Great Hearts Academies’ decision to pull out of Tennessee until state law creates an impartial charter school approval process is setting the stage for a legislative battle over who will grant approvals in the future.

After the Metro Nashville school board denied a charter to Great Hearts for the third time, the Arizona-based charter school company released a statement Wednesday saying it was withdrawing from the state.

However, Great Hearts said it might apply for a charter “when Tennessee’s laws and charter approval process more effectively provide for open enrollment, broad service to the community and impartial authorizers.”

The idea of creating a state agency to grant charters has been discussed in Tennessee and elsewhere. The Tennessee Charter School Association is researching methods used in other states to take politics out of the conversation.

“Every application should not be a brand-new political discussion,” said Matt Throckmorton, association executive director. “It is the children of Nashville that lose out to adult problems, again.”

Throckmorton called the state charter school law “flawed” and hopes to find a system that will allow charter applicants to work with local boards of education during the application process, but will not allow politics to affect the decision. That model will probably find its way into the association’s legislative agenda for January, he said.

“We are going to have charter schools — the law has been written,” he said.

Metro Nashville board members don’t consider their decisions to deny a charter to Great Hearts three times to be political. They have said the main issue was whether the school would cater to an affluent, largely white population or work to create a more diverse student body by providing transportation to students from other areas of the city.

Great Hearts, on the other hand, believes politics was the deciding issue because it claims to have a diversity plan that meets or exceeds Metro’s own plan.

Great Hearts accused the Metro school board of violating the law in its denial of a charter and said “we are hopeful that the state will take action so that, in the future, Great Hearts can reapply to a different, impartial charter authorizer.”

The school board’s vote on Tuesday defied an order by the state Board of Education directing that the charter application be approved. Great Hearts had appealed to the state after being denied twice by Metro.

Great Hearts said the “hostile” nature of the school board would make a successful school opening impossible even if a charter were granted at this point.

Mayor Karl Dean, a charter schools supporter, described the decision as “a sad day for the children of Nashville who would have benefited from the high-quality education Great Hearts was ready to offer.”

Local control
Newly installed Metro school board members Amy Frogge and Jill Speering voted differently on Great Hearts — Speering in favor and Frogge against — but both said they oppose removing charter school decisions from local school boards.

A new charter-approval group would be answerable to the person who appointed the members, and that would create a new political agenda, they said.

“I am concerned about the idea that this might become a state issue,” Frogge said. “We need to keep it local. We have the best perspective on how a school might impact a community.”

Speering wants parents to make their wishes known before the legislative session begins in January. She voted in favor of Great Hearts because “we don’t have a clear diversity plan,” she said. “Because of that, we are partly at fault that there are misunderstandings between us.”

She and other board members hope to create a formal diversity plan that can be viewed by charter applicants in advance so they know what Metro officials are looking for in a new charter school.

Schools spokeswoman Meredith Libbey said the district “will learn from this experience,” adding, “It is important that we work collaboratively and set a clear vision and mutually understood expectations.”

Since the start of their dance with Richmond Public Schools (RPS) in the spring of 2008:

- Patrick Henry was forced to go through the RPS approval vote process three times

- Patrick Henry was initially left out of this year’s RPS budget

- Patrick Henry is to be held to higher standards than other RPS schools, but will receive 21 percent less funding

- Patrick Henry was “generously” granted leased space from RPS at a cost of $1 per year – facilities which came with a crippling renovation price tag of close to $1 million

Enough already?

Apparently not. Yesterday, a school more than 2 years in the making, one that will offer families a longer school year and a curriculum focus not available in traditional Richmond schools, was faced with the possibility of being on the receiving end of one more hit – the potential refusal by RPS to hire their first principal just as the final preparations for their inaugural school year get under way.

And why? An effort by the district to force facilities compliance Patrick Henry administrators have been making every effort to raise the money for, a compliance the Richmond School District never themselves deemed important until slapped with a lawsuit they now want to share with a school who’s doors have yet to open.

At the end of the day, this didn’t happen. But it could have.

Virginia needs to do more than create a new layer of bureaucratic oversight of the charter school approval process. Legislators need to realize that as long as they allow local school boards  to remain the sole “deciders” on the future of charters in the Commonwealth, only one decision will likely prevail…

One point I want to make is that all of us are going to have responsibilities to get this economy education moving again. And when I saw an article today indicating that Wall Street bankers Congress had given themselves the education system $20 billion $100 billion worth of bonuses in new spending — the same amount of bonuses as they gave themselves in 2004 effectively doubling federal funding of education — at a time when most of these institutions were are teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don’t provide help that where they don’t have any other choices for educating their children, the entire system could come down on top of our heads if the next generation – indeed, this generation – can’t compete in a global economy — that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful.

And part of what we’re going to need is for folks on Wall Street in the education BLOB who are asking for help to show some restraint accountability and show some discipline transparency and show some sense of responsibility. The American people understand that we’ve got a big hole that we’ve got to dig ourselves out of — but they don’t like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole even as they’re being asked to fill it up.

And so we’re going to be having conversations as this process moves forward directly with these folks on Wall Street the BLOB to underscore that they have to start acting in a more responsible accountable and transparent fashion if we are to together get this economy rolling again. There will be time for them to make profits an opportunity for those with rigorous programs to put them in play in the classroom, as is already seen in charter schools across the country, and there will be time for them to get bonuses quality teachers to excel and be compensated on their merits rather than their seniority — now is not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner Duncan to send to them — and Secretary Geithner Duncan already had to pull back one institution that had gone forward with a multimillion dollar jet plane purchase tenure protection contract at the same time as they’re receiving TARP ARRA money. We shouldn’t have to do that because they should know better. And we will continue to send that message loud and clear.

Having said that, I am confident that with the recovery package moving through the House and through the Senate, with the excellent work that’s already been done by Secretary Geithner in consultation with Larry Summers and Paul Volcker and other individuals education reformers in the trenches, that we are going to be able to set up a regulatory framework that allows accountability, transparency and choice to rights the ship and that gets us moving again. And I know the American people are eager to get moving again — they want to work be able to choose the best education for their children, be it in a conventional, charter or private school. They are serious about their responsibilities; I am, too, in this White House and I hope that the folks on Wall Street in the BLOB are going to be thinking in the same way.

(brought to you as a public service by M.O.M.S. – Mothers Opposed to Misappropriated Stimulus)

First, Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform says that “A union contract is actually at odds with a charter school.”  “Actually” is the wrong word there.  The more accurate way to say that would be, “could be.”  Why?  Well one example is the unionized and highly sucessful Green Dot Public Schools, another is KIPP Bronx, which has been unionized for some time.  And there are others, good and bad.  What matters is what’s in the contract not unionization per se.

Beyond the quote as printed, what I actually said was that unions and the charter CONCEPT are at odds. Green Dot (Andy’s example) created its own contract, one that works within its model (though results in NYC will be interesting). What KIPP schools are experiencing is the equivalent of a takeover, even disguised as a restructuring, where management will no longer be able to set the tone or culture of their schools. That might work for some teachers who believe their work conditions are the most important aspect of their school, but this move puts students second. This thinking is what brought us the system failure that, to date, un-co-opted charter schools have sought to correct.

Knowledge is power, KIPP’s moniker, might need to be more aptly applied to the parent company’s involvement and understanding of local school issues. The knowledge of what was afoot in two more of their NYC schools to convince teachers there to unionize may have helped them avert the rising mediocrity that will no doubt color this otherwise No Excuses school model. One wonders what campaign was hatched to convince so many KIPPsters that a regulatory environment would be preferable to the freedom they now enjoy.

Union leaders in NYC blogging yesterday provide some clues:

In a letter delivered to co-principals Jeff Li and Melissa Perry this morning, the teachers said that they had decided to unionize in order to secure teacher voice and respect for the work of teachers in their school. We want “to ensure that the [KIPP] motto of ‘team and family’ is realized in the form of mutual respect and validation for the work that is done [by teachers] each day,” they wrote.

The letter stressed that the decision to organize was directly connected to the teachers’ commitment to their students. “[A] strong and committed staff,” the teachers wrote, “is the first step to student achievement.” Unionization, the teachers believe, will help create the conditions for recruiting and retaining such a staff.

“We organized to make sure teachers had a voice, and could speak their minds on educational matters without fearing for their job,” says KIPP AMP teacher Luisa Bonifacio.

“For us,” KIPP AMP teacher Emily Fernandez explains, “unionization is ultimately all about student achievement, and the ability of teachers to best serve students at this crucial middle school time in their education.”

Mutual respect and validation?

Unionization is all about student achievement?

This isn’t the way typical charter teachers talk. In fact, it’s the way union teachers who take jobs in charters talk to their potential prey.

The teachers who signed up in these labor intensive KIPP charters knew when they signed up that long hours were part of the prevailing KIPP philosophy.

The New York Times today quotes KIPP founder David Levin, saying “Just because the school is available to kids at all times, that doesn’t mean that each and every staff member has to be available at all times. We’ve been able to successfully work that out.”

But union organizers believe they shouldn’t be forced to work those long hours. After all, this is the same union that cries over salary differentiation and opposes any performance pay that is tied to student performance and individually awarded to teachers. The move to unionize is a trade of “No Excuses” for kids in favor of “No More Time” for teachers.

I mention in the Times this morning that as long as you have nonessential rules that have more to do with job operations than with student achievement, you are going to have a hard time accomplishing your mission.

The UFT – and its parent, the AFT – has been duplicitous in its support of charters. They often send in loyal teachers to cause dissention, as was the case across the water in New Jersey with successful charters such as the Rutgers-based LEAP more than a year ago. “Don’t you think we work too long for this money?” they ask innocently, and with a tenuous economy and fear in the hearts and minds of anyone who relies on a job for basic sustenance, drinking the union kool-aid may have been a bit easier for the NYC KIPP folks than others might have imagined.

Knowledge is power. Indeed.

It reminds us that you can have anything you want in America – unless you’re poor, that is.

Nowhere is this more clear than when it comes to schooling your child. Much has been written about where the Obamas might send their babies to school. As they are looking at private schools, their new hometown paper, The Washington Post, is reminding them that there are other people who want such a choice, but the President-elect doesn’t support the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program that allows such a choice with taxpayer dollars.

There are others who want him to go to a charter school. One of his biggest fans, Democrats for Education Reform, a group which really believes he will carry their agenda, is pleading for him to choose a charter school in D.C., one of the 62 or so high quality schools currently serving almost 30 percent of the D.C. public school population.

While my organization is the nation’s leading advocate for charter school choices, I’m not so sure I want to see the Obamas choose a charter school. Though I disagree with our president-elect on many issues and fear that obsessive government solutions and spending will push us further into a government dependency, I want the best for him and his family when they come to Washington. I want him to have no distractions other than those that impact us all.

And frankly, if Sasha and Malia were to attend a charter school, here are just a few of the problems they’d encounter that are documented from schools here and throughout the country:

• Every month or so they’d learn that a city council member or their own member of Congress was pushing legislation to curb the freedom of the school to provide the kind of quality programs that such freedom encourages. They’d worry that such a move might hurt their school, and they’d have to wonder whether their choice was safe.

• They’d read in the newspaper about some study from some ivory tower institution, claiming that charters do well because they cream the best students. Even though Malia and Sasha would be sitting next to the most diverse student body they’d probably ever have encountered, from an income and possibly a color perspective, the Obamas would be told that their daughters are only doing well because the school creams.

• The head of the teachers union nationally, a friend otherwise to the Obamas, might say at a national convention (as she has numerous times) that charters don’t play by the same rules as other public schools, that they are mostly likely to reject special ed kids, when in fact most special ed children sitting along side Malia or Sasha may have hidden their disability at a traditional public school because their parents feared the dreaded IEP process of the school administration.

• The girls might be in a building that is less than stellar. The cafeteria probably doubles for the gym and the school meeting space where the choirs sing at Christmas or holidays. Unless the charter has a big fat grant from the Gates Foundation, there’s probably no nurse’s station because the public pays for only traditional public school facilities and not charter public facilities in most places.

• If the Obamas lived in Delaware they might wake up one day to learn of a moratorium on charters, making it possible that the legislature will further roll back the law. In South Carolina, they’d know that after two years, the state and school boards still refuse to give each charter more than 65 percent of what other schools receive. This would compromise just about every program they deliver.

• Mrs. Obama, as first lady of a child at a charter, you might also find the most dedicated, involved and passionate parents you’ll ever meet. Despite most being lower income and not having been involved at a school ever before, you’ll be overjoyed to learn that parents who choose are parents with power and they use it wisely. However, they often have to go to The Hill or show up at rallies at the city council to prove that they matter. That’s because there are city council members who really don’t believe that we should “do” public education in any other way than the one system that was created by Horace Mann back in the 1800s.

For these reasons, and more we could go into at great length, I’d prefer you find a place like Sidwell Friends or Georgetown Day (even though teachers are addressed by their first name there – you won’t find that kind of lower expectation of kids at a charter school) because for some strange reason, no one criticizes those schools. They are strong and deserve your patronage. There are lots of good private schools in the area of course. The Catholic schools offer a quality education for almost a quarter of what you’d pay at Georgetown Day. There are schools like the nonsectarian Nannie Helen Burroughs School, which has educated African-American children in their community for more than 20 years and is almost on a par with a Georgetown Day, minus the sports and international activities, APs, etc. They do it with whatever funds they can find. Thankfully the Opportunity Scholarship Program helps their children get the education they deserve.

I for one know that the Obamas will come to believe that. Meanwhile, I found the most difficult and important choices I’ve made are the schools to which I’ve sent my four children. Unfortunately, Maryland came to charter schools too late for me and in my county the only proposal ever sought was denied on arrival by a school board that just couldn’t figure out why parents might need a choice. I’m one of the estimated 25 percent in Montgomery County, MD that sends my children to private schools, so clearly there’s a demand.

But back to the President-elect and his family. Charter schools are working for about 1.5 million children, and in the District they are the key to why Chancellor Rhee can do what she is doing. They have opened up minds and hearts to a better way for children. The few that haven’t worked have, like any failing school should be, closed. But despite working 20 hours a day, on less funding and still meeting the needs of the vast majority of their kids, these schools have to fight every day for the right to exist and must put up with political shenanigans that have more to do with adult jobs than children’s welfare.

So stay out of that one, Mr. President-elect. We don’t need you to have more worries than the ones you’ll already have upon arrival.