OP-ED | Connecticut Legislators Take Note, West Coast Rulings Are Going Against Charter Schools
by Sarah Darer Littman | Sep 18, 2015 8:00am
() Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Analysis, Education, Opinion
Connecticut legislators should be paying close attention to several interesting legal developments on the West Coast, which could have significant implications here in the Nutmeg State.
The first came Sept. 5, when the state Supreme Court in Washington ruled 6-3 that charter schools don’t qualify as “common” schools under the state’s constitution, and therefore can’t receive public funding intended for traditional public schools.
“Our inquiry is not concerned with the merits or demerits of charter schools,” Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the majority opinion. “Whether charter schools would enhance our state’s public school system or appropriately address perceived shortcomings of that system are issues for the legislature and the voters. The issue for this court is what are the requirements of the constitution.”
Charter schools have always tried to play the public/private issue both ways. The acts of calling themselves “public” when it comes to claiming funds from the public purse, yet immediately claiming to be private entities the minute accountability and FOIA matters are raised, have created several interesting conundrums, as we have observed right here in our own backyard. (See FUSE, ConnCAN)
In the Washington State case this play it both ways strategy finally went pear-shaped:
“The words ‘common school’ must measure up to every requirement of the constitution . . . and whenever by any subterfuge it is sought to qualify or enlarge their meaning beyond the intent and spirit of the constitution, the attempt must fail . . . Bryan established the rule that a common school, within the meaning of our constitution, is one that is common to all children of proper age and capacity, free, and subject to and under the control of the qualified voters of the school district. The complete control of the schools is a most important feature, for it carries with it the right of the voters, through their chosen agents, to select qualified teachers, with powers to discharge them if they are incompetent.”
The court listed all the ways charters fail to meet these qualifications. Namely, they are:
1) “governed by a charter school board,” which is “appointed or selected . . . to manage and operate the charter school.”
2) The charter school board has the power to hire and discharge charter school employees and may contract with nonprofit organizations to manage the charter school.
3) They are “free from many regulations” that govern other schools.
4) Charter schools are “exempt from all school district policies,” as well as “all . . . state statutes and rules applicable to school districts” except those listed in I-1240 section 204(2) and those made applicable in the school’s charter contract.
In other words the Washington state court finally issued a ruling confirming what many of us here in Connecticut have been saying for years: charters are siphoning off taxpayer money from the public school system without sufficient (if any) accountability. Calling them “public schools” is merely convenient political fiction.
Friends and contributors of Dannel P. Malloy beware: your jig might soon be up.
Another ruling to watch out for is on the appeal of Vergara v. State of California.
Reflecting just how disastrous education policy has been under the Obama administration, Education Secretary Arne Duncan hailed the Vergara decision as a “mandate” toward a “collaborative process in California that is fair, thoughtful, practical and swift.” With Democrats like Arne, who needs Republicans?
Students Matter, the “nonprofit” behind the Vergara suit, was founded by Silicon Valley billionaire David Welch, and is supported by many of the same names familiar to us in Connecticut: Students First, Democrats for Education Reform, and the New Schools Venture Fund (whose board includes Connecticut Democrat contributor Jonathan Sackler, founder of ConnCAN and Trustee of the Achievement First Charter Management Organization.)
In July, Students Matter filed yet another lawsuit to compel all California districts to use test scores to evaluate teachers. This lawsuit was filed despite a lengthy warning from the American Statistical Association in April 2014 that said “VAMs typically measure correlation, not causation: Effects — positive or negative — attributed to a teacher may actually be caused by other factors that are not captured in the model” and further: “Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.”
After all, billionaires know everything better than experts, right? (Just ask Donald Trump!) In a post-Citizen’s United world, using one’s tax-free foundation for lobbying is just another way of doing business.
One can only hope that reason, justice, and a growing populist sentiment might prevail. Maybe, just maybe, we are still a nation of laws based on research and precedent.
In that hope, a series of Amicus briefs were filed in the Vergara case Sept. 16 as it moves to the appeal stage.
A brief filed by Education Deans, Professors and Scholarscites the American Statistical Association statement above, as well as a host of other studies.
The appeal also is supported by briefs from award-winning and distinguished teachers, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Korematsu Center for Law & Equality, the American Association of University Professors Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, the Education Law Center, the Equal Justice Society, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, and trustees and board members of school districts as well as unions. It is a broad coalition of people who believe public education is fundamental to our democracy versus billionaire “philanthropists” who claim it’s “for the kids” but take money from the public purse while refusing proper accountability.
Sarah Darer Littman is an award-winning columnist and novelist of books for teens. A former securities analyst, she’s now an adjunct in the MFA program at WCSU, and enjoys helping young people discover the power of finding their voice as an instructor at the Writopia Lab.
DISCLAIMER: The views, opinions, positions, or strategies expressed by the author are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or positions of CTNewsJunkie.com.
Comments
(23) Archived Comments
posted by: oldtimer | September 18, 2015 1:33pm
Washington and California are liberal bastions so its no surprise that they’ll do anything to protect the status quo of public education. Charter schools, vouchers and the like are a no- no. So, don’t expect to see it here in deep blue CT.
posted by: ocoandasoc | September 18, 2015 2:22pm
Sarah takes a giant leap from the facts of the WA case and its very narrow decision to say that it validates her opinion that Charter schools are inherently evil. It doesn’t. Just read the full decision for yourself. The SC there even went out of their way to say that their decision in no way had anything to do with the need for, or desirability of, charter schools. But her post is another nice distraction from the fact that CT, the wealthiest state in the nation, has the WORST educational achievement gap in the nation, and - while other states are showing improvement - the situation in CT is getting worse. If charter schools aren’t the long-term solution—and I don’t think they are—then Connecticut’s educators and legislators need to throw off the obstructive yoke of the teachers unions, stop making lame excuses, and come up with some ideas and programs that might actually work. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be surprised when the vacuum they’ve created is filled by others.
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 18, 2015 4:26pm
Ocoandosoc - you are the one who has taken a giant leap. Read the piece again. Slowly. No where have I said that charter schools are inherently evil. I have quoted the decision regarding the relevant piece: that charter schools are NOT “common” (or public) schools and the reasons why. My piece explores my issues with WHY I find it problematic (as does the court in Washington) for charter schools to claim that they are “public” schools and take our taxpayer money and then turn around and claim to be private entities when convenient. What is so hard for you to understand about that? It is quite logical. The other piece I object to is also not about inherent evil, but about policy being made, and lawsuits being filed by wealthy billionaires with no educational background, which COMPLETELY CONTRADICT research by experts - namely the American Statistical Association. But hey, go ahead and call me names. I back up my opinions with facts.
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 18, 2015 5:05pm
Oldtimer - we’ve had over ten years of corporate edreform. That is now the “status quo.”
posted by: Fisherman | September 18, 2015 9:04pm
Another article brought to you by CEA / AFT’s mouthpiece. Lots of union-sponsored “facts”.
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 19, 2015 9:51am
@Fisherman: “Another article brought to you by CEA / AFT’s mouthpiece. Lots of union-sponsored “facts”
You keep saying I am CEA/AFT mouthpiece. Where is your evidence for that? I do not receive a cent from CEA/AFT. I am not a member of CEA/AFT. So what is your basis for this accusation? As for your claim of “union sponsored facts” are you actually claiming that the American Statistical Association is sponsored by a union? Really? REALLY? You’re just undermining your own credibility at this point with these ad hominem attacks. Try actual logic.
posted by: Fisherman | September 19, 2015 9:13pm
Sarah,
We can start with five (5) reasons. Your writings indicate that you are:
1) Against Standardized Testing (by god, we might identify “loser” teachers or professors!)
2) Against Charter Schools, and all other forms of education that do not employ unionized teachers or professors
3) Against any Benchmarks that would evaluate teacher / professor performance
4) Against removing underperforming teachers or professors
5) Against accepting contributions from the Gates Foundation or anyone else, when it requires the attainment of a minimum level of performance.
Sarah, when I attended college, I was expected to perform to some level, if I wanted to obtain a degree. And when I got into the workforce, I was expected to perform to some level, if I wanted to continue receiving a paycheck. You however, apparently bathe in the notion that expectations such as these are improper… a literal “free-for-all” would be best by golly; as no teacher or professor should EVER be penalized for poor performance… why, it’s not THEIR FAULT if Johnny didn’t learn today’s lessons…
YES. IT IS. THAT’S WHAT WE PAY THEM FOR.
FYI for the Readers:
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) membership by the numbers:
2012: 848,323
2013: 1,537,677
INCREDIBLE! Nearly 2x in a SINGLE YEAR while other union membership (SEIU,AFL-CIO, etc. ) has pretty much flat-lined. This incredible performance can be accredited lots of “facts” from un-paid advocates like our own SDL and the 1,537,677 teachers and professors who believe they are “above being judged”.
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 20, 2015 11:43am
Fisherman: I am not “against standardized testing” as a blanket rule. I am against OVERUSE of standardized testing as is being currently used in today’s education policy and I am adamantly opposed to VAM, particularly when being used to evaluate teachers and schools. I have good reason to be. The American Statistical Association issued a warning that it is correlation rather than causation. Have you actually READ their statement? Now the reason why I am anti-Gates Foundation, if you have read my columns (again, backed by evidence and research) is because by their very size and wealth, they have created this reign of error . Because Bill Gates decided VAM was right, he then used his wealth to fund studies to prove it was right, and front groups to advocate for its rightness. However, expert statisticians say, No, actually, he is wrong. Now Welch is trying to pick up the torch, trying forcing VAM use, which again, STATISTICIANS have said is a flawed, invalid measure that could have unintended negative consequences.
I am not against measures. You have no idea of what I believe, because you have preconceived notions when you read my pieces - you’re just convinced I’m an “AFT/CEA mouthpiece.”
I am not against removing underperforming teachers or professors. I’m just against using test scores as a measure - because VAM is an invalid methodology, no matter how many millions Gates tries to spend to prove it is.
Did you see the article today with the study from UPenn that more minority teachers are leaving the profession? Is that your goal? So that they can be replaced with more temporary elite teachers from TFA? The conclusion of the researcher was that maybe we should be paying more attention to RETENTION than recruitment.
My daughter read and analyzed one third fewer books in 10th grade English than I did. Why? Because she lost over a month to testing and test prep. Schools in cities lose even more. Meanwhile their libraries are shut to research and learning because they’re being used for testing. You consider this progress? You have very strange ideas about what constitutes learning, and what is best for children, IMHO. And you know what: I took exams, took standardized tests too. And I am held accountable for my work just the same way you are. But I didn’t take nearly the number tests kids today are being subjected to. It’s ridiculous. A race to nowhere indeed. Having been a judge of a prestigious national writing contest twice, I’ve seen that kids end up being taught “test writing” instead of the kind of writing businesses actually want and need.
posted by: Fisherman | September 20, 2015 10:58pm
“... I am not against removing underperforming teachers or professors. I’m just against using test scores as a measure…”
OK Sarah. If not test scores; than what metric DOES work for you?
Your answer must contain some quantitative measurement; as anything other than a quantitative measurement can and would be argued against by CEA/AFT as being unfair, arbitrary and capricious.
Of course, the reality is that CEA/AFT wants NO evaluations… but you knew that.
Your turn…
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 21, 2015 10:10am
I will respond at length later. You see, I work multiple jobs to make a living. CTNJ is just one, freelance, job I do. But this: “the reality is that CEA/AFT wants NO evaluations… but you knew that” is such patent fiction and reveals your utter contempt for teachers. That is the difference between us. I attended Westhill High School in Stamford, as did several of my contemporaries I can point to who are now top of their fields - innovating and creative and yes, “job creators.” We support public ed because we recognize that we wouldn’t be where we are today without our teachers. Whereas all you show is disdain and complete contempt. More later.
posted by: Fisherman | September 21, 2015 3:42pm
Stop right there Sarah.
Your response is simply a poor attempt at twisting my question without actually providing an answer. This is typical for persons who do not like, or believe they are above performance evaluations. But like it or not; that’s how it is in school, in business and in life. There is NO “disdain and complete contempt” as you suggest. Actually, I have NO contempt for teachers or professors generally; and have had the pleasure of learning from some truly excellent and inspiring ones. But I have also had the displeasure of trying to learn from the ones that weren’t worth a damn; ones that should have been fired. Now, if you please, answer the questions which you and CEA/AFT have desperately attempted to avoid:
1) If not test scores, than what quantitative metric IS acceptable to assess teacher/ professor performance?
2) Based on your preferred quantitative measurement, what is a reasonable procedure to reward the good (regardless of seniority) and remove the bad (regardless of seniority)?
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 21, 2015 6:17pm
Right, you asked for suggestions? Here is a comprehensive proposal from Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/creating-comprehensive-system-evaluating-and-supporting-effective-teaching.pdf You will find that she goes through all of the reasons that VAM shouldn’t be used, and suggests multiple measures of evaluation - such is used in MA, which funnily enough has lead the nation in NEAP scores for five consecutive times http://www.massteacher.org/news/archive/2013/naep.aspx also because they had a major school funding lawsuit and put money into their schools.
It appears to me that if you want to use VAM, you either are unwilling to accept the research or you just want to punish teachers rather than do what is best to create a good school environment. Schools require collaboration. VAM is like the stacked ranking system at MSFT, and that pitted people against each other rather than encouraged collaboration. When people say that schools should be run like businesses, it’s clear that they don’t know anything about education and the culture of how to build a positive learning environment.
posted by: Charlie Puffers | September 21, 2015 8:11pm
Dear Misguided Fisherman,
The metric or quantitative measurement you are looking for doesn’t exist. Check out Charlotte Danielson online. She has spent a career on teacher eval. She says that the method (when it is found) must be reliable, valid, defensible, professionally defensible and legally defensible. Also, “There is no statitical method to sort that out.” The questions researchers need to answer are: What can count as evidence? and How can that evidence be attributed to an individual teacher? “Nobody on the planet has figured out how to do this.”
posted by: Fisherman | September 21, 2015 11:06pm
Sarah, I don’t necessarily support VAM. I don’t necessarily support CCSS either. But, I do want to hear a solution from you. Tell the readers what WILL work; not just what WON’T work. The problem is evident (some teachers produce superb results; some simply do not). As Charlie Puffers correctly points out, any evaluation criteria must be “reliable, valid, defensible, professionally defensible and legally defensible.” Because if it isn’t, CEA/AFT can and will litigate and we all go back to square one…. well, except the students with the poor-performing teachers… they will lose; while their lousy teachers continue to reap good salaries and benefits.
I read Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond report. While interesting, nowhere does it describe a process for evaluation and removal of poor-performing teachers. Presumably Linda Darling-Hammond is in the same camp as CEA/AFT… there are no bad teachers… just good ones and great ones. Right?
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 22, 2015 6:05am
Here’s another interesting study for you, Fisherman, given your apparent believe that Standardized Testing is a predictor of later success: It isn’t as valid of a predictor as high school grades: As the professor of sociology points out, standardized testing is more a metric “more social Darwinist than academic in its effects.”
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 22, 2015 6:27am
” Based on your preferred quantitative measurement, what is a reasonable procedure to reward the good (regardless of seniority) and remove the bad (regardless of seniority)?”
Here’s a thought - if we’re really going to treat education like a business, how about giving “bad” teachers golden parachutes like like CEOs get when they tank the stock price like Carly Fiorina $40M) or Ramani Ayer ($22.5M). Here’s Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale University at the time on Fiorina in USA Today: “the worst (CEO) because of her ruthless attack on the essence of this great company ... She destroyed half the wealth of her investors and yet still earned almost $100 million in total payments for this destructive reign of terror.”
Metrics for the business goose should be metrics for the education gander? “Your turn…”
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 22, 2015 2:23pm
You obviously didn’t read it closely if you think there’s no process for evaluating poorly performing teachers. And there is a process right now for removing poorly performing teachers. The problem isn’t with the unions. It’s with the administrators. I’ve seen it at Greenwich High School. You can’t blame teachers for the fact that administrators aren’t doing their job. But it’s SO much easier to blame those at the bottom than to fight with those at the top, isn’t it?
posted by: B. Keck | September 24, 2015 12:05pm
Fisherman, I find the weakness of your position in this quote: “[S]ome teachers produce superb results; some simply do not.”
As a public school teacher of more than two decades, I never thought of myself as a “producer of results.” Rather, I teach English to high school students—a task that simply cannot be minimized with the phrase “producing results.” And therein lies the weakness of your stance: No single evaluation system—particularly one that uses “value-added models”—could ever accurately determine how effective I am as a teacher. I think that is the point Sarah has made and convincingly supported here.
posted by: Fisherman | September 24, 2015 9:35pm
@ B.Keck: Of course you do.
As I stated earlier…there are no bad teachers… just good ones and great ones. Right?
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 25, 2015 6:29am
Fisherman says: “@ B.Keck: Of course you do”.
Fisherman, you just can’t help yourself can you? Although you claim you respect teachers, as Reagan said, “There you go again.” Bart is a respected teacher, yet you just can’t help yourself from insulting him, and can’t bring yourself to engage with him in a meaningful, respectful way.
You post under a pseudonym, accusing me, a journalist who has won awards from my peers for my work, of being in the pay of CEA/AFT, but I suspect from your very recognizable style of argument that if if you actually had the courage to post under your own name like we do, one would find that you are actually the one with the vested interest.
posted by: Fisherman | September 27, 2015 1:17pm
Sarah, I believe that you are an excellent writer. When you have written on subjects OTHER THAN EDUCATION, you have present you arguments in a clear, balanced and convincing manor; along with unbiased substantiation.
However, when you write on education issues, you lean so far to the left that your arguments lose a great deal of credibility. Readers see this no differently from when a Tea Partier writes about Right-to-Life issues… in both cases, the writer is perceived as someone on the fringe (left or right); or they suspect that the writer has been compensated by some special interest group.
Sarah, the reality is this: No bogie man is going to come out of the closet if we take Bill Gate’s money. No effective and inspirational teacher or professor is going to lose their job if we hold them accountable for results in the classroom… and that IS their job. Charter Schools are as effective as their Public School counterparts. Finally, when your position comes up short (you STILL haven’t provided CJN readers with a SOLUTION in lieu of standardized tests) you attempt to play the “she/he posts under a pseudonym” card.
True enough. I don’t get paid to write for this site, but you do. All I ask for, is that you do so with a sense of balance.
posted by: B. Keck | September 28, 2015 6:14am
I would hope, Fisherman, that before you labeled Sarah as a writer “on the fringe” who fails to use “unbiased substantiation” when addressing educational issues, you actually bothered to read at least a few of the multiple sources she linked.
As for me, I’m no Pollyanna who believes there are only “good” teachers and “great ones.” I know there are bad ones, just as there are bad journalists, bad plumbers, and bad lawyers. All I said is that there is no “magic bullet” when it comes to teacher evaluation systems—especially if they involve VAM. Ironically, Connecticut is actually working towards creating just the system you’re seeking, Fisherman, and I wrote about it here
While there exists no single “SOLUTION in lieu of standardized tests”—something you asked Sarah to provide—you could learn a great deal about the topic if you actually researched it, starting with Connecticut’s current system.
posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | September 28, 2015 8:20am
“However, when you write on education issues, you lean so far to the left that your arguments lose a great deal of credibility. Readers see this no differently from when a Tea Partier writes about Right-to-Life issues… in both cases, the writer is perceived as someone on the fringe (left or right); or they suspect that the writer has been compensated by some special interest group.”
This actually made me laugh out loud.
Here’s the irony in your statement. One of the (many) reasons I LEFT the Democratic party is over education reform. Corruption on the state level is another one (although CT GOP much better on that score *cough* Rowland *cough*). Listen to Democrats and they say that opponents of corporate reform are right wing Tea Partiers. Listen to you and they ” lean so far to the left that (their) arguments lose a great deal of credibility.” It’s just laughable.
What you reformers don’t seem to get is that the opposition to corporate reform is coming from BOTH sides of the aisle. It comes from PARENTS, whatever their political affiliation. Patronizing us shows your contempt. I started my political life as a Republican, become a Democrat, and am now a disgusted Unaffliated who believes both parties exist merely to perpetuate their own power rather than to express the will of voters - and in a post Citizens United world I would amend that to “perpetuate their own power and express the will of their wealthiest donors.”
“Charter Schools are as effective as their Public School counterparts.”
NO they are not. The record is patchy with a vastly higher record of corruption.
” Finally, when your position comes up short (you STILL haven’t provided CJN readers with a SOLUTION in lieu of standardized tests) you attempt to play the “she/he posts under a pseudonym” card. “
Actually I did, but apparently you can’t close read reports.
“No bogie man is going to come out of the closet if we take Bill Gate’s money. “
I have never said that. What I have said, and explained in several well-reasoned columns providing facts and research (which is more than you ever do) is that his grant money, which attempts to bypass public scrutiny and voting (ie/ in Hartford) then REQUIRES public funding. So a billionaire is dictating the direction of public funding without a vote. And in the case of Hartford, dictating that it go to an organization such a FUSE, which then squandered public funds. So yes, it is a “boogie man”, because if an organization with billions of dollars and a squadron of expensive lawyers is going to dictate where my taxpayer dollars go without scrutiny, I, think it’s a travesty of democracy. Apparently you don’t. But your views seem quite Kiplingesque.
I get paid to write OPINION, backed up with facts. If you want to write your opinion go for it. But please provide facts for a change, not just rhetoric.