I had a bit of an outburst when I read this in today's NJDOE press release:
Under the Christie Administration, the Department has strengthened charter operations by:
Following a careful and stringent three-stage review and approval process for new charter school applicants to evaluate the quality of the proposed educational program, the capacity of the founding team to implement that program, and the need for the proposed school in the community.
How then do they explain that Acting Commissioner Cerf, in the first round of applications he oversaw from start to finish, approved Regis Academy Charter School? The same charter school that has managed to enroll only 37 students since Cerf approved it in September, while a petition urging the Governor and the Acting Commissioner to deny Regis it's final charter has gathered more than 2,000 signatures in 2 weeks. Not to mention that the legislators representing Cherry Hill and Voorhees have come out against Regis and questions abound as to the real reasons for Regis' approval, especially when Regis' application wasn't well rated by reviewers. (Thanks Jazzman!)
Way to conduct a careful and stringent approval process that gauges the "need for the proposed school in the community" guys!
LOL
Showing posts with label charter application process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charter application process. Show all posts
Friday, March 2, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Four Strikes and Tikun Olam's Still Not Out?
The New Jersey Department of Education, according to their timeline, was supposed to release the decisions on the latest round of charter applications on Tuesday, January 17th.
Notice that charter applicants must submit their applications and addenda not just on particular days, but by a specific time. If they fail to meet these deadlines their applications are automatically disqualified.
OK, let's put that aside. The Governor's State of the State speech was understandably postponed due to the unexpected death of Assemblyman Alex DeCroce. It makes sense that when the State of the State got delayed, the announcements did to.
But for 3 days? Why wait until Friday, and why drop it at 4:30 on that Friday unless you are trying to bury the story?
Luckily a couple of committed reporters ran stories about the approvals anyway, and also touched on the denial of Tikun Olam. Jessica Calefati somehow managed to get a comment from lead applicant Sharon Akman. Unfortunately the quote she got was that "of course" Akman will reapply.
Bob Makin of the Home News Tribune did not reach Akman, but did speak to yours truly. Even before I saw Calefati's article and knew Ms. Akman intends to reapply I was careful to point out that the denial was not necessarily the end of the road for Tikun Olam:
"I am thrilled that the hard work and determination of so many people in Highland Park, Edison and New Brunswick has paid off,” Cimarusti said. “It is a tremendous accomplishment that even though the applicants came to the table with a $600,000 federal grant, we were able to make the NJDOE see that this application was not worthy of approval.
"The victory is short-lived, however. This is the fourth denial, and there is no reason to think there won’t be a fifth application, especially since the NJDOE denial does not mean the end of the USDOE grant. Our next task is to meet with the USDOE to make sure they fully understand that the grant was awarded based on false information. If the grant is rescinded, which it should be based on the misrepresentations, I think we may finally see the end of the Tikun Olam application.”
That about sums it up. I am proud of what we have accomplished, but I am realistic about the road ahead.
The good thing is we have the power of the people on our side. The people of Highland Park, Edison and New Brunswick do not want this charter. The community leaders and elected officials in these communities do not want this charter. The school districts are united in their opposition to this charter.
We also have the truth on our side. In an earlier post I detailed the section of the US Code that speaks to the penalties for making false statements to a federal official. The grant application that was submitted to the United States Department of Education by Ms. Akman has already been brought to the attention of the Office of the Inspector General, so there could potentially be very real consequences for Ms. Akman at the federal level.
What I have yet to detail is that there should be penalties at the state level as well. Each and every founder that is part of a New Jersey Charter School Application is required to sign a Founder Statement of Assurances:
Got that?
As a founder, I herby certify UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY that the information submitted in this application for a charter for Tikun Olam Hebrew Language Charter High School… is true to the best of my knowledge and belief…
So what does "penalties of perjury" mean, anyway?
1. N.J.S.2C:28-3 is amended to read as follows:
2C:28-3. Unsworn Falsification to Authorities
a. Statements "Under Penalty." A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if he makes a written false statement which he does not believe to be true, on or pursuant to a form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable.
b. In general. A person commits a disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to mislead a public servant in performing his function, he:
(1) Makes any written false statement which he does not believe to be true;
(2) Purposely creates a false impression in a written application for any pecuniary or other benefit, by omitting information necessary to prevent statements therein from being misleading;
(3) Submits or invites reliance on any writing which he knows to be forged, altered or otherwise lacking in authenticity; or
(4) Submits or invites reliance on any sample, specimen, map, boundary-mark, or other object which he knows to be false.
c. Perjury provisions applicable. Subsections c. and d. of section 2C:28-1 and subsection c. of 2C:28-2 apply to the present section.
2C:28-3. Unsworn Falsification to Authorities
a. Statements "Under Penalty." A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if he makes a written false statement which he does not believe to be true, on or pursuant to a form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable.
b. In general. A person commits a disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to mislead a public servant in performing his function, he:
(1) Makes any written false statement which he does not believe to be true;
(2) Purposely creates a false impression in a written application for any pecuniary or other benefit, by omitting information necessary to prevent statements therein from being misleading;
(3) Submits or invites reliance on any writing which he knows to be forged, altered or otherwise lacking in authenticity; or
(4) Submits or invites reliance on any sample, specimen, map, boundary-mark, or other object which he knows to be false.
c. Perjury provisions applicable. Subsections c. and d. of section 2C:28-1 and subsection c. of 2C:28-2 apply to the present section.
It's all well and good that Ms. Akman would like to reapply despite the intense media scrutiny her application has received, but how can the New Jersey Department of Education allow Ms. Akman to reapply when it has been plainly shown that she has repeatedly misrepresented information in her applications?
Why have applicants sign this Statement of Assurances if the NJDOE allows them to make false statements, under penalties of perjury, time and time again? Makes it seem like the charter application process is just a free-for-all with little to no accountability, doesn't it?
And if it's not just a free-for-all, how can there be no consequences for Ms. Akman for her past applications?
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Charter advocates LOVE to throw around the F word
Jersey Jazzman's take on Cerf's interview with the Associated Press reminds me of a letter from the Cherry Hill Superintendent and School Board. They were responding to Pastor Amir Khan who wrote an editorial in which he reported that in Cherry Hill “the share of black children who failed the standardized eighth-grade language arts test was three times the corresponding share of white children.” Quite a dire situation, clearly a charter is warranted, STAT!
Except that Dr. Reusche has actual data to back up the fact that Cherry Hill schools are improving educational outcomes for ALL of their kids. The Inquirer only ran a bit of her response mixed in with the other letters to the editor, while Pastor Khan got his own piece.
Here is Dr. Reusche's letter in it's entirety:
In Cherry Hill, Our Public Schools Stand Tall
On behalf of the students, staff, and parents of the Cherry Hill Public Schools, we take issue with a recent op-ed piece in which Pastor Amir Khan tossed out some test data with very little context. He reported that “the share of black children who failed the standardized eighth-grade language arts test was three times the corresponding share of white children” in Cherry Hill.
First, let’s look at actual numbers. On the Spring 2011 NJ Assessment of Skills and Knowledge for Grade 8 (NJASK 8), 12 of 68 black students failed the test. Of the 12, four had been in the district for two years or less, including one who was new to the district in 2011.
The 2011 scores for Grade 11 students show that only three of 62 black 11th graders failed the language arts High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) and one of those students was new to the district. In total, 95.2 % of black students in 11th grade were proficient or advanced proficient on the language arts HSPA.
The progress Cherry Hill has made in narrowing the achievement gap between black and white students is best illustrated by a cohort analysis that examines student growth over time. For black students who took the NJASK as 8th graders in our district in 2008, and then took the HSPA as 11th graders here in 2011, language arts proficiency improved from 90% to 96%. For white students, proficiency improved from 95% to 98%. An achievement gap of 5 percentage points between black students and white students in 2008 had narrowed to 2 percentage points by 2011. Similarly, for black students who took the NJASK as 5th graders in 2008 and as 8th graders in 2011, language arts proficiency improved from 63% to 86%. For white students, proficiency improved from 82% to 94%. A gap of 19 percentage points between black and white 5th graders had narrowed to 8 percentage points by the time these same students were 8th graders. We are confident that the gap will continue to narrow - or even disappear - when these students take the HSPA in 2014.
The results are clear: the data indicates the longer students stay in the Cherry Hill Public Schools, the better they achieve!
Do we have more work to do? Of course - we always do. We are committed to improving student achievement at all grade levels for all students. We continue to identify ways to improve our work despite ever-increasing challenges. Our budget is nearly $4.5 million less than it was in 2009-2010. State aid, which accounts for less than 7% of our revenues, is about $5 million less than the district’s original state aid appropriation for 2009-2010. (Aid was reduced that year when Governor Christie took school districts’ excess surplus – or savings – to balance the state budget.)
Our demographics continue to change; in “relatively affluent” Cherry Hill, 17% of students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch. At eight of our 19 schools, the percentage is 24% or higher. At one of our elementary schools and one of our middle schools, one of every three children is eligible. The percentage of students who receive special education services has grown to 19%.
We find it reckless, then, for Pastor Khan to state that Regis Academy will cost the Cherry Hill district “a mere 1 percent of its budget.” When it comes to taxpayer dollars, we can’t afford to be so cavalier. The $1.9 million we are required to set aside for Regis Academy’s projected enrollment of 169 Cherry Hill students is 64% of the total amount our budget will be allowed to grow under the state’s 2% levy cap.
Governor Christie himself said recently that his preference is “that charter schools be put in failing school districts” (you can access the audio clip on our district website). The intent behind the charter school law was to provide a lifeline for students trapped in chronically failing school districts. No matter how you spin the test data, that isn’t Cherry Hill.
Dr. Maureen Reusche, Superintendent, and the Members of the Cherry Hill Board of Education
Seth Klukoff, President
Kathy Judge, Vice President
Sherrie Cohen
Eric Goodwin
Colleen Horiates
Carol Matlack
Steven Robbins
Elliott Roth
Wayne Tarken
Thank you Dr. Reusche for speaking out for your students with straight forward, no nonsense data that clearly demonstrates that Cherry Hill IS NOT FAILING black students. Rather, Pastor Khan was just throwing around the "F" word as supposed proof of "need" for his charter. Pesky suburbs with their facts.
How many arguments for need could be deflated as easily as Dr. Reusche pops Regis Academy's bubble if districts were given the time to fully vet applications and charter applicants had to actually make their case to districts and communities, not just the Acting Commissioner?
Maybe the reason his charter was approved has more to do with Pastor Khan's relationship to Rev. Reginald Jackson and the Black Ministers Council of New Jersey that meets regularly with Governor Christie?
Except that Dr. Reusche has actual data to back up the fact that Cherry Hill schools are improving educational outcomes for ALL of their kids. The Inquirer only ran a bit of her response mixed in with the other letters to the editor, while Pastor Khan got his own piece.
Here is Dr. Reusche's letter in it's entirety:
In Cherry Hill, Our Public Schools Stand Tall
On behalf of the students, staff, and parents of the Cherry Hill Public Schools, we take issue with a recent op-ed piece in which Pastor Amir Khan tossed out some test data with very little context. He reported that “the share of black children who failed the standardized eighth-grade language arts test was three times the corresponding share of white children” in Cherry Hill.
First, let’s look at actual numbers. On the Spring 2011 NJ Assessment of Skills and Knowledge for Grade 8 (NJASK 8), 12 of 68 black students failed the test. Of the 12, four had been in the district for two years or less, including one who was new to the district in 2011.
The 2011 scores for Grade 11 students show that only three of 62 black 11th graders failed the language arts High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) and one of those students was new to the district. In total, 95.2 % of black students in 11th grade were proficient or advanced proficient on the language arts HSPA.
The progress Cherry Hill has made in narrowing the achievement gap between black and white students is best illustrated by a cohort analysis that examines student growth over time. For black students who took the NJASK as 8th graders in our district in 2008, and then took the HSPA as 11th graders here in 2011, language arts proficiency improved from 90% to 96%. For white students, proficiency improved from 95% to 98%. An achievement gap of 5 percentage points between black students and white students in 2008 had narrowed to 2 percentage points by 2011. Similarly, for black students who took the NJASK as 5th graders in 2008 and as 8th graders in 2011, language arts proficiency improved from 63% to 86%. For white students, proficiency improved from 82% to 94%. A gap of 19 percentage points between black and white 5th graders had narrowed to 8 percentage points by the time these same students were 8th graders. We are confident that the gap will continue to narrow - or even disappear - when these students take the HSPA in 2014.
The results are clear: the data indicates the longer students stay in the Cherry Hill Public Schools, the better they achieve!
Do we have more work to do? Of course - we always do. We are committed to improving student achievement at all grade levels for all students. We continue to identify ways to improve our work despite ever-increasing challenges. Our budget is nearly $4.5 million less than it was in 2009-2010. State aid, which accounts for less than 7% of our revenues, is about $5 million less than the district’s original state aid appropriation for 2009-2010. (Aid was reduced that year when Governor Christie took school districts’ excess surplus – or savings – to balance the state budget.)
Our demographics continue to change; in “relatively affluent” Cherry Hill, 17% of students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch. At eight of our 19 schools, the percentage is 24% or higher. At one of our elementary schools and one of our middle schools, one of every three children is eligible. The percentage of students who receive special education services has grown to 19%.
We find it reckless, then, for Pastor Khan to state that Regis Academy will cost the Cherry Hill district “a mere 1 percent of its budget.” When it comes to taxpayer dollars, we can’t afford to be so cavalier. The $1.9 million we are required to set aside for Regis Academy’s projected enrollment of 169 Cherry Hill students is 64% of the total amount our budget will be allowed to grow under the state’s 2% levy cap.
Governor Christie himself said recently that his preference is “that charter schools be put in failing school districts” (you can access the audio clip on our district website). The intent behind the charter school law was to provide a lifeline for students trapped in chronically failing school districts. No matter how you spin the test data, that isn’t Cherry Hill.
Dr. Maureen Reusche, Superintendent, and the Members of the Cherry Hill Board of Education
Seth Klukoff, President
Kathy Judge, Vice President
Sherrie Cohen
Eric Goodwin
Colleen Horiates
Carol Matlack
Steven Robbins
Elliott Roth
Wayne Tarken
Thank you Dr. Reusche for speaking out for your students with straight forward, no nonsense data that clearly demonstrates that Cherry Hill IS NOT FAILING black students. Rather, Pastor Khan was just throwing around the "F" word as supposed proof of "need" for his charter. Pesky suburbs with their facts.
How many arguments for need could be deflated as easily as Dr. Reusche pops Regis Academy's bubble if districts were given the time to fully vet applications and charter applicants had to actually make their case to districts and communities, not just the Acting Commissioner?
Maybe the reason his charter was approved has more to do with Pastor Khan's relationship to Rev. Reginald Jackson and the Black Ministers Council of New Jersey that meets regularly with Governor Christie?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Ti-i-i-ime, is NOT on my side, no it's not...
On December 20th I sent the following email to the Charter School Office, Carly Bolger, soon to be ex-director of said office, and I cc:ed Acting Commissioner Cerf:
Hello Carly,
Applicants submitted their addenda responses on Friday 12/16 to the Commissioner and to the districts. The Application Review and Approval Process Document in the New Jersey Department of Education 2011 Charter School Expedited Application states:
This is also found in 6A:11-2.3 (f): The district boards of education or State district superintendents of the districts of residence of the proposed charter schools shall review the applications and addenda.
2. The recommendations of these district boards of education or State district superintendents shall be forwarded to the Commissioner within 30 days of receipt of the addenda.
However, 30 days from the receipt of the addenda, which was received by districts on Friday 12/16, is Monday 1/16. According to the timeline in the application this is the day before the final decisions are announced by the Commissioner:
August 17, 2011 Technical Assistance Training at NJDOE
October 15, 2011 4:15PM Application due
December 9, 2011 Request for Addenda released to qualified applicants
December 16, 2011 4:15PM Addenda information due back to NJDOE
January 3, 2012 – January 13, 2012 Applicant interviews
January 17, 2012 Final decisions announced by Commissioner
If the districts are afforded 30 days by law to respond to an addenda how can the decisions can be announced on the 17th? As you know, new information is often submitted in an addenda, and it is crucial for the districts and communities to have a chance to respond. It is also imperative that district and community comments receive a substantive review from your office before the commissioner makes his final decision.
Please advise.
I have gotten no response...
Here is the relevant page from the application:
In response to Occupy the DOE on December 16th, DOE spinmeister Justin Barra said:
“In addition to evaluating the quality of the proposed program, we also take into account feedback both from districts and the general public. We take seriously all public comment that we receive in the review process,” Barra said. “We welcome an open, honest, and productive dialogue about proposed charter applications.”
I already called Mr. Barra out on how "open, honest, and productive" the department's dialogue with districts and communities about proposed charters is, but this is far more outrageous.
Please Mr. Barra, explain to me how the Acting Commissioner is going to be taking district and community responses to addenda "seriously" when they are due at 4:15 the day before he is announcing his decisions? Are we to believe that the Acting Commissioner will be pulling an all nighter on the 16th pouring over district responses? Doesn't it stand to reason that the decisions will already be made on the 16th, the day the community responses are due, by law, if the formal announcement is on the 17th?
So forgive me if I remain skeptical that the NJDOE is taking district and community feedback into account when the Charter School Office has created a timeline that completely negates the opportunity districts are afforded, BY LAW, in the charter school application process.
Even time is on the side of charter applicants...
Hello Carly,
Applicants submitted their addenda responses on Friday 12/16 to the Commissioner and to the districts. The Application Review and Approval Process Document in the New Jersey Department of Education 2011 Charter School Expedited Application states:
- The districts identified in the application will have the opportunity to review applications and addenda, if applicable, and submit comments to the Commissioner. The comments of these district boards of education and/or state district superintendents must be forwarded by the district(s) to the Commissioner within 60 days of receipt of the applications and within 30 days of receipt of the addenda.
This is also found in 6A:11-2.3 (f): The district boards of education or State district superintendents of the districts of residence of the proposed charter schools shall review the applications and addenda.
2. The recommendations of these district boards of education or State district superintendents shall be forwarded to the Commissioner within 30 days of receipt of the addenda.
However, 30 days from the receipt of the addenda, which was received by districts on Friday 12/16, is Monday 1/16. According to the timeline in the application this is the day before the final decisions are announced by the Commissioner:
Application Timeline
August 17, 2011 Technical Assistance Training at NJDOE
October 15, 2011 4:15PM Application due
December 9, 2011 Request for Addenda released to qualified applicants
December 16, 2011 4:15PM Addenda information due back to NJDOE
January 3, 2012 – January 13, 2012 Applicant interviews
January 17, 2012 Final decisions announced by Commissioner
If the districts are afforded 30 days by law to respond to an addenda how can the decisions can be announced on the 17th? As you know, new information is often submitted in an addenda, and it is crucial for the districts and communities to have a chance to respond. It is also imperative that district and community comments receive a substantive review from your office before the commissioner makes his final decision.
Please advise.
I have gotten no response...
Here is the relevant page from the application:
In response to Occupy the DOE on December 16th, DOE spinmeister Justin Barra said:
“In addition to evaluating the quality of the proposed program, we also take into account feedback both from districts and the general public. We take seriously all public comment that we receive in the review process,” Barra said. “We welcome an open, honest, and productive dialogue about proposed charter applications.”
I already called Mr. Barra out on how "open, honest, and productive" the department's dialogue with districts and communities about proposed charters is, but this is far more outrageous.
Please Mr. Barra, explain to me how the Acting Commissioner is going to be taking district and community responses to addenda "seriously" when they are due at 4:15 the day before he is announcing his decisions? Are we to believe that the Acting Commissioner will be pulling an all nighter on the 16th pouring over district responses? Doesn't it stand to reason that the decisions will already be made on the 16th, the day the community responses are due, by law, if the formal announcement is on the 17th?
So forgive me if I remain skeptical that the NJDOE is taking district and community feedback into account when the Charter School Office has created a timeline that completely negates the opportunity districts are afforded, BY LAW, in the charter school application process.
Even time is on the side of charter applicants...
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Sorry Mr. Brown, but I gotta DIS your opinion piece
I have a thought or two about Neil Brown's guest opinion column.
I am much more than disappointed Mr. Brown. That the boutique charters getting approved are not "special" is the tip of the iceberg.
In an earlier post I shared my Senate Education Committee testimony. I was truly disheartened to be steam rolled by lobbyists in crisp suits with shiny brochures as I and other parents from across the state tried to explain to the Education Committee the effect the current legislation is having on our districts. All of the lobbyists against the legislation Save Our Schools NJ is fighting for are bought and paid for by big foundations like the Walton Foundation whose "core strategy is to infuse competitive pressure into America’s K-12 education system." While this may not have been the initial intention of charter legislation, that's who is impacting the legislative agenda now.
If you are truly paying attention to what's happening with charter schools in New Jersey you can't help but be genuinely dismayed. Please see my previous post about the for profit charter operator already getting a foothold in New Jersey. Please also read the numerous letters here and here and here from increasingly frustrated superintendents tired of receiving huge bills for charters they feel are not warranted in their districts. The other common themes are that local district and community wishes are ignored in the application process, and real problems with applications are being ignored too in the NJDOE's charter approval process. Did you know that in the last round paid national consultants led teams of NJDOE employees in reviewing applications? Of course this was only revealed after a lawsuit and several OPRA requests.
Are you seeing the pattern? The same national lobbyists that are pushing for legislation are reviewing the applications. Gee, that just doesn't seem right now does it?
And this is your best argument against local control legislation that will take these decisions away from national lobbyists with corporate agendas and put the power back in the hands of the people of New Jersey?
I am disappointed by what is said by many of those who will establish recently approved charters. When asked what is special about their school’s program, they often say something like: “We plan to hire high-quality teachers and have longer hours.” My former students would call that a “duh” statement — their fancy term for a tautology.
All too often, proposed schools seem more like boutiques, catering to communities that demonstrate neither much need nor broad demand, while so many other communities are desperate for truly innovative schools. Rarely is anything proposed that is innovative or experimental, which circumvents the original charter school legislation’s intent. I am much more than disappointed Mr. Brown. That the boutique charters getting approved are not "special" is the tip of the iceberg.
In an earlier post I shared my Senate Education Committee testimony. I was truly disheartened to be steam rolled by lobbyists in crisp suits with shiny brochures as I and other parents from across the state tried to explain to the Education Committee the effect the current legislation is having on our districts. All of the lobbyists against the legislation Save Our Schools NJ is fighting for are bought and paid for by big foundations like the Walton Foundation whose "core strategy is to infuse competitive pressure into America’s K-12 education system." While this may not have been the initial intention of charter legislation, that's who is impacting the legislative agenda now.
If you are truly paying attention to what's happening with charter schools in New Jersey you can't help but be genuinely dismayed. Please see my previous post about the for profit charter operator already getting a foothold in New Jersey. Please also read the numerous letters here and here and here from increasingly frustrated superintendents tired of receiving huge bills for charters they feel are not warranted in their districts. The other common themes are that local district and community wishes are ignored in the application process, and real problems with applications are being ignored too in the NJDOE's charter approval process. Did you know that in the last round paid national consultants led teams of NJDOE employees in reviewing applications? Of course this was only revealed after a lawsuit and several OPRA requests.
Are you seeing the pattern? The same national lobbyists that are pushing for legislation are reviewing the applications. Gee, that just doesn't seem right now does it?
And this is your best argument against local control legislation that will take these decisions away from national lobbyists with corporate agendas and put the power back in the hands of the people of New Jersey?
Unless residents are privy to a proposed school’s mission statement and curriculum, how can they possibly make an informed decision? They can’t. Given our traditionally low voter turnout, the problem is compounded.
You don't think voters could grasp the mission of a proposed charter yet they can vote on multi-million dollar budgets? And why do residents have to be privy to the curriculum? In the current application process a completed curriculum isn't even a requirement. If the Acting Commissioner doesn't need to see the schools curriculum before giving a school the thumbs up or down, why is this a reasonable argument against the voters getting to decide? And if low voter turnout is one of your reasons, hell, why do we vote on anything? You definitely need stronger arguments here Mr. Brown.
Local control legislation sounds a lot more reasonable than a system where the Acting Commissioner gets to make the decisions but the districts and taxpayers get to foot the bills. You don't find THAT disappointing?
The more than 4,200 people that signed the Save Our School NJ petition for local control are distressed that not only do they have no say in how their district's money is being spent, they are almost entirely shut out of the application process.
The charter proposal you are working on for homeless children and children of incarcerated parents sounds noble, but why shouldn't district schools have the funding and ability to service these children without taking much needed funding away from the rest of the children that will be left behind in the district schools?
And while I agree that the state should reevaluate the original intent of the charter school law, it is abundantly clear that the players with money and influence have no intention of time traveling back to 1995. Our state is on an entirely different trajectory.
Disillusioning, isn't it?
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Imagine there's no conspiracy? It's easy only if you're Tom Moran...
Tom Moran's editorial today is preposterous. I am not an investigative journalist, but with just a bit of careful reading it's pretty easy to see the handwriting on the wall. Allow me to illustrate.
Last month I noticed a story out of St. Lois, MO about Imagine Schools, the largest for profit charter management chain in the country.
Imagine Schools operates 75 schools in 12 states and the District of Columbia. As a full-service charter school operator, Imagine is basically a multi-state “school district” educating approximately 40,000 students (about the same size as the Newark public school system, while larger than Cincinnati, Minneapolis, or Buffalo).
Their St. Lois schools are failing - big time. So much so the mayor called for every single school they operate in his city to be shut down. Imagine not only operates the schools, they also make a killing buying, selling and leasing the facilities that their charters occupy. They have a whole separate arm of their business that handles these transactions called Schoolhouse Finance. Such an innocuous sounding name, isn't it? Conjures up images of a little red schoolhouse in the middle of a prairie.
Except for this:
And guess where Sam Howard is from? NEW JERSEY! A quick google search on Mr. Howard revealed this, from last October after the list of fast-track charter school applications were reported by Mr. Moran's own paper:
Gee, Rice is looking less and less like a conspiracy theorist now… here is proof from the Star Ledger that the largest for-profit charter operator in the country has already helped write and submit four applications in urban districts, one of which is Rice's.
Notice who the quote is from? Yup, our buddy Samuel Howard who has been placed on leave for allegedly taking kickbacks in Imagine's real estate dealings in St. Louis. Interesting that Imagine is finding New Jersey "favorable for (education) alternatives."
By the way, Imagine also takes money right of the top of a school's operations as well. Check this out from the Journal Gazette in Fort Wayne, IN. The article is aptly titled: EDUCATION INC. – Part I: Private company skirts public boards in running tax-funded charter schools; For-profit makes decisions for tax-funded Imagine
In April 2006, when Willis announced he wanted to start a charter school, Imagine Schools Inc. was already on site and involved – a year before the board would have its first meeting. In September of that year, Imagine-Fort Wayne Charter School Inc. was formed, allegedly the local organization that would start the school and contract with Imagine Schools Inc. of Virginia to run it.
But the contact person for the non-profit Imagine-Fort Wayne Charter School was Imagine Schools Inc.’s executive vice president, Jason Bryant, and the corporation’s address was Bryant’s house in Fort Wayne. The incorporator was Imagine Schools’ attorney, Joseph Miller, of Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis.
Two months later, the local non-profit filed for tax-exempt status with the IRS – the paperwork was again handled by Miller – and signed a contract with Imagine Schools Inc.
The contract was signed by Willis; board members never publicly discussed it or voted on it, as it would be five months before their first meeting. Instead, they signed a resolution that claims it has the same authority as if it had been approved unanimously by the board at a public meeting.
Indiana Public Access Counselor Andrew Kossack said there is no provision in the state’s Open Meetings Act that would allow such action. State law requires all public bodies to take all official action during public meetings.
That contract gave away the board’s power to make decisions on issues such as busing, hiring and the name of the school itself. It also gave Imagine Schools Inc. 12 percent of every penny the school took in. (emphasis mine)
Mr. Moran, I ask you to look into whether any of the four Imagine backed applications made it through last October's round of applications. Like I said, I am not an investigative journalist, just a nosy mom trying to protect her kid's schools. Unlike Governor Christie and Acting Commissioner Cerf, I do not want to see for profit charter networks that are unaccountable to taxpayers "outsource the operation" of ANY kid's school, thank you very much.
Last month I noticed a story out of St. Lois, MO about Imagine Schools, the largest for profit charter management chain in the country.
Imagine Schools operates 75 schools in 12 states and the District of Columbia. As a full-service charter school operator, Imagine is basically a multi-state “school district” educating approximately 40,000 students (about the same size as the Newark public school system, while larger than Cincinnati, Minneapolis, or Buffalo).
Their St. Lois schools are failing - big time. So much so the mayor called for every single school they operate in his city to be shut down. Imagine not only operates the schools, they also make a killing buying, selling and leasing the facilities that their charters occupy. They have a whole separate arm of their business that handles these transactions called Schoolhouse Finance. Such an innocuous sounding name, isn't it? Conjures up images of a little red schoolhouse in the middle of a prairie.
Except for this:
The charter school operator Imagine Schools has placed a top executive on administrative leave and has received a stern warning from the sponsor of its St. Louis schools, following revelations about the company's financial dealings.
Top officials at Missouri Baptist University met this week with Dennis Bakke, chief executive of Imagine Schools, for a "candid and honest discussion" about the university's relationship with the company, said university spokesman Bryce Chapman.
Findings about Imagine's St. Louis real estate and contractor dealings in recent days are 'serious" and "need to be investigated." Chapman said.
Bakke has been in town this week giving Imagine's six underperforming charter schools in the city extra attention and support after a Post-Dispatch series showed them to be entangled in complex real estate dealings that have contributed to high rent payments while classrooms lacked basics such as textbooks.
The company has placed Sam Howard, executive vice president, on administrative leave pending the results of an internal investigation. Imagine spokeswoman Lori Waters said. The Post-Dispatch reported that a contracting firm that renovated Imagine school buildings had made $32,000 in payments to a "Sam Howard." Howard had no explanation for the payments. (emphasis mine)
And guess where Sam Howard is from? NEW JERSEY! A quick google search on Mr. Howard revealed this, from last October after the list of fast-track charter school applications were reported by Mr. Moran's own paper:
Among the proposals were some with ties to out-of-state charter school networks, like Imagine Schools, which helped local residents write applications in Jersey City, Newark, Camden, Trenton.
Imagine serves 40,000 students in 72 schools in 12 states, according to its website. "New Jersey is an area that is favorable for (education) alternatives," Samuel Howard, Imagine School’s executive vice president, said.
Christie has said he hoped to attract charter networks to New Jersey, but out-of-state companies face a roundabout process. A local group must first win approval for a charter then, if it wants to outsource the operation, must ask for bids. (emphasis mine)
Gee, Rice is looking less and less like a conspiracy theorist now… here is proof from the Star Ledger that the largest for-profit charter operator in the country has already helped write and submit four applications in urban districts, one of which is Rice's.
Notice who the quote is from? Yup, our buddy Samuel Howard who has been placed on leave for allegedly taking kickbacks in Imagine's real estate dealings in St. Louis. Interesting that Imagine is finding New Jersey "favorable for (education) alternatives."
By the way, Imagine also takes money right of the top of a school's operations as well. Check this out from the Journal Gazette in Fort Wayne, IN. The article is aptly titled: EDUCATION INC. – Part I: Private company skirts public boards in running tax-funded charter schools; For-profit makes decisions for tax-funded Imagine
In April 2006, when Willis announced he wanted to start a charter school, Imagine Schools Inc. was already on site and involved – a year before the board would have its first meeting. In September of that year, Imagine-Fort Wayne Charter School Inc. was formed, allegedly the local organization that would start the school and contract with Imagine Schools Inc. of Virginia to run it.
But the contact person for the non-profit Imagine-Fort Wayne Charter School was Imagine Schools Inc.’s executive vice president, Jason Bryant, and the corporation’s address was Bryant’s house in Fort Wayne. The incorporator was Imagine Schools’ attorney, Joseph Miller, of Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis.
Two months later, the local non-profit filed for tax-exempt status with the IRS – the paperwork was again handled by Miller – and signed a contract with Imagine Schools Inc.
The contract was signed by Willis; board members never publicly discussed it or voted on it, as it would be five months before their first meeting. Instead, they signed a resolution that claims it has the same authority as if it had been approved unanimously by the board at a public meeting.
Indiana Public Access Counselor Andrew Kossack said there is no provision in the state’s Open Meetings Act that would allow such action. State law requires all public bodies to take all official action during public meetings.
That contract gave away the board’s power to make decisions on issues such as busing, hiring and the name of the school itself. It also gave Imagine Schools Inc. 12 percent of every penny the school took in. (emphasis mine)
Mr. Moran, I ask you to look into whether any of the four Imagine backed applications made it through last October's round of applications. Like I said, I am not an investigative journalist, just a nosy mom trying to protect her kid's schools. Unlike Governor Christie and Acting Commissioner Cerf, I do not want to see for profit charter networks that are unaccountable to taxpayers "outsource the operation" of ANY kid's school, thank you very much.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Open, Honest, and Productive: NJDOE style
I just can't let Justin Barra's statement to Gannett Statehouse reporter Michael Symons regarding my meeting with Acting Commissioner Cerf go unanswered.
Department of Education spokesman Justin Barra said acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf met in August with Cimarusti and others from Highland Park, who were opposed to the proposed Tikun Olam Hebrew Language Charter High School, which has been denied three times but has reapplied.
“In addition to evaluating the quality of the proposed program, we also take into account feedback both from districts and the general public. We take seriously all public comment that we receive in the review process,” Barra said. “We welcome an open, honest, and productive dialogue about proposed charter applications.”
While I did meet with the Acting Commissioner, Barra's characterization of the meeting is entirely disingenuous. I met with him, Carly Bolger, soon-to-be-ex Director of the Charter School Office, and Chief of Staff and former Commissioner David Hespe in August. Also in attendance were other concerned parents from East Brunswick, Princeton and South Brunswick who feel shut out of the process, as well as one other parent from Highland Park.
This meeting was NOT about Tikun Olam, the charter school I am opposing. It was in response to two women, Liz Lempert from Princeton and Lisa Rodgers-Grieco of South Brunswick, attempting to hand deliver a petition to Acting Commissioner Cerf. Alan Guenther, the director of communications accepted the petition, not Cerf. The petition asked the Acting Commissioner not to approve an additional planning year to the Princeton International Academy Charter School (PIACS) in Princeton. The Acting Commissioner did not listen to the voices of those 1200 residents and granted PIACS their second planning year.
Liz and Lisa continued to follow up and request a meeting, which was granted only after much persistence on the part of these women. They asked representatives from Highland Park and East Brunswick to also attend as our districts have been very outspoken on this issue. The meeting was cancelled by the Acting Commissioner when PIACS sued the affected districts stating that they were using public funds to object to their charter.
The meeting was rescheduled only after much persistence and multiple assurances that discussion of PIACS would be off the table. There was little to no discussion about individual charters at this meeting, instead it was about broad overarching issues related to the lack of community involvement in the charter application process. At one point when I attempted to discuss specifics of the Tikun Olam charter application Ms. Bolger became agitated and threatened to end the meeting.
What we are asking for is an equal say in the application process. While we fight for legislation that would give voters a say, we are demanding that the DOE have open discussions about pending charters with districts and communities.
From January 3-13 to DOE will conduct interviews with applicants, but there are no such meetings for the effected districts or communities to discuss specific charters. That is what we are asking for, and that is what the NJDOE is refusing to provide.
"an open, honest, and productive dialogue about proposed charter applications"?? Really Mr. Barra?
Then why do I need all of these elected officials in suits backing me up to try to get my voice heard? And why didn't ANYONE from the NJDOE come to the meeting despite numerous requests?
The Acting Commissioner is approving charters against the wishes of communities and is not meeting with those communities to discuss the applications or the approvals; ONLY the applicants. Just look at East Brunswick and Cherry Hill for examples. For them to say they take community or district input into account would be laughable if it weren't so destructive and misleading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)