make false claims based on a movie or television special about miracles, resist the urge. Actually deal with the subject matter. I am not at all saying that we need a big government program that entangles government in the lives of families. I AM saying it is going to take a lot of work, on the part of many people who are not content to pretend to fix problems by "proxy" or politics. Honest examination of the problems, and the potential solutions while "suspending ideologies and initial disbelief" would be very helpful in this enterprise! If you don't wish to comment online, please let me know your thoughts at [e-mail]. Thanks!

18) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 15/08/2012

Am I saying that "poverty is destiny?" No, I am not saying that at all. But, the "reforms" such as the ones reported in the article here, have nothing to do with "real" interventions and dealing with the underlying conditions that ALL RESEARCH SUGGESTS ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY IN-SCHOOL FACTORS. Instead, as I have suggested on other posts, the actions are more like those of the drunk who late at night searches for his lost wallet under the streetlamp. A passing stranger offers to help him look under the light, then asks the drunk. "Are you sure you lost it here?" The drunk replies, "Heck no, I lost it on the other side of the street, but the light is better here." We can keep seeking to change public policies and implement "reforms" because "the light is better here" (it is easier to change policies than to change cultural practices, for example) or we can, as communities and citizens, study the real and powerful research that says we start with educating our families, our mothers and fathers, who are the most important teachers most students will ever have, that the education of their children is NOT a function of "choosing the right school." We will do it by changing the circumstances that exist in the most important schools our children will ever attend, their homes. I didn't say it would be easy, and I didn't say we would have to end poverty, I do say that we will have to roll up our sleeves and stop "blaming" teachers or schools based on totally fabricated "Letter Grades." Join me. We CAN do this! Will there be a forward looking and intellectually honest group willing to step forward and have some real conversations on this?

19) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 15/08/2012

It is interesting to note that under the newly approved waiver of NCLB received by Louisiana that schools will, in fact, get credit for students who improve, but still DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE STATE. Why was this put in? It was done for one main reason. There is no evidence that schools alone can overcome the gaps that children have in academic performance when they arrive at school. Anecdotally, yes, but can it be done for large groups? No evidence exists. The so-called "High Performing-High Poverty" schools are not proof of anything, and most are the result of the selection of higher- performing students (such as in the case of the three schools in EBR, for example) or the absence of high-risk characteristics in the students. An example of "high-risk factors" would be a high percentage of students requiring special education services. It doesn't mean that a student receiving special education services can't be valedictorian, yet it is a fact that students needing significant services in special education score, on average, considerably lower on all standardized tests. The same thing holds true with poverty. In EVERY school district, and in every state, students from lower income households (on average) score lower than students from families with higher incomes. (Yes, of course, we are talking averages here, but that is what school performance scores and district performance scores are based on... the AVERAGE scores of their students. The highest performing district in the state has the lowest percentages of students qualifying for free meals, and the lowest percentage of students requiring special education services. The highest percentages of students in these categories are found in the so- called "lowest performing" districts. Are there exceptions where students from the lowest income homes achieve at the highest levels, and become doctors, lawyers, and such? Of course, but on average, and across schools (public, private, charter, parochial) the pattern is still upheld.

20) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 15/08/2012

School districts labeled "D" or "F" all have one thing in common. They have the highest percentages of students living in poverty. The relationship of district or school letter grades to poverty is incredibly clear and powerful, and totally ignored by the "reformers" who are much more interested in taking over schools to enrich their friends who bought them seats on the BESE Board or otherwise support their positions. Follow the money. I invite ANYONE to show me how the "Letter Grades" can be attributed to poor teaching or poor administration. Please note here that I am NOT defending poor teaching, or poor policies or bad decisions by policy makers. I am making one very clear claim, that no one to date has been able to publicly contradict in any meaningful way. That claim is: there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that School Performance Scores (SPS) or District Performance Scores (DPS), or the current "Letter Grades" under our current state accountability system represent the quality of teaching or administrative practices in a school or district. NONE. Before responding to my invitation I would ask everyone to read an article outlining the arguments explaining why no one has yet come to defend the accountability system against my claim here. It can be found at http://educatorsforall.org/blog/2012/3/8/why- schools-fail-or-what-if-failing-schoolsarent.html. The title is "Why Schools "Fail" Or What if Failing Schools.... Aren't."