U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s decision to appear at the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) headquarters yesterday during his Race to the Top victory lap around the Northeast was a shock to many in education-reform circles.  It was, after all, the teachers union that had successfully fought against using student achievement data when evaluating teachers and opposed expanding the number of high-quality public charter schools — moves that cost New York a grant in the round-one awards made in January, well before the deadline for a 2010-11 state budget.

Rather than get behind these reforms, NYSUT assumed New York’s senior U.S. Senator, Chuck Schumer, could flex enough political muscle in Washington so that the state would win a grant without instituting any genuine reforms such as these (see FERA president Thomas W. Carroll’s Huffington Post blog story “Schumer’s Role in “Race to the Top”: Is the Fix In?“).  Secretary Duncan and the Obama Administration followed through on the promise to require states to adopt real reforms in order to earn the federal grants, however, New York was shut out when the winners were announced.  When the U.S. Department of Education released the official reviewers’ comments on New York’s application, it became clear that the state’s policies limiting the expansion of charter schools and the ban on the use of student achievement data when evaluating teachers ended up costing the state $700 million.

Following New York’s loss in round one, NYSUT wisely recognized that it needed to end its opposition to these reforms high on the Obama administration’s priority list or risk being widely viewed as standing in the way of a generous federal grant during historically tough budgetary times.  As a result, and facing school district spending cuts at the state and local levels across New York, NYSUT packaged and sold a rather breathtaking 180-degree turnaround, noting how it now supported student performance data-based teacher evaluations and an expansion of charter schools, all in the name of meaningful reform.

Now that New York is cashing in what turned out to be a strong round two application, few seem to remember that NYSUT was the primary force in getting a state law passed in 2008 that banned the use of student test scores as one of the multiple factors used for evaluating teachers for life-long tenure.  As the union touts on its website (here), it played a “leading role in securing language that bars the use of student test scores as a yardstick for tenure” and a statement by NYSUT president Richard Iannuzzi himself claiming that “student assessments are designed to assess students, not teachers.”  So much for that.  Now it can claim to have played a leading role in reversing the policy it previously fought for.

When the debate to lift the cap on the number of public charter schools heated up to make the state more competitive for a round two Race to the Top grant, NYSUT struck a new tune, claiming that it hadn’t opposed charter schools.  One only has to see their public comments dating back to 1998 that demonstrates there opposition to the implementation and expansion of these high-quality public schools and union leaders’ routinely mischaracterizing them to turn public opinion against them (see “New York Teachers Unions: A History of Opposition to Public Charter Schools,” May 21, 2010).

New York is doing right by its students and as a result is now reaping the rewards, despite previous positions of the state’s teachers union.  One can only hope that NYSUT is now truly serious about getting behind these reforms, willing to work with superintendents and school boards to implement the new teacher evaluation systems at the local level and once and for all ending efforts to stop charter schools from opening in underserved communities.  Hopefully, Secretary Duncan and other education officials in Washington will keep tabs on the promises New York’s key stakeholders have made in their Race to the Top plans to ensure that NYSUT continues to play nice.

B. Jason Brooks is director of research at the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability and may be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/bjbrooksNY.

by B. Jason Brooks

The Albany City School District board of education last week set the property tax levy for the current school year, 2010-11, in the amount of $107.1 million – an increase of nearly 3.9 percent over the last school year.  This rate increase is certainly not out of the ordinary for school districts, especially given the first year-to-year decline in state school aid in a generation.

Amazingly, this $4 million increase in the property tax levy was approved at the same meeting where it was announced that the school district anticipates an $8 million budget surplus from last year, or 4 percent of the more than $200 million district budget, based on the independent audit being finalized.

The upshot of all this is that the Albany school district is awash in cash.

With an $8 million surplus in the bank, it is questionable why the board raised property taxes by an amount half-again as much, rather than use at least some of this surplus to offset the drop in state school aid.  According to district documents, the rationale for the board to leave the surplus untouched is “to cope with the variable (charter school tuition, loss of State-aid) this year and prepare for the large funding deficits looming in the upcoming budget cycles.”

One key factor in the size of the district surplus for the last school year, 2009-10, was the state put a “freeze” on charter school funding levels at lower 2008-09 amounts, which effectively provided an additional $3 million windfall to the district by denying the funds to charter schools.  This freeze ignored the fact that the district spends one-third more per student than charter schools receive.

Gov. David Paterson proposed the state continue to freeze charter payments at 2008-09 levels, now two years out of date, but this has not been enacted.  Legislation was passed in June that included the charter funding freeze, but the Governor ended up vetoing this bill for other reasons.  The state legislature has yet to take up this funding freeze since the veto and it’s not clear whether it will when it resumes session, which is expected next month. 

In addition to Gov. Paterson’s freeze proposal, state Senator Neil Breslin, who represents Albany, has recently proposed his own funding freeze bill to affect just charter schools in Albany.  This bill was criticized on the Chalkboard blog (here) as demonstrably unfair to charter students who already receive less funding than district students, even as they are disproportionately at greater educational risk.

The absence of the charter funding freeze would mean more than $5.5 million in higher payments to charter schools for 2010-11 above the funding levels from two years ago.  The higher charter payments are tied directly to higher school district operations spending in Albany, which totals more nearly $22,000 per student (after removing charter expenses) compared to the $14,000 charter students would receive this year.

With a second charter funding freeze uncertain, it is reasonable to assume the Albany school district is hedging its bets against another charter school windfall that it was gifted last year.  Clearly, with $8 million banked from last year’s budget, the district is in a healthy enough financial position to absorb the higher charter school expenses, especially since the district also requires fewer resources from the ongoing exodus of students to charter schools.  Credit the Albany school board and Superintendent of Schools, Ray Colucciello, for fiscal prudence.  Moreover, the district also will reap additional resources from the $600 million in just-approved federal money for education for New York State. 

Imposing another funding freeze on charter schools would allow the Albany school district to “bank” millions of dollars that properly belongs to its resident students attending charters.  With $8 million in district funds available from last year, someone needs to inform Sen. Breslin that his charter funding freeze bill is not only unfair and harmful to Albany’s charter students, it is financially unnecessary for the school district.

(August 24, 2010)

B. Jason Brooks is director of research at the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability and can be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/bjbrooksNY.

By Brian Backstrom

The New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) is in an all-out effort to find some muscle to flex during this year’s political campaign season.  Most prominently, it has refused to endorse the Democrat nominee for governor, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, along with a number of other lesser officials running for office (here).

Mr. Cuomo probably isn’t losing much sleep over this lack of teacher-union endorsement for several reasons:  1) NYSUT surely shows no indication whatever to endorse his Republican opponent, whether it be former Congressman Rick Lazio or businessman Carl Paladino; 2) Cuomo has plenty of other union support, including prominent private-sector unions such as the AFL-CIO; and, most importantly 3) Cuomo has taken the responsible positions for the state’s future of advocating a 2 percent growth limit on property taxes and supporting the growth of public charter schools, both of which are inimical to NYSUT’s agenda.

The NYSUT-Cuomo relationship used to be much warmer.  Just two years ago, the Attorney General embraced NYSUT as a big reason for his election to that office (here).  But being Governor is not the same as being Attorney General, as Mr. Cuomo has demonstrated he knows, and so he has taken bold and detailed positions on key issues that are designed turn around the state economically.  There is no way to do that effectively without upsetting some of the largest political interests that hold the “business-as-usual” philosophy, which he seems quite willing to do.

NYSUT also is trying to throw its weight around in on other election races.  One prominent example is that of state Senator Bill Perkins of Harlem, who at NYSUT’s behest and with its backing attacked the charter-school movement in a crazed attempt to block the increase the limit imposed on the number of public charter schools allowed across the state.  Sen. Perkins finds himself in a stiff primary challenge, in large part because of this position.  Seeing its political ally in trouble, NYSUT then went to court asking to break legal campaign donor limitations so it could give Sen. Perkins more money to fund his campaign (here).  NYSUT’s spokesman complained of a lack of a “level playing field” because some private individual investors who favor reforms such as charter school have backed Sen. Perkins’ challenger, Basil Smikle.  A surreal position, when you think about it, since those individuals also face all legal campaign donation limits the state has in place.

It’s nice to see NYSUT invoke the 1^st amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding lifting limits on campaign donations, and I personally am quite sympathetic with that position.  But the court properly rejected the union’s argument to avoid the truly unfair position of changing the rules in mid-stream of an active election.

With its voracious embrace of Sen. Perkins and its break with gubernatorial nominee Andrew Cuomo, NYSUT reveals its view of education reform.  It supports charter school opponents and opposes charter school supporters.  It supports big-spenders and limitless property-tax increasers, and opposes government reformers and property tax-capper.  This trend is replete in NYSUT’s other endorsements, including its withdrawing of support for several Democratic state senators, as reported by the Albany Times Union (here), for their “votes to lift [the] cap on charter schools” along with supporting the property tax cap.

Do NYSUT endorsements really matter?  Perhaps not, as several former legislators could attest.  In the last four years, the Senate Republican Majority disappeared as it lost several elections in spite of their candidates receiving NYSUT’s support.  Considering NYSUT’s refusal to control costly teacher pensions, its opposition to limiting school taxes, and loathing of anything that smacks of education reform, the teacher union’s endorsement may actually prove to be more of an albatross than an advantage this year.

Brian Backstrom is vice president of the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability.

State Ed ignores bolder solutions; Dr. Williams, Superintendent of Excuses

by NY Ed Reform guest blogger Peter Murphy

The state Education Department recently concluded reviews of several district schools in Buffalo labeled as “persistently lowest achieving” and the results are not pretty.  The Joint Intervention Team was appointed by Commissioner David Steiner and included members selected by the Buffalo district.

The Buffalo News reported on the Team’s devastating findings this week (here).

The schools investigated were: Lafayette HS, International School 45, Riverside Institute of Technology, Burgard Vocational HS, Bennett HS, South Park HS and Martin Luther King Jr. Multicultural Institute.

Among the findings in the Department Team’s report are:

• Chronic absenteeism of students and teachers;
• Students suspensions are rampant for seemingly minor infractions, and suspended students often do not return to school;
• Direct instruction was not observed and was not a constant theme;
• Test data from assessments is not shared among staff to help guide instruction as needed;
• Insufficient textbooks to support a curriculum;
• Too few parents involved in their children’s education;
• Animosity is manifest between the district and Buffalo Teachers Federation; and
• Teachers need more professional development to be effective.

Does anyone doubt that if these criticisms were the stuff of charter schools instead of district schools, the State Education Department would move quickly to shut them down?  In fact, the state already has closed two charter schools in Buffalo (Sankofa and Steppingstone) for reasons that could have just as easily appeared in this report about district schools.

Rather than respond boldly and outline a dramatic course of reform, however, Buffalo Public Schools Superintendent James Williams – even now after five years on the job – offers a bevy of excuses, including the ol’ shift-the-blame game: it’s Albany’s and Washington’s fault.  Dr. Williams thinks the problem of ineffective instruction and school management stems not from ineffective leadership, but rather that the district has to focus so much on compliance issues that it must “chase the money” from the state and the federal government.

This excuse-making is breathtaking.

Not only does Dr. Williams oppose some of the major reform recommendations in the reports, he acknowledges to the Buffalo News that the state’s review simply “verified what we already knew,” and that there were “serious teaching and learning problems” and “leadership problems.”  He claims to have known all this already but simply stood around and did nothing that corrected the problems?

Dr. Williams did call for concessions from the Buffalo Teachers Federation to free up money for more professional development.  Fat chance.

While on that subject, there interestingly was no reaction to the state’s investigation from long-time teachers’ union head and reform opponent Philip Rumore about why teachers weren’t teaching properly and why so many were chronically absent.

Sure to make the likes of Dr. Williams and Mr. Rumore even more uncomfortable, while the report is certainly eye-opening and useful, it still doesn’t go far enough.  For example, replacing the principal of International School 45 or recommending the principal of Riverside “be given a schedule detailing where he needs to be” is not the stuff of turning around persistently low performing and dysfunctional schools.  Even the recommendation to have an outside management company replace the administration at Lafayette High School is not enough to cure the ills there.

Superintendent Williams is certainly not the only one responsible for this educational malpractice.  And the State Education Department needs to stop playing “small potatoes” by ignoring the elephant in the room:  Buffalo has no real accountability since no one gets fired for these glaring problems.  There are no consequences thanks to a rigid teachers’ contract agreed to over the years by a majority of city school board members that kowtow to union demands.

The state’s report has made a good start, but reforms in Buffalo need to get far bolder and leaders need to become far more forthright, as the Buffalo Public School District seems to be beyond feeling embarrassed.

So who are the students actually supposed to count on these days?

Maybe the answer is to keep developing more charter schools in Buffalo – if the folks entrenched in the district are unwilling to admit their mistakes and the resulting problems and take the actions necessary to truly overhaul these schools. The students there deserve not some 10-year cycle of discussions and unfulfilled promises, but rather a whole new choice in a school.

Peter Murphy is policy director of the New York Charter Schools Association and also writes for that group’s blog, The Chalkboard.

By B. Jason Brooks

Earlier this month the U.S. Congress passed a bill to appropriate $10 billion in new education spending for states to mitigate teacher layoffs throughout the country (here).   This bill will back fill cutbacks by states and localities due to the weak economy and diminishing one-time funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a.k.a., the “Stimulus Bill.”

This education jobs bill (“edujobs”) came under fierce debate, with President Obama saying, “we can’t stand by and do nothing while pink slips are given to the men and women who educate our children or keep our communities safe.  That doesn’t make sense.”  Opponents of the bill contend that the new spending, which amounts to $26 billion in total spending, adds still more debt and fattens public sector payrolls while private sector job growth remains anemic.

During the enactment of this education jobs bill, President Obama prevailed on Congress to remove offsetting cuts in funding to his education reform proposals that were also contained in the bill.  These cuts were originally proposed by the House of Representatives at the behest of Appropriations Chairman, David Obey (here).  The bill signed into law preserved funding for planning and implementation grants for the Charter Schools Program and left funding levels for the competitive Race to the Top program unchanged.

Still, federal funding to offset teacher layoffs for this year is not all good news for states and localities. New York stands to gain $608 million which will offset the $1.4 billion school aid reduction imposed by Governor David Paterson this year.  The state legislature is expected to return to Albany by the end of September to appropriate the new federal money for school districts.

States have a choice to distribute funds either based on existing distribution of Title I funding, which is targeted mostly at low-income, urban school districts; or through traditional school aid formulas.  It would be surprising if New York failed to adopt the latter method so that all school districts share in the funds, allowing incumbent state politicians take credit for helping “bringing home the bacon” for schools close to election day.

Beware the Lure of One-Shots

One-shot revenues always bring a downside, that is: here today, gone tomorrow.  With the burgeoning federal deficit, it is highly unlikely Washington will be able to afford to continue subsidizing state and local budgets this way.  That means New York’s budget for next year will have an added $600 million hole unless the economy improves and state tax revenue with it.  The current funding cutbacks are in part due to the temporary one-shot funding provided by the 2009 federal Stimulus bill.

Additional concerns raised with this new money include whether school districts actually need the funding.  As the Empire Center for New York State Policy recently documented, school district payrolls have increased substantially in the last decade while student enrollment has declined.  Furthermore, school district budgets were already adopted in May and largely factored in Gov. Paterson’s $1.4 billion in education funding cuts.

With school district budgets settled and district downsizing implemented, it’s worth questioning if this new money is really necessary.  In fact, arguably the best use of this new funding would be for districts and states to deposit in a “rainy day” fund or reduce annual interest costs by retiring debt.  The problem is that both actions are expressly prohibited by Congress in the new bill.

New York should take all the federal money it can get, but the state and school districts cannot and should not put off right-sizing their budgets and payrolls for lean economic times to continue.

B. Jason Brooks is director of research at the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability and may be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/bjbrooksNY.

Education priorities:  whose will prevail?

by NY Ed Reform guest blogger Peter Murphy

The U.S. House of Representatives on July 1st followed through on cutting Race to the Top funding by $500 million, and another $300 million between the Charter Schools Program and Teacher Incentive Fund, thanks to Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who led this action.

It’s fitting that a congressman with 41 years seniority (that being Mr. Obey) would ram through cuts in reforms programs to help finance this “edujobs” bill to subsidize teacher salaries of local school districts.

National and state education reform organizations strongly opposed this action (e.g., here), and this fight is far from over.

The Obama administration opposed the House amendment to the education appropriations bill to switch funding (here) by stating that if these cuts in reform programs remain, “the President’s senior advisors would recommend veto.”

This is a nice first step from the administration, but it’s not enough. The President is sounding equivocal by supporting both the edujobs and his reform programs, wanting it both ways. The climate in Washington, however, has turned sour on higher and higher spending, and Congress is under pressure to make choices and prioritize without adding to the federal budget deficit.

Chairman Obey should not be confused with being a fiscal hawk when it comes to spending, and he’s certainly no education reformer. But his actions to shift funding around are a step in the direction of tacit fiscal prudence.

President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan need to remind everyone that their education priorities matter more than David Obey’s. As the appropriations process advances to the U.S. Senate and then conference committee, the White House will need to come out more strongly to protect against this kind of congressional tampering to preclude Congress from calling his bluff.

Draw the line in the sand, Mr. President: whatever funding amout is agreed to subsidize district teachers must not come out of your education reform agenda – period.

Peter Murphy is Policy Director of the New York Charter Schools Association

By NY Ed Reform guest blogger Peter Murphy

It’s that time of year again on the legislative calendar when the labor unions try and get the state legislature to mandate higher costs on building projects by mandating so-called “prevailing” wages be paid by more public and private entities. The AFL-CIO and building trade unions already by law get “prevailing” or higher union wage rates on most publicly-financed projects, which is one reason taxes and the cost of living are so high in New York compared to most other locations.

The New York Post today contains an article yet another “prevailing wage” bill to impose these higher construction costs on charter schools. This bill, being pushed by several unions, already passed the Senate Labor Committee this week. I pointed out several obvious objections, primarily the fact that charter schools do not get public funding for construction and facilities costs, unlike school districts which do. In addition, charter schools already have their operating funding frozen at 2008-09 school year levels, leaving even less money to operate the school or finance capital expenses.

In the absence of a state mandate for prevailing wage, what happens? Does the laborer get cheated and ripped off and denied a living wage? In a word – no. In fact, any and every construction project not subject to prevailing wage, including those by charter schools, is paid based on a mutually agreed upon contract by both parties – the charter school and the company or companies doing the work. It’s called negotiation in the marketplace. Imagine that.

Racist Roots of Prevailing Wage Laws
New York is one of at least 41 states that impose prevailing wage laws on most publicly-financed projects, along with the federal government (the “Davis-Bacon” law). Prevailing wage laws, in fact, have an racist history to them as they were used to steer projects to white-dominated unions at the expense of minority workers that were not members of unions. This ugly history has been documented by George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein and others. Prof. Bernstein also wrote specifically on New York’s dubious prevailing wage law, which was published in a 1997 article in the Civil Rights Law Journal.

Diverting Charter Funding from the Classroom
The bottom line is this: a state imposed higher cost from “prevailing wage” has to come from somewhere. In the case of charter schools, it would come from scare operating funds that would be diverted from regular educational expenses; or, with higher costs, the planned facilities project may not get done at all and no one would benefit no one, including the unions pushing this bill.

Even the teacher unions are pushing prevailing wage mandates on charter schools, notwithstanding that it would mean less money for the classroom and teachers in particular. Such misplaced priorities from NYSUT and the UFT only demonstrate that union corporate (oops, I mean “solidarity”) matters more even if it means less funding for the very individuals they purport to care about.

With cutbacks in state education funding and continued lack of facilities funding for charters, it is the worst possible time for the state legislature to advance a bill that would substantially raise costs in order to appease the labor unions. The difficult fiscal climate faced by charter and all public schools unfortunately hasn’t given the unions any pause from trying to profiteer no matter how much it harms the ability of charter schools to educate students.

Peter Murphy is Policy Director of the New York Charter Schools Association

By B. Jason Brooks

While praising the release this week of draft national education standards by the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Operators, the New York Daily News (here) and other news outlets should have at least offered the caution deserved and the caveats necessary to put this effort, and its potential results, into proper perspective.

The effort of 48 states (Alaska and Texas are not participating) and the District of Columbia to set common, high-quality learning standards is indeed praiseworthy on many fronts: it seems just and fair to say as a nation that we hold a student in Arkansas to the same educational expectations as a student in Maine, for example.  Being able to evaluate each state’s progress toward these common learning standards using a common measuring stick would be nice, too.

This first public release of the proposed voluntary national learning standards raises many questions that need to be fully addressed, however, before we rally every school child, parent, and teacher in America around them.

First, the jury is still out on how rigorous the proposed standards are and if the strength of these standards will be increased or watered-down after the public comment period.  Claims by some that the national standards will set “a bar higher than even the highest standard currently set by any single state” simply aren’t true; while education officials in Minnesota commended (here) the standards in English language arts, they noted that the draft math standards would represent a step backwards for that state, for example.

A recent New York Times story (here) notes that implementation of national standards could face resistance from states that already have high-quality standards and assessments.  Massachusetts, for example, is widely regarded as having world-class learning standards and assessments, and that state’s consistent top-ranking performance on the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests lead to justified questions about what lesser national standards would offer there.  Additionally, previous drafts of the voluntary national English language arts and math standards have fallen well short of the top state standards in these subjects once all stakeholders weighed-in.  This latest effort could suffer a similar fate without sufficient vigilance and dedication, both commodities too often lacking when the policy reforms meet the political world.

The push for national standards must accommodate the desire by states to implement even better learning standards, as Minnesota, Massachusetts, and several others already have.  This important issue unfortunately seems to have been side-stepped.

Second, the virtuous new way of thinking about education created by the No Child Left Behind reforms – specify what children need to know and then measure if they have learned it – is not guaranteed, at least not yet, by this week’s announcements on national learning standards.  Even if the standards are acceptably high, a similar collaborative and cooperative effort will need to occur to develop assessments aligned to these standards and set thresholds for passing scores that ensure students will be held to high expectations.  It remains to be seen if governors and state education commissioners will have the courage to follow through and implement rigorous assessments.  The well-regarded NAEP exams – commonly referred to as the “gold standard” in assessments – reveal that a whopping 68 percent of the nation’s 8th graders score below proficient in math and 70 percent fail in writing.  Will similarly embarrassing failure rates – the hard truth, actually – be allowed by states’ political leaders, or will they work to soften the exams or the passing thresholds to achieve the desired appearance?  This tricky work, the heated discussions, and the difficult decisions are a ways down the road yet, though they will play a significant and fundamental role in the overall success or failure of the national standards effort.

Third, the proposed standards covered only English language arts and math (encouragingly, the proposed English language arts standards included literacy skills needed to understand scientific and math-based concepts and activities).  By avoiding the development of standards for science and social studies, the common-standards movement may have avoided being derailed by so-called “culture wars.”  Standards-development efforts in the past showed that deciding on when to begin teaching algebra is less controversial than whether to teach about multiculturalism and evolution or creationism.  As such, states are likely to maintain their own standards in science and social studies for a long time, regardless of whether these standards are any good.  Where the new standards would increase a state’s expectations in math or English language arts, progress will have been made.  But folks need to understand that this isn’t the complete fix-it solution.

While the national standards reform movement currently shows promise, a great deal of work and political courage will be necessary in order for it to create the rising tide that will lift all boats.  The standards need to not only be on par with the best state standards currently in use, but would do well to represent world-class expectations.  Common assessments, to be used on all students nationwide, need to be developed that comprehensively measure student learning of these standards.  And states will need to have the courage to accept rigorous cut scores despite the potential of widespread failure rates.  If these all fall in place, then we can celebrate. For now, there is much more work to be done.

B. Jason Brooks is director of research at the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability and can be followed on twitter at http://twitter.com/bjbrooksNY.

By B. Jason Brooks

Last month this NY Ed Reform Blog commented (here) on the decision by the Superintendent of Schools in Central Falls, Rhode Island, to fire all teachers, administrators, and counselors at its chronically low-performing high school.  Superintendent Frances Gallo, with the state’s backing, was making good on her threat to fire all 93 staff positions for the teacher union’s refusal to work an extra 25 minutes at the pay rate offered for that extra time.

This story, spotted early by NY Ed Reform, subsequently became a national sensation for the simple reason that it’s so rarely – if ever – occurs in public education.  Abysmal graduation rates and 7 percent of 11th grade students meeting math standards doesn’t normally get anyone fired in public schools.  It’s much easier to finger-point at something else like poverty or bad parenting.

Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, said the firings at Central Falls High are “a failed approach.”  In fact, every prior approach tried by Supt. Gallo was rebuffed by the recalcitrant teachers union, which called her bluff.  But the superintendent wasn’t bluffing and she’s gotten national praise for her actions, including from President Obama himself (here).

The president stated that while such firings should be a “last resort,” he backed the decision, saying “if a school continues to fail its students year after year after year, if it doesn’t show any sign of improvement, then there’s got to be a sense of accountability.”  Education Secretary Arne Duncan reacted to the firings by praising the Rhode Island Commissioner of Education and Supt. Gallo for “showing courage and doing the right thing for kids.”

There’s the rub.  Putting students first, if it means anything, has to include putting adults other than first.  That’s what the Obama administration’s school turnaround strategy is about for dealing with the worst 5 percent of schools in each state.

No one should be surprised by President Obama’s reaction to the Rhode Island firings.  One year ago today, in his speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the President make clear his education agenda included real accountability measures to support teachers while also holding teachers accountable in the interest of students:

[J]ust as we have to give our teachers all the support they need to be successful, we need to make sure our students have the teacher they need to be successful. That means states and school districts taking steps to move bad teachers out of the classroom. Let me be clear: if a teacher is given a chance but still does not improve, there is no excuse for that person to continue teaching. I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences. The stakes are too high. We can afford nothing but the best when it comes to our children’s teachers and to the schools where they teach.

Superintendent Frances Gallo got the message.  So, apparently, did the Central Falls High School faculty that was headed for the exits.  The teachers have since relented and accepted the new rules, including spending more instructional time with the students.

Things in a school – even a really bad school – shouldn’t get to the point where the only way to enact a turnaround plan is to fire everyone who works there.  Hopefully, Rhode Island’s Central Falls High School will serve as an instructional model, and it will become commonplace rather than the exception that the adults in school buildings put themselves and their needs after those of the kids.  In that way only will genuine reforms be able to be instituted by administrators and teachers working together – all in the genuine interest of the school children.

B. Jason Brooks is director of research at the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability and may be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/bjbrooksNY.

By Thomas W. Carroll

New York State’s inclusion in the 16 Race to the Top finalists announced today by the U.S. Department of Education was the big surprise of Round 1.

New York’s inclusion is a testament to the high-quality application developed by State Education Commissioner David Steiner and Regents Chancellor Merry Tisch.

But, the goal here is to win, not nearly be included among the finalists.  A staggering $700 million is at stake.

The only thing standing between New York being a mere finalist and a winner are two issues: New York’s “data firewall” and the need to raise the state’s charter-school cap.

The winners will be announced in early April 2010.

The obvious play here is for quick legislative action on the two outstanding items.  Admittedly, this will not be easy, given the state of political chaos in Albany at the moment.

Also, it’s unclear whether legislative action now will be considered in a Round 1 decision.  But, at a minimum, taking action now would position New York State for an almost guaranteed win in Round 2.

Those who urged no action — on the theory that New York would never win anyway — are contradicted by today’s announcement of New York as a finalist.

New York is in shooting range now.  Let’s not shoot blanks.

(For my prediction of the likely winners in Round 1, see my recent analysis in City Journal.  Six of the seven states I predicted made the list of finalists.  These six states very likely will be the eventual winners.)

By NY Ed Reform guest blogger Peter Murphy

The New York State United Teachers last week unveiled yet another radio and television advertising campaign (here) its effort to get state lawmakers to spend more on public education.  The union dues generated by 600,000 members can buy a lot of air time, and NYSUT has never been shy of doing so – this time spending $1.5 million.

Last fall, the union spent a tidy sum to block Gov. Paterson’s proposed mid-year cuts in school aid to districts.  That success, however, came with a price.  Next year’s education cuts are now that much larger from the state’s failure to reduce spending this year.

Make no mistake: NYSUT’s ad campaign is about more money for its membership.  The pretenses of its ad campaign – about creating a better economy and a more skilled workforce – mask this reality.  NYSUT cleverly ties spending more on public education to spurring economic recovery in New York.  “Business leaders will go out of state to hire skilled workers…or they may not be in a position to create any new jobs at all,” said NYSUT president Richard Iannuzzi.  But state lawmakers shouldn’t fall for this ruse.

NYSUT wants higher state taxes, including an estimated $3.2 billion from the financial services industry through a stock transfer tax and other measures, and has recently endorsed (of all things) selling wine in liquor stores.  Anything that brings more money into the state coffers, apparently NYSUT is for.

New York State already is among the highest taxed states in the nation.  Not unrelated, New York also has among the highest public employee payrolls in the country on a per capita basis.  Education is a big component of this: according to the Empire Center, the state spends more on education per pupil than any other state and 65 percent higher than the national average.

Meanwhile, last year federal stimulus package spending added $1.8 billion to education that, according to NYSUT, saved 18,600 education jobs.  And yet this year alone, the state raised taxes by at least another $4 billion.

Considering the negative impact of taxes and deficits on the state’s business climate, and the bailout already offered to the state’s public education sector, it’s hard to swallow NYSUT’s line that even higher taxes and even more education spending will help New York’s economy.  If it did, New York’s economy should be booming already.

Instead, what is booming is the public education industry.  A recent Schenectady Daily Gazette editorial describes teachers and other public employees as having “become a privileged class.”  The editorial notes that average education employee salaries exceeds the average worker outside of New York City and the job security, pensions, and health benefits are all more generous as well.

State legislators must weigh bowing yet again to NYSUT’s demands for more taxes and more spending with demanding that everyone in the public sector take a hiatus from spending binges in the simple interest of creating a better economy in the state.

At the very least, if additional education spending is contemplated, any new funds should be tightly tied to real reform efforts.  The best place to start would be to endorse the state Regents’ agenda submitted as an application for a federal Race to the Top grant.  The pot of gold at the end of this rainbow would be as much as $700 million in federal funding if New York’s reforms are deemed substantive enough.  New York had a shot at these funds in January, but the reform efforts were spiked by – guess who – NYSUT.  Evidently, even this massive amount of new federal funding wasn’t worth it to the teachers’ union if it came tied to more accountability and greater transparency.

But you won’t find any of that in NYSUT’s new ad campaign.

Peter Murphy is policy director of the New York Charter Schools Association and also writes for that group’s blog, The Chalkboard.

By B. Jason Brooks

Early this afternoon, the Senate Education Committee will again take up the proposed “School Paperwork Elimination and Reduction Act” in the form of bill number S.3874. This bill deals with issues tracing back eight years ago when the legislature directed the Commissioner of Education to report on plans for streamlining paperwork requirements and reports required of school districts.

The Education Department, in 2003, followed through with a report which documented that school districts were required to submit about 150 reports, plans and applications annually to the Department – requirements that built up over decades. This bill would eliminate a fraction of these requirements and, in some cases, would still require districts and BOCES to prepare reports but have them available rather than submit them to the state (acknowledging that no one in the Department would bother to read them anyway, I suppose).

Still, enactment of this bill makes sense and is a reasonable first step in what Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch promised will be Department regulatory review of all mandates on school districts. Perhaps Commissioner David Steiner’s appearance today before the Senate Education Committee will spur enactment.

Awaiting Modest Paperwork Relief: 8 Years and Counting

The frustrating aspect of this modest bill is twofold. First, why has the legislature – specifically, the Assembly – refused to pass this bill? The Senate has done so repeatedly since 2005 while the Assembly has refused. Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan, the Education Committee Chair, has taken up this bill and passed it out of her committee from which it has languished in the Rules Committee. Second, if the legislature, after eight years still cannot follow through on its own directive to the Education Department, what hope do school districts have for any real mandate relief?

Public Charter Schools Face with More Mandates

Then there are public charter schools. Many legislators have fallen for this nonsense from the teacher unions calling for more “transparency and accountability” for charter schools, ignoring the fact that charters are held to more rigorous accountability than any district school. The Education Department, for example, explains much of this accountability in the state’s Race to the Top application (see here).

Yet, while the legislature, led by Senate Education Chair, Suzi Oppenheimer, appears to be finally moving on paperwork reduction for districts, Sen. Oppenheimer wants to add superfluous mandates on charter schools with a separate bill S.6925. Thus, charter schools with less money than districts could face more requirements having nothing to do with the Education Department’s goal of “results-oriented, standards-based education system.”

Slowness and contradictions abound – our state legislature at work.

B. Jason Brooks is director of research at the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability.

by Thomas W. Carroll

This week, the Charter School Committee of the State University Board of Trustees voted 3-1 to close New Covenant Charter School in Albany.

New Covenant opened as one of the state’s first three charter schools in 1999. Since then, the school for the most part has been financially unstable and poorly governed, posting miserable academic results in most years. Victory Schools, which has been managing the school the last few years, has done a good job of trying to turn the school around, but the school was in such a deep hole when they took it over, they have been unable to make enough progress in the intervening years to meet the State University’s high academic benchmarks.

The final vote of the full board of trustees will be held on March 23rd.

Regardless of the final outcome, the drama of New Covenant underscores a serious weakness in the approach taken by the State University and the Board of Regents when it comes to charter-school closure decisions.

While a closure will be widely viewed as SUNY reasonably upholding high standards, SUNY’s decision indisputably will strand hundreds of New Covenant students, who clearly do not want to be sent back to low-performing district schools in their neighborhood. Similar scenes have played out across the state whether the school is being closed by SUNY, the Regents, or a local district.

Obviously, SUNY has the right — indeed obligation — to close any school it deems a failure. But, it also has an obligation to the stranded students.

So, what’s the answer?

SUNY and the Regents need to consider making closure decisions earlier in the school year (perhaps even in the prior year), and they need to invite applications for those willing to create new promising schools in the same neighborhood. A passive “let ‘em eat cake” approach simply isn’t morally defensible.

From a legislative perspective, the state charter-school law should be changed to allow expedited review of “replacement” schools and of charter amendments that would allow existing successful schools to expand to make room for stranded students. Also, the state legislature should consider whether to grant stranded students priority in charter-school lotteries, and whether to exclude “replacement” schools from the state’s charter cap.

This approach would allow state chartering entities to uphold high standards and minimize the very real human cost of closures.

Thomas W. Carroll is president of the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability.

By NY Ed Reform guest blogger Peter Murphy

“YOU’RE FIRED!”

The Donald wanted to own that not-so-original phrase which he says so well on NBC’s “The Apprentice.”  But there’s nothing too novel about folks getting fired in private industry.  Had Mr. Trump been acting as a superintendent of schools, however, he would have had a much stronger case trade-marking that phrase.

Almost no one gets fired in public education.  That’s one big reason for New York City’s “rubber rooms” full of non-working teachers (blogged about by yours truly here earlier this week), and why there have been so few instances of chronically failing schools being successfully turned-around by revamped teaching and administrative staffs.

That’s also why a recent story about a failing high school in Central Falls, Rhode Island, (here) is so incredible.

Frances Gallo, the superintendent for Rhode Island’s Central Falls School District, just did her best Donald Trump imitation by saying she was preparing to fire her entire high school faculty – all 74 teachers – effective at the end of the current school year.

The state’s Education Commissioner, Deborah Gist, ordered that the Central Falls High School – labeled one of the “worst-performing high schools in the state” – be fixed immediately or risk closure by the state.  The “worst-performing” label is well deserved: in 2008, only 3 percent of 11th grade students were proficient in math, and only 7 percent were proficient the following year.  Less than half of Central Falls students graduate.

Superintendent Gallo responded appropriately and boldly.  A “transformation” model for improving the high school was developed that consisted of six reforms: extending the school day by 25 minutes; each teacher would eat lunch with students once a week; a schedule would be implemented where teachers would assist tutoring students before or after school; teachers would participate in weekly instructional planning sessions; a two-week training session would be held before the school year started; and, a more rigorous teacher-evaluation system would be implemented.  Joined with these reform efforts, each teacher would receive a $3,400 increase in their pay.

Despite the obvious benefits that would be delivered to the high school students under this plan, the local teachers union evidently didn’t feel that the adults in the building were being given a big enough slice of the pie.  This despite the fact that the average Central Falls teacher salary reportedly already is around $75,000, a whopping three and a half times the average salary of city residents.

So Superintendent Gallo said she would implement Plan B: the “turnaround” model offered by the state which requires the removal of the entire staff at the school and a “re-start” for the next school year (up to half of the exiting staff may be rehired for the next school year).  Supt. Gallo said the teachers union’s knee-jerk opposition showed a “callous disregard” for what was so clearly needed at the school and a reasonable compensation offer.

To no surprise, the union is fighting the terminations.  But reasonable people – the state’s education commissioner, Superintendent Gallo, parents, students, and the taxpaying public – appear to be out of patience.  The commissioner makes a final decision on the turnaround option next week.

What the Central Falls story demonstrates is the difficulty in engaging entrenched union interests in attempting to turn around a chronically failing school.  Maybe we really can’t get the schools we need trying to change the schools we currently have, and just starting over is the best chance our kids have.

Peter Murphy is policy director of the New York Charter Schools Association and also writes for that group’s blog, The Chalkboard.

By NY Ed Reformer guest blogger Peter Murphy

New York City’s “rubber rooms” have continued to draw much needed public attention.  These rooms are infamous holding places for literally hundreds of teachers removed from the classroom who are awaiting an arbitration hearing, or who were cleared of some charge but simply refused to accept an administratively prescribed reassignment to a classroom.  Of course, union contract provisions require that taxpayers continue to foot the bill for full salaries and benefits for these teachers even though they don’t serve a single student, sometimes for years.

On February 15th, for example, the New York Post published opinion articles by City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein (here) and United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew (here). There is no love lost between these two titans, and diminishing public funding for education has made an adversarial relationship worse.

On the issues of reassignment centers, that is, the “rubber rooms,” is that both men expressed interest in speeding up the hearings process by either authorizing full-time administrative law judges (Klein’s position) or adding more investigators and arbitrators (Mulgrew).

That’s where their similarities end; which is why rubber rooms are here to stay.

Klein wants the best teachers for students, and the power to summarily remove bad ones.  What school administrator doesn’t?  He proposed to remove a teacher from the classroom and the payroll and to restore lost pay with interest if a teacher is exonerated.  No union leader could agree to such a deal if the current union contract protects an accused teacher’s pay pending a decision by an arbitrator.

Mulgrew wants teachers who are removed from classrooms to be put to work in administrative offices.  I doubt the administrator’s union would go for that.  Mulgrew also wants any teacher “unfairly charged” to be allowed to return to the classroom.

That’s the rub.  A principal or superintendent can remove a teacher from the classroom for reasons that can be hard to prove before an arbitrator.  A union is expected to protect teachers in such situations unless and until management proves its case.  Management, on the other hand, doesn’t want dubious teachers to continue in classrooms, even if it can’t ultimately reach a bar of termination in an arbitrator’s mind.

This gap will be hard to bridge, which is why the infamous rubber rooms are the agreed upon purgatory – and likely here to stay.

Peter Murphy is policy director for the New York Charter Schools Association and writes The Chalkboard Blog.

By Thomas W. Carroll

In recent months, the New York State Board of Regents (led by Chancellor Merryl Tisch) and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), New York City’s teachers union, have called on public charter schools to enroll more students with disabilities.

Over the weekend, the UFT specifically proposed legislation (view report here) to mandate that each charter school serve precisely the same percentage of students with disabilities as the average for the local district’s schools.  This would serve, in a sense, as a special-education enrollment quota.  The UFT-proposed enrollment quota is the wrong way to meet a legitimate goal.

For a little perspective, charter schools in New York State enroll a disproportionately higher share of African-American students, Hispanic students, and economically disadvantaged students than their local school districts.  Nonetheless, it remains true that students requiring special-education services generally are, in total, underrepresented in individual charter schools.

The UFT’s quota idea is not new; it was floated in 2007 during negotiations over a lift of the cap on the number of charter schools.  The final compromise, as part of an overall bill that raised the number of authorized charter schools from 100 to 200 schools statewide, was to require charter schools to make a “good faith” effort to recruit special-education students.

This “good faith” provision has been difficult to implement well because charter schools are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of disability, making it impossible to treat students with disabilities any differently in the admissions process.  In fact, state chartering entities have forced charter schools to delete any questions about disability status from their admissions applications and have refused any charter schools’ proposals to establish a special-education admissions preference, making efforts at targeted student recruitment even more difficult.

So, what we have is: (a) a clear and widespread desire to do more matched with (b) a set of restrictions guaranteed to ensure charter schools can’t do more.

Here are seven ideas to solve this conundrum.

First, allow charter schools to give overt preference to students with disabilities in their admissions lotteries. Right now, charter schools are prohibited from considering disability status in any way regarding admission decisions.  The proposed change could be made by modifying Section 2854.2(a) of the New York Education Law to add a clause that reads: “provided, however, that nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent a charter school from granting an admissions preference to students with disabilities.”

Second, allow charter schools to contract with regional Boards of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES) to provide some special-education services, just as school districts are allowed to do. Right now, district schools – especially small ones without a sufficient density of students with any one particular disability – are able to group students across schools and district lines by contracting with BOCES to provide necessary services.  Districts also use BOCES to provide instruction, often in district space, for students with rare disabilities, such as for students who are visually impaired, where the district may not have qualified staff to provide the required services.

Through a drafting oversight in the original charter school law in 1998, BOCES are not authorized to contract with charter schools for any purpose.  BOCES and the State School Superintendents Association favor correcting this oversight.

This could be done by simply adding the phrase “charter school” to the list of authorized contractors enumerated in Section 1950.4(h) of the Education Law, and by adding a subdivision that would allow BOCES “to enter into contracts with any charter school, to the same extent and for the same purposes as such contracts with public school districts are authorized. Such charter schools are hereby authorized and empowered to do and perform any and all acts necessary or convenient in relation to the performance of any such contracts.”

Third, allow charter schools in districts with more than one charter school to create multi-school consortia to provide special-education services. Right now, this is inadvertently prohibited by language in the charter-school law that does not allow a school’s students in any one grade to be educated at more than one school location.  This quirky provision was intended to avoid a single charter from being used to create multiple schools.  But, this provision has served to limit charter schools from working together to serve students with disabilities.  This could be fixed by amending Section 2853.1(b-1) of the Education Law to add a provision that stipulates “a charter school, located within a city with more than one charter school, that provides special education programs and services to its students at different locations pursuant to paragraph a of subdivision 4 of section 2853 of this Article shall be deemed to be operating at a single site.”

Fourth, require district schools and charter schools to transfer promptly any academic records related to students requiring special-education services when such students transfer schools. A set time line such as 10 business days upon receipt of request could be established.  In the case of transferring students, delays in record transfers can impair the ability of the receiving school to provide appropriate special-education services.

Fifth, once the reforms noted above are enacted, mandate that charter schools that are serving less than a set percentage of the host district’s special-education average, say 75 percent, provide an admission preference to students with disabilities. Even if it made sense, the union’s proposed quota system won’t work because charter schools can’t admit students that don’t apply.  Alternatively, establishing an admission preference would help ensure that students needing special-education services who did apply would be nearly guaranteed admission.

To this end, Section 2854.2(a) of the New York Education Law could be amended to add a clause that reads: “provided, however, that charter schools determined by the State Education Department to be serving less than 75 percent of the local district average for special-education students shall be required to grant an admissions preference to students with disabilities, which shall supersede any other preference granted other than to siblings of existing enrollees, until such point at which the 75 percent threshold is attained.”

Importantly, setting the threshold that triggers this mandatory enrollment preference below the district average recognizes that, as has been shown in studies by the State Education Department and others, districts tend to over-classify some students for special-education purposes – particularly African-American and male students.  It would be wrong to encourage charter schools to perpetuate this over-classification problem by tying them to the same inflated threshold.

Sixth, grant any charter application that would serve special-education students aggressively a priority over any other charter application. Presently, the New York charter-school law grants an approval preference to applications serving students “at risk of academic failure.”  A new and higher application approval preference should be granted to applications for special-education charter schools (like the New York Center for Autism Charter School), or to applications for schools that can demonstrate they would offer extensive special-education programming.  This would require amending Section 2852.2 of the Education Law to require granting “the highest preference to applications that demonstrate the capability to provide high-quality education to students with disabilities.”

Seventh, require annual publication by the State Education Department of special-education statistics for charter schools and district schools. This report should break out for each school the number of students with disabilities, by grade and by classification, allowing policymakers and others to track whether these reforms are having the intended effect.

Taken together, this set of proposals would create the additional capacity within charter schools to serve more students with special-education needs, encourage the creation and approval of schools that better serve special-education students, and create a mechanism for monitoring progress.

The UFT Under New Boss Moves to Disembowel Charter Schools

by Thomas W. Carroll

In recent years, Randi Weingarten — as president of the United Federation of Teachers – attempted to reposition the UFT as a progressive union that did not fear charter schools, and in fact embraced them.  Weingarten’s boldest move in this regard was her decision to open a UFT charter school.

In her last years as UFT president, Weingarten attempted to distance herself from the more viscerally anti-charter state teachers union, the New York State United Teachers, which one suspects she viewed as out of step with the new national education-reform zeitgeist.

Now, as president of the American Federation of Teachers, Weingarten is continuing her efforts, most recently with clever packaging of a recent New Haven teachers contract hailed by President Obama (see my column on this contract here).

I haven’t always agreed with Weingarten, but I always respected her sense of strategy, her ability to frame issues, and her perfect ear for how far the political process could be bent in her union’s direction.

Over the weekend, however, we got a glimpse of a new UFT.  Michael Mulgrew, the new UFT president, issued with much fanfare a blistering report offering charter-school “reforms” that would disembowel charter schools in New York City and beyond.  Not a subtle passage in the 16-page document.  All red-meat for the anti-charter union masses as he attempts to position himself for re-election in spring 2010, after failing to secure a city teachers contract from the Bloomberg administration.

The report, issued on the Christian Sabbath, was timed to come out before the start of the 2010 legislative session.  Early action on a cap hike is anticipated as the state finalizes its Race to the Top application due January 19th.

With a new UFT leader, gone is Weingarten’s velvety smoothness.  Mulgrew’s report had all the subtlety of an ironworkers strike.

The shrewd negotiator has been replaced by the blunt instrument.

Some of the crasser proposals include the following:

• mandatory unionization of all charter schools (so much for “teacher voice”);
• elimination of the State University (which ironically awarded the UFT charter to Weingarten) as a chartering entity;
• a ban on the use of professional educational management organizations;
• government price fixing of the fees that charter schools could pay nonprofit charter management organizations;
• government control of management salaries (even if paid for with private funds);
• mandated payment of union wages on all construction contracts (even though the state provides no building aid for charter schools); and,
• admissions quotas for charter schools that would mandate that each school enroll at all times exactly the percentage of special-education students, free-lunch students, and English language learners as does the local district average (although no such requirement applies to district schools, whose school-by-school numbers vary widely).

The full report can be found here.

The UFT’s point is not actually the advancement of any specific proposal, but rather to throw out there as much mischief as possible to gum up charter schools – even if it tanks union-represented charter schools in the process.  Mulgrew is not even pretending that he is open to charter schools.

Weingarten, not fearing electoral defeat, would not have risked tanking New York’s Race to the Top application merely to make a political point.  Instead, I suspect she would have offered a few key demands in exchange for a cap hike.  And she would have gotten them.

Mulgrew — by overplaying his hand and doing it in such an openly crass way — risks killing New York’s chances at $350 million to $700 million in much needed educational dollars.

What remains to be seen is whether the Governor and state legislators, in the midst of New York’s mounting fiscal crisis, are so cavalier, too.  Let’s hope not.

by Thomas W. Carroll

The United Federation of Teacher’s Leo Casey – in two recent blog entries on its edwize.org blog (The Charter Challenge and We Were Born – It Just Wasn’t Yesterday) – tackles the subject of charter schools and what he perceives as “right wing” influence in its ranks.

Leo, although feverish at times, is a nice guy, so I thought I would give his arguments serious thought and offer my response.  Peter Murphy of the New York Charter Schools Association responds elsewhere (Living in Make-Believe – and Malice)

First, in Leo’s two pieces, the “dog that doesn’t bark” is perhaps the most interesting feature.  Leo leaves out that NYSUT and the UFT supported a $50 million cut in expected charter-school funding last year through what was called a “funding freeze.”  This is the only cut in school funding the teachers unions have ever supported, and was an interesting move considering Leo’s stated desire to “organize the unorganized charter school teaching force.”  Some teachers might wonder why they should pay dues to a union that is trying to cut their funding.

While Leo urges charter schools to serve a broader cross-section of students, he leaves out that NYSUT this year blocked giving charter schools the ability to contract with BOCES to provide special-education services, as districts currently are allowed.  No mention either that NYSUT – at this very moment — is attempting to stop a lift in the cap on charter schools (the cap of 200 schools will soon be exhausted) and put in place “hard caps” that limit the number of parents who may choose charter schools in any specific community.

This anti-charter activity runs counter to the teachers unions’ efforts to be viewed as a positive friend of charter schools.

Second, Leo correctly notes “charter schools have become an increasingly important and permanent fixture of American education.”  The UFT is in the vanguard among unions in recognizing this obvious fact.  I am glad we are no longer arguing over this.

Third, Leo overstates his case when he rails about the alleged “right wing” dominance of charter schools.  Most charter schools’ trustees, principals, and faculty members are not remotely conservative or “right wing” and most are likely Democrats or Independents.  Charter-school parents are mostly African-American, Latino, and economically disadvantaged – also not voting blocs normally associated with right-wing politics.  So, Leo’s “right wing” description falls flat.  Now, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a conservative here or there, but, hey, they are people, too – even if Leo finds them distasteful.

Fourth, Leo only applies the “progressive” label to Green Dot charter schools (which in New York only runs UFT-organized schools), teacher-led cooperatives, and “a growing number of unionized charter schools.”  Now, while Leo uses the phrase “right wing” too broadly, he is much too miserly when dispensing the tag “progressive.”  Isn’t it interesting that one needs to be unionized or union friendly to be considered progressive?  I never realized that the terms were synonymous.

Fifth, Leo refers to me as a “charter school luminary.”  Wow, my mom would be proud – although perhaps Leo was being sarcastic.

Lastly, I think Leo’s attempt to tar and feather people who disagree with the UFT on some issues goes a bit overboard, and distracts from what’s really important.

What we all should focus on is finding ways to create enough good schools – district, charter, or private – so that every child in New York State is attending a school of which we all would be proud.  Right now, that isn’t the case.  And, that problem is a much bigger concern, I would argue, than seeing who fits Leo’s litmus test of being a UFT-approved “progressive.”

January 19th.  That’s the deadline for state legislative action on key elements of New York’s Race to the Top application.

The New York State Board of Regents recently gave approval to an impressive educational-reform plan developed by Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and State Education Commissioner David Steiner.

The Regents plan includes dozens of measures that would raise the cap on charter schools, overhaul teacher-preparation programs, create merit pay for teachers, institute a new data system to track student and teacher performance, and close failing schools.  (See my recent Op-Ed column in the New York Post.)

Although much of what the Regents approved requires no legislative action, some major items do, including a lift in the state’s charter-school cap, reworking the state law that governs the removal process for bad teachers, and replacing the state’s “data firewall” with a new approach that allows student results to be a central factor in evaluating teachers.

Under the reviewer guidelines for the Race to the Top program, actions taken by state legislatures after January 19th will not count for “round one” applications.  And no one knows how much money will be left for the “round two” applications filed in June 2010.  Thus, it is crucial for New York’s state legislature to act before January 19th.

If legislative approval is secured, New York would be in a highly competitive position relative to other key states.  If not, New York will be sunk.

The price tag for inaction will be from $350 million to $700 million in lost federal funds.

This loss would come on top of Governor Paterson’s school-aid cut (via an illegal withholding of 10 percent of state aid to schools), and a scheduled dropoff in stimulus dollars of $2 billion according to estimates by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.

Amid all of this, the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) has made the calculation that they would rather the state lose much needed Race to the Top dollars – even in the midst of the state’s severe fiscal crisis – than be forced to reconsider its long-held opposition to many of the items approved by the Regents.

Right now, however, the real obstacle is not the teachers union, but rather political inertia and dysfunction.

The Governor, after indicating he would unveil a Race to the Top bill last week, instead simply endorsed a lift of the charter-school cap but did nothing to actually advance that outcome.

Similarly, the Senate Democratic leadership favors lifting the charter-school cap, but to date has only provided rhetorical support – not legislative action on the Senate Floor.

The Governor is not set to deliver his State of the State Message until Wednesday, January 6th, 2010 – a mere 13 days before January 19th.  Action during that short 13-day window will require discussions to begin in earnest now.

Time – like the state’s cash balance – is running out.

Looking for the latest news, fresh commentary, and detailed analysis on New York education reform?  You can now find it at FERA’s New York Ed Reform blog.  FERA researchers and guests will regularly be offering their views on what’s going right and wrong in New York’s schools, highlight the latest reform initiatives, and summarizing news at the State Capitol, in the Big Apple, and the entire Empire State.