In a packed room, the House Education Committee heard Tuesday from supporters and opponents of a plan to give taxpayer-funded scholarships for low income students that attend private schools.

The crowd precluded any committee debate or a vote on the bill, as legislators used the limited time to hear from the public – those in favor and against the Opportunity Scholarship Act

The committee did roll out a new version of the bill and an accompanying summary that explains the bill.

“The bill before you, in reality, will not help the students it is intended to help,” Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson told the committee. She focused her comments on the fact that private schools do not have to report student test results and performance in the same way public schools do.

“If a grading scale of A-through-F is good for public schools, then it should be good for private schools,” she said. How else, she asked, would parents know if the private school they are choosing actually offers a better education than their current public school.

Proponents of the bill said that voucher programs in other states have helped improve student test scores.

“I’m struck by the amount of opposition to something some people have never seen working in progress,” said Jeanne Allen is the Founder and President of The Center for Education Reform.

The committee is expected to debate and vote on the bill next week.

A proposal to let North Carolina students use public money to attend private or religious schools drew fierce debate Tuesday from a state House panel.

The House Education Committee heard from both sides of the voucher debate but didn’t take a vote on a bill giving $4,200 annual grants to poorer students. The program is limited in its first year to students who qualify for the national school lunch program but would expand to families earning up to 133 percent of that income level in subsequent years.

A family of three couldn’t earn more than $36,131 to qualify in the 2013-14 school year. The program would start with $10 million, but the legislature would allocate $50 million annually by 2015.

The bill authorizes the State Education Assistance Authority, which currently administers only college financial aid, to develop a system to awarding grants. In later years, top priority would go to eligible students who received grants the previous year followed by those living at or below the national school lunch income level and students entering kindergarten or first grade.

Families with incomes greater than the federal school lunch level could only receive up to 90 percent of the annual grant. The original version of the bill would have allowed families of four making $70,000 a year to qualify.

Opponents of the bill argue it will siphon money from an already weakened public school system and fail to adequately meet the costs of private schools. They also say the proposal rests on shaky constitutional ground and its accountability measures need to be closer to the reporting requirements of public schools.

Supporters argue research shows that voucher programs benefit not only disadvantaged students but the public school system by creating greater competition. They also say the choice should rest with a parent whose child is stuck in a low-performing school.

Both sides cite different studies that strike different conclusions about the effectiveness of vouchers, which have divided policymakers. Of the 12 states that have voucher programs, eight of them offer vouchers to students with special needs and four offer them to low-income students, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The bill has primary sponsors from both parties, with two African-American Democrats signing onto the effort.

Rep. Marcus Brandon, D-Guilford, said telling parents with children in failing schools that they have no choice because of where they live is anything but “progressive.”

“If you’re prepared to call that progressive, if you’re prepared to call that Democratic ideals, if you’re prepared to call that equal opportunity and equal access, I will challenge you on that,” he said.

Minnie Forte-Brown, the vice chairwoman of Durham Public Schools, said vouchers aren’t offered in most states for a reason. She argued other states haven’t been happy with their programs and noted that the Louisiana Supreme Court recently struck down a voucher program because it diverted money from public schools.

“If you use best practices, you oppose vouchers,” she said. “If you want to lift North Carolina from 48th in the country in school funding, you oppose vouchers.”

Jeanne Allen, president of The Center for Education Reform, said Milwaukee has seen great improvements in graduation rates since becoming the first place in the U.S. to start a voucher program in 1990, but she urged lawmakers to look beyond numbers to the personal stories of disadvantaged students.

“Sure, we can all make numbers dance and sing, but the proof is in the pudding,” she said.

State Superintendent June Atkinson opposes the bill because it doesn’t require the kind of public reporting and accountability measures public schools face.

The bill will return to the Education Committee for amendments and a vote. It will then go to the Appropriations Committee, followed by the House floor.

Public charter schools now serve 2.3 million children nationwide and enjoy growing bipartisan support. But they are still loathed by teachers unions and traditional public-school officials more interested in protecting their piece of the school-funding pie than in providing students trapped in failing schools with a chance at a decent education.

Those familiar with the controversy over charters have probably heard of the 2009 study by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes. The Credo study, routinely cited by groups opposed to school choice, analyzed charter schools in 16 states and found that, on average, only 17% were outperforming conventional public schools while 37% were doing worse.

However, Credo noted that the study’s results “vary strongly by state and are shown to be influenced in significant ways by several characteristics of state charter school policies.” These include laws determining how many charters can operate in a state, who can authorize them, and the level of autonomy these schools will have from certain state regulations.

Although largely ignored, this finding is especially relevant in light of a more recent Credo study focusing solely on the performance of Michigan’s charter schools. The findings, released in January, portray Michigan’s charter schools as a clear-cut success story and provide lessons for other states.

Credo found that 42% of Michigan’s charter schools are outperforming conventional public schools in math and 35% of charters are outperforming in reading. Only 6% of charters are underperforming in math and only 2% in reading. Further, 82% of charters produced growth in average reading test scores and 72% did so in math.

Of the 56 outcomes for different subgroups of students and schools the study dissected, 52 showed charter-school students outperforming their peers in conventional public schools.

Perhaps the most notable finding was that from 2007-11 the typical Michigan charter-school student made annual academic gains in both reading and math equivalent to about two additional months of learning, compared with his or her peers in conventional public schools. The longer a student stayed in a charter school the greater the annual gains. After five years the average charter-school student made cumulative learning gains equivalent to an entire additional year of schooling.

As Cindy Schumacher, executive director of the Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University, told the press after the Credo report was released, the report “shows that the Michigan Model is working, with it leading to significant improvements for children, especially at-risk children who are historically underserved.”

The results were even more pronounced in Detroit, welcome news in a city where an estimated 47% of the adult population is functionally illiterate, according to the Detroit Regional Workforce Fund. The typical Detroit charter-school student made annual gains worth about three additional months of learning in both reading and math compared with their peers in nearby conventional schools. Of the 100 or so charters in Detroit, 47% did significantly better than conventional schools in reading and 49% did significantly better in math. Only one charter school in Detroit did worse in reading compared with the city’s district-run schools.

The Michigan Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, and other defenders of the public-school status quo have tried to play down these results. Some point out that the Credo study didn’t include every charter school. In fact, the study included 86% of all charter-school students in the state and remains the most comprehensive and rigorous study of Michigan charter schools.

Credo’s researchers matched about 85,000 charter-school students to their “virtual twins” in local conventional public schools based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, prior test scores and other factors. Individual learning gains made by each set of students was then measured over time.

Sadly, the media have largely ignored Credo’s findings or grossly distorted them. For example, days after the report was released Huffington Post ran a story calling it a “cautionary tale” and emphasizing that a large portion of charter schools’ average reading and math scores were below the state average. This comparison turns a blind eye to the well-documented impact poverty has on average standardized test scores. Since Michigan charters—often found in the school districts struggling most—enroll a far higher percentage of poor students (70%) than do the state’s conventional schools (43%), the finding biases the results against charters.

Credo has analyzed charter-school performance in 19 states to date. Only Louisiana and New Jersey even come close to rivaling the results from Michigan. Why? Michigan allows a variety of public entities to authorize charter schools, the most common being universities and community colleges. This frees charter schools from needing school-district approval to operate, which is like requiring new businesses to ask existing competitors for permission to open. By allowing more charters than most states, Michigan has developed a functional charter-school market, so much so that lawmakers recently took the bold step of removing the charter-school cap altogether.

Michigan’s charters also aren’t subject to teacher tenure laws and have the flexibility to retain or release teachers based on performance. This helps keep the best teachers where they belong, in the classroom, and the worst where they belong—looking for another line of work.

Finally, Michigan has several strong networks of education-management companies, including National Heritage Academies and New Urban Learning. These companies are much maligned for operating as for-profits, but as the Credo study pointed out, the charter schools they run did better on average than those directly managed by a charter-school board.

It is no surprise then that the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter nonprofit, recently gave Michigan one of only four “As” on its report card of state-charter school laws. If states want to create a healthy charter-school sector to boost outcomes for students, the Michigan experience offers valuable lessons.

Mr. Van Beek is director of education policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute based in Midland, Mich.

CER President Jeanne Allen discusses teachers unions’ efforts to unionize charter schools on Fox & Friends.
 

When it comes to school choice and giving parents the power to control their child’s education, Kansas earns a failing grade.

Earlier this month the Center for Education Reform released its annual Parent Power Index, which ranks and grades states based on parent choice in education. Overall Kansas earned a score of 59 percent, and ranked 42nd among the states, only outpacing West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont, Alabama, Kentucky, Iowa, North Dakota and Nebraska.

“The Sunflower State has a less than sunny outlook for reform, making it more difficult for parents to find new and more effective options for their children,” according to the index. “Like other rural states, Kansas offers some access to digital learning modalities, but other than that, parents have few choices and few assurances that teacher quality is acceptable.

States were assessed on a number of different “elements of power,” including transparency, teacher quality and media reliability, among others. Here’s how scoring for the index worked out, according to EdReform.com:

Charter Schools and School Choice were weighted as 75% of the overall grade. Bonus points are calculated based on whether a state has a parent trigger law, and whether or not information on schools and school board elections are transparent, or available to the public. States earn .05 for having a parent trigger law and .01 each for transparency of schools and school board elections, for a possible bonus total of .07. Ties are broken based on choice implementation and how influential these categories are on affording parents true power. Bonus points of .05 were awarded to Alabama for its March 2013 passage of a tax credit law and to Washington for adopting a charter school law in Nov. 2013. Neither state has been graded on these elements as the programs are not operational to date.

While Kansas earned points for electing pro-education reform Gov. Sam Brownback, the state was docked for transparency and for having “one of the weakest charter laws in the country.”

A culture of complacency is keeping Virginia from furthering student success, one educational expert says.

Virginia parents are practically powerless in determining the course of their children’s education, and student success is urgently low.

If, that is, Virginia’s fall this month to 39th nationally in the Center for Education Reform’s Parent Power Index and eighth-grade reading proficiency of less than 36 percent mean anything.

But contentment with the status quo within the Virginia General Assembly perpetuates those failures, said Kara Kerwin, vice president of external affairs for the D.C.-based nonprofit Center for Education Reform.

Virginia scores well on some national reports, such as the 2012 national report card by Education Week, which ranked Old Dominion schools fourth in the nation. But instead of relying on results such as reading proficiency, lawmakers look to reports like Education Week’s, which rely heavily on investments rather than outcomes to say Virginia schools are A-OK, Kerwin said.

“Really, the Legislature just failed to act on anything because they just said, ‘We’re fine, we’re number four.’”

That’s about what Delegate Bob Tata, retiring from the General Assembly after 30 years and thus, from his post as House Education Committee chair, told Watchdog.org.

“We have a pretty decent school system. One survey has us ranked fourth in the country,” Tata said.

But Kerwin said something is clearly awry when only one-third of eighth graders master reading proficiency.

CER’s Parent Power Index grades states on how much freedom they afford parents in the categories of school choice, charter schools, online learning, teacher quality and transparency. Virginia was ranked 35th in January of this year, but other states’ improvements have laid bare Old Dominion stagnation.

“Other states might have improved. Virginia hasn’t done anything,” Kerwin said.

The Virginia Association of School Boards did not return a request for comment on the Parent Power Index.

Virginia — with some of the strictest charter school laws in the nation and just four charter schools to serve the commonwealth’s 1.3 million K-12 students — almost automatically earns a poor ranking from CER, Kerwin said.

Parents’ ability to choose, Kerwin said, is one of the most important factors in student success.

“When parents can vote with their feet … we see all schools improve,” Kerwin said. “Without the power to make choices, parent involvement is meaningless.”

But, Tata said, parents’ ability to determine the course of their children’s educations isn’t the most crucial factor in academic success.

“Like everything else, it depends pretty much on money and where you live,” Tata said. “If you live in Fairfax County, I’d imagine the schools are pretty much excellent. … I think you could probably trace the education system pretty close to the dollar average that the parents make.”

But is it fair for a student’s relative success to depend on parental wealth and how much those parents are willing to pay in property taxes?

“Life is not fair,” Tata said. “I guess that’s a start. People are willing to pay more taxes in those areas,” like Fairfax County, he said.

But Kerwin said that line of thought is perpetuated by reports, like Education Week’s, which tend to rely on investments over results.

“It’s really based on inputs not outputs,” Kerwin said. “Virginia spends a lot of money — for what?”

Kerwin said case studies shatter the perception that more money directly translates to better schools.

“It’s not about how much money,” Kerwin said.

A study of Tennessee’s schools by the University of Memphis, published March 2012, concluded, “This research revealed that per pupil expenditure did not have a significant relationship to ACT scores or to the TCAP (Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program) writing assessment scores. An implication is that giving schools more money does not necessarily raise student achievement, but rather how the money is spent can raise student achievement.”

And University of Arkansas researchers in a yet-to-be-released report commissioned by the Walton Family Foundation found that District of Columbia Public Schools, which make up more than 40 percent of the District’s schools, receive 46 percent less funding than the District’s public schools.

What does make for effective schools, Kerwin argued, is parents’ ability to choose.

“What’s interesting about that though is that charter schools in the district are completely outperforming DCPS schools,” Kerwin said. “And it’s not about money. It’s about giving choice for quality schools.”

Say this much about the Center for Education Reform: It’s not a fan of the quality of public education in Alabama.

The only proof you need is this passage from a recent CER report: “The only other thing this state has going for it is that its teacher quality index isn’t a complete failure. Parents also have access to a decent school report card to better understand their schools, but school board elections are held in October, a busy time for parents to get engaged.”

Ouch.

A recent CER effort ranked all 50 states in what it calls the “Parent Power Index.” Alabama ranked 46th — poorly, in other words, which is so customary in national reviews of states’ public education systems. At the heart of the poor ranking was the state’s lack of charter schools, which, as most Alabamians know, has been a hot legislative topic in Montgomery for some time.

From here, it’s interesting to view the two sides of the broader issue: In Alabama, proponents of our public education — such as the Alabama Education Association, local and state school boards, the governor’s office and the state Legislature — constantly talk of how proud they are of our schools and how convinced they are of their quality.

Yet, out-of-state agencies who study such things consistently point to real and obvious deficiencies. Rarely do the two sides agree.

Arizona ranked sixth on The Center for Education Reform’s Parent Power Index, which means parents have access to quality education options and are provided with good information to make smart decisions about their children’s education.

The states were ranked on prevalence of charter schools, school choice, teacher quality, transparency and access to data, online learning, pro-reform governors and parent trigger laws, where parents have an opportunity to turn around failing schools.

The rankings pointed to Arizona’s scholarship program for students with disabilities and a tax credit that has helped more than 30,000 students opt into new schools. In addition, Arizona’s charter school law has provided more than 200,000 children with choices about their schooling.

Click here to see the top 10 states in The Center for Education Reform’s Parent Power Index.

Here are more specifics on Arizona from the index:

72%: Arizona’s graduation rate
1539: Average SAT test score
19.7: Average ACT score
33%: 4th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math score
31%: 8th grade NAEP math score
26%: 4th grade NAEP reading score
$8,006: Per pupil funding
1,077,831: Public school enrollment

Louisiana parents have more power in their children’s education than parents in nearly every other state, according to a new report card from the pro-charter Center for Education Reform. The state moved from sixth to third in the group’s “parent power index,” scoring 80.5 percent, or 2.55 on a four-point scale. Indiana and Florida topped the list.

The score prioritized access to charter schools and taxpayer-funded vouchers for private and parochial schools. Louisiana scored 2.3 on charters and 3.0 on vouchers. According to state data, six percent of public school students attend charters, though the rate is far higher in New Orleans.

“States where parents have options to choose tend to yield higher growth rates in student achievement,” the study’s authors said in a statement. “(In) states where systems and policies in place limit choice, parental engagement is hindered.”

The center gave Louisiana extra points for its parent trigger law that lets parents vote to put perennially failing schools into the state Recovery School District, and for making information about schools easily available to the public.

The state received a 1.7 on teacher quality — which in this case measures whether states use student performance data to hold teachers accountable — and a 2.3 for its online learning options.

Following Gov. Bobby Jindal’s controversial 2012 education reform package, Louisiana has received a number of high marks from national groups that are pro-charter and often pro-voucher.

In January, Louisiana was ranked first in the nation by StudentsFirst, led by former D.C. school chancellor Michelle Rhee. That score emphasized the state’s new teacher evaluation system that takes half a teacher’s grade from student performance on standardized tests and eliminates tenure as a factor in layoffs.

That same month, Louisiana placed sixth in the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ annual rating of charter laws.

Critics say these report cards don’t measure how well programs are implemented, or how well students score on national measures like the ACT. In 2011, the most recent data available, the National Assessment of Educational Progress put Louisiana near the bottom for fourth- and eighth-grade math and reading.

The national charter alliance has listened: Next year, its ratings will factor in graduation, dropout and attendance rates, and academic performance.

Moreover, teachers unions and school boards are currently challenging the constitutionality of two of Jindal’s three 2012 education reform laws, including the teacher evaluation and voucher programs. The governor has said he’s willing to hold a special legislative session if the state Supreme Court strikes down either law.

The Palmetto Gold and Silver Awards for the 2012-2013 school year showed six schools of the South Carolina Public Charter School District being recognized by the South Carolina Department of Education. The recognition comes as the District creates a new non-profit foundation to help support the schools of the District, including the nine additional schools that are scheduled to open in August 2013.

The Palmetto awards are based on the criteria in the statewide Accountability Manual as approved by the state Education Oversight Committee. Calhoun Falls Charter School received a gold award for general performance.

Palmetto Scholars Academy secured gold in general performance and gold for closing the achievement gap.

South Carolina Connections Academy, an online virtual school for K-12 students, merited a silver award for closing the achievement gap. This is the second year that South Carolina Connections Academy secured recognition. Also building on previous success, Spartanburg Charter School won gold for general performance and silver for closing the achievement gap. York Preparatory Academy won gold for general performance in the elementary grades and won silver for the middle school grades. Fox Creek High School won gold for the fourth time (that school transferred to the state-wide district from the Edgefield County School District in 2012).

“We are extremely pleased with these results,” stated South Carolina Public Charter School District Superintendent Wayne Brazell, Ph. D. “The families, teachers, and administrators in these schools have worked very hard, and I’m glad to see that these six school communities are being recognized,” he added. “We are really beginning to see the academic improvements in our public charter schools.”

The state nod comes after several national organizations have likewise noted success in the state’s charter school community. Earlier this year, the Center for Education Reform in Washington, D. C. announced that South Carolina had moved from seventeenth to twelfth in the nation regarding the best state public charter school laws.

That improved ranking came after the South Carolina General Assembly worked to enhance the state law last year, which Governor Haley signed last spring. In addition, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers noted the state-wide charter school district’s commitment to creating parent-choice options. “A high-performing charter school network is dependent on strong charter school authorizing. We commend the South Carolina Public Charter School District for working to fulfill the charter school promise by providing schools with the autonomy to innovate and the accountability necessary for charter schools to thrive,” comments Greg Richmond, president and CEO of NACSA, which supports and monitors public charter school authorizers.

The recent success arrives as the state-wide district launches a non-profit foundation. The board of that foundation hired the inaugural executive director on March 25, 2013. Daniel J. Cassidy is now leading the efforts of the SC Foundation for Public Charter Schools to build additional financial support for the schools of the state-wide district. “I’m very excited about furthering the well-being of these schools,” said Cassidy. “Our goal is to develop a support system for these schools that will empower the entire professional learning community in each school to provide the highest quality public education that they can.” Cassidy, who was appointed to federal education work by two previous US Presidents, is no stranger to public school choice and public charter schools, in particular. His efforts will reinforce the current seventeen schools of the District and the additional nine schools coming in August 2013.

South Carolina Public Charter School District Opening this year will be Lowcountry Leadership Charter School in Hollywood, South Carolina with a projectbased learning model and an emphasis on the heritage of the Lowcountry. The school will serve students in grades K-9 in its first year, adding additional grades over the next three years. Fairfield Charter School in the nearby West Ashley area of Charleston will be a blended school, offering both traditional classroom courses and virtual learning courses over the Internet to address the needs of local high school students who seek scheduling flexibility. Also in that area of the state will be Bridges Preparatory School in Beaufort; the school will offer grades K-6 initially and add a grade each year to become a K-12 school. Bridges will offer a curriculum that has a heavy emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and math, as presented through the Paideia model of whole-child learning.

Further north, Coastal Leadership Academy will be located in Myrtle Beach and offer grades 9-12. The school will provide a project-based learning approach with an emphasis on community service and stewardship of the environment.

In the Midlands area, two schools will join the state-wide district. Midlands Middle College will offer grades 11 and 12 on the Airport Campus of Midlands Technical College in Lexington. Midlands Middle College is becoming a public charter school after years of being a very successful regional choice program for several school districts in the area. In Columbia, the SC Science Academy plans to offer middle school grades and plans to add additional higher grade levels each year until offering grades 6-12. The school is committed to offer a curriculum with a heavy emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and math.

The Pee Dee Math, Science, and Technology Academy will be located in Lee County and serve students in K-2 in the initial year of school operations with additional grades being added until the school offers grades K-6.

In the Upstate, one new school will join the district. The GREEN Charter School will be located in Greenville and will offer grades K-6 in the initial year with additional grades being added until the school is a K-12 school.

The GREEN name is an acronym for Greenville Renewable Energy EducatioN. The school will offer a curriculum that is rich in math and science, especially as related to energy studies and renewable resources.

Cyber Academy of South Carolina will offer a fully online virtual school program beginning with students in grades K-9 and adding three more grade levels over the next three years. The fully virtual program will be available to students anywhere in South Carolina who have routine access to the Internet.

The SC Public Charter School District currently has approximately 11,500 students in seventeen schools, including more than 8,000 students who are learning virtually online in grades K-12. The virtual learning students can be found in every county of the state. Each charter school agrees to operate under a charter, which is a legal contract between the governing board of every school and the authorizing office. Accountability is an important aspect of the charter school approach. Like traditional public schools, charter schools do not charge tuition, and charter schools must address the entire state curriculum for all grade levels offered. Students are required to meet all state graduation requirements, and the schools are required to administer all state standardized testing, which is conducted under monitored conditions. All public charter schools are subject to state laws regarding professional licensure for school staff, though in public charter schools, such staff members are at-will employees of the school. This means that teachers can be released from employment without regard to complex hiring and dismissal practices. The schools are supervised by a governing board that includes parents and other members of the community who are ultimately responsible for the operations and performance of the school. Unlike a magnet school, public charter schools are open to all students as long as space permits.

For more information about the South Carolina Public Charter School District, please access the district web site at www.sccharter.org or call the district office at (803) 734-8322. That web site also has links to the web sites of the current schools of the district and to the schools opening in August 2013. For additional information about the newly created SC Foundation for Public Charter Schools, please access the foundation’s web site at www.fundingexcellence.org or call Dan Cassidy at (803) 546-4955.