Beware The Charter School Review Board; My Testimony Before The Assembly Education Committee

John Mooney pulled together a great piece about yesterday's Assembly Education Committee hearing, where Assembly Bill A-4177, Assemblyman Diegnan's rewrite of the Charter School Program Act of 1995, got it's debut. Overall, I think the bill is great.  It covers all of the issues that need to be addressed in our 18 year old charter law, most notably the need for local control, and it does it thoroughly and cleanly.

The one part that scares the pants off of me though is the charter school review board created in the bill.  As written, it's a great idea.  But as this bill gets modified along the way, I fear it will be manipulated to become like the State Charter School Commission in Illinois.  

Assemblyman Diegnan happened to mention at the meeting yesterday that the idea for the charter school review board came from Carlos Perez of the New Jersey Charter Schools Association.  But apparently he doesn't like the way that Assemblyman Diegnan incorporated it into his bill.  

Perez told NJ Spotlight, "“Our intent is to have something that is its own independent authorizer, and as an entity they would be publicly accountable.”

Sounds to me like I was right.  Perez and company will try to turn this review board into the authorizer, and as you'll see below, that will function to undermine local control.  

Which is EXACTLY what he wants...

Read my testimony and decide for yourself if you think my fear is warranted.  

Darcie Cimarusti

Save Our Schools New Jersey

Assembly Education Committee Testimony

Assembly Bill A-4177

June 10, 2013

 

Good Afternoon Chairman Diegnan, Vice-Chairwoman Watson-Coleman, and members of the Committee; my name is Darcie Cimarusti, and I am here today to provide my perspective on Assembly Bill A-4177. 

First I wish to commend Assemblyman Diegnan for listening to the voices of the over 7,500 residents who signed a Save Our School NJ petition asking for local control over charter school approvals. 

For these 7,500 New Jersey residents, local control is non-negotiable. 

But I am quite certain that powerful forces will come before you and lobby HARD to have this provision removed, and I am also quite certain that those same forces will implore you to expand the role of the charter school review board established in this bill. 

Here’s why I think this will happen, and why I am here to warn you that doing so would be a REALLY bad idea. 

In an interview in my hometown paper, Carlos Perez, the CEO of the New Jersey Charter Schools Association, said the current charter law that allows charters to be approved against local wishes provides freedom from, and I quote, “A TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.” 

Just let those words sink in a moment. 

In Mr. Perez’s estimation, affording local taxpayers the opportunity to decide how best to allocate resources and educate students in their district is a tyranny of the majority. 

How did Mr. Perez develop such a skewed view of local control? 

It seems to come from his time in Illinois. 

Mr. Perez came to New Jersey via Chicago, where he was the Director of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools. He worked alongside now Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who ran Chicago Public Schools. With Secretary Duncan at the helm in Chicago, charters flourished, but Mr. Perez did not enjoy such success in the rest of the state. 

Why?  Because in Illinois local districts authorize charter schools, and outside of Chicago, districts simply didn’t want them. 

Mr. Perez referred to his time in Illinois as “five years of frustrating hard work” that didn’t produce “much momentum.” And much to Mr. Perez’s chagrin, the charter backlash followed him to New Jersey.  

We are not alone; across the nation districts don’t like having their autonomy usurped. 

Rest assured that the New Jersey Charter Schools Association won’t be the only group to suggest that local control measures needs to be removed from this bill. 

Watch for the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, or NACSA, to come before you as well. NACSA’s CEO, Greg Richmond, worked for the Chicago Public Schools for over a decade and created the city’s Charter School Office. During his tenure, he played a large role in Chicago’s unchecked charter growth. 

More recently Mr. Richmond, with the help of the highly controversial Administrative Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, was instrumental in managing to undermine local control in Illinois. ALEC and NACSA lobbied for the passage of Illinois’ Charter School Quality Law, which in 2011 created a State Charter School Commission, much like the review board established in A-4177. Incredibly, Mr. Richmond was ultimately appointed to lead the Commission. 

Under the new law, charter applicants can appeal a local board’s denial to the Commission, and the board’s denial can be overturned. I fear the charter review panel proposed in this bill could be manipulated to function quite similarly, effectively undermining local control. 

The New Jersey Charter Schools Association, NACSA and other lobbying groups will testify that local control will kill charter growth. 

I submit to you that perhaps limited charter growth is warranted, especially when the growth under Secretary Duncan, Mr. Richmond and Mr. Perez seems to have led to recent events in Chicago. 

The nation just watched in disbelief as Mayor Rahm Emanuel shuttered an unprecedented and historic 50 public schools, predominantly in low-income urban neighborhoods of color, sparking citywide protests. Mayor Emanuel cited, among other reasons, a “serious underenrollment problem.” 

Today Chicago has almost 120 charter schools, clearly a contributing factor to the “serious underenrollment” in the traditional public schools. 

Is this the future we want here in New Jersey? 

I urge you to continue to listen to your constituents, not state and national lobbyists, and defend and preserve the local control mechanism in A-4177.

The Many Guises Of K12 Inc. In New Jersey

John Mooney over at NJ Spotlight wrote a great piece yesterday about Commissioner Cerf's stunning denial of K12 Inc.'s New Jersey Virtual Academy Charter School (NJVACS). In the "Related Links" he included NJVACS Board President Michael Pallante's response letter, which was not only pretty spicy, it was pretty revealing, too.

However, despite making ourselves available to you and your staff at every turn, attending every training, providing testimony at Board and legislative hearings, conducting demonstrations and hosting open houses, working closely with the AG and your staff to defend against litigation brought by groups questioning your authority as Commissioner, and sending invitation after invitation to you and to your staff to discuss any concerns you might have so that we might have an opportunity to address them, we now find ourselves in the position of having to tell 850 children, their families, and the teachers your staff insisted we hire as part of the compliance process that, once again, the school will be denied the opportunity to open and prove ourselves. (emphasis mine)

Man, did you catch all that? There is A LOT in that paragraph, but for right now let's take a closer look at the fact that NJVACS claims they provided testimony at Board and legislative hearings and conducted demonstrations.

Will The Real Parent Advocates Please Stand Up

A recent demonstration was indeed organized by NJVACS in conjunction with the New Jersey affiliate of PublicSchoolOptions.org. 

Several New Jersey policymakers got a taste of online learning Monday, thanks to a PublicSchoolOptions.org demonstration at the Capitol in Trenton.  A prospective NJVACS (New Jersey Virtual Academy Charter School) student and his mother, along with a NJVACS prospective teacher, volunteered their time to show attendees how online learning works for the students it serves.

.....

For all policymakers -  these virtual education demonstrations help legislators understand how a public virtual schools works - including the interactions between students and public school teachers, the state approved curriculum and how these schools operate just like any other public school. 

Here is a video montage of the demonstration, which shows the same parent and child that participated in the demonstration also testifying on behalf of NJVACS before the Joint Committee on the Public Schools.

So what's NJPublicSchoolOptions.org?

NJ PublicSchoolOptions.org is an alliance of parents that supports and defends parents' rights to access the best public school options for their children. The Coalition supports the creation of public school options, including charter schools, online schools, magnet schools, open enrollment policies and other innovative education programs.

Sounds like a grassroots parent advocacy group, right?

Here's where it gets interesting. Check out the comment section of yesterday's Mooney article. There is a comment from someone named Norris Clark, claiming to be from NJPublicSchoolOptions.org. 

Upon hearing the news of the denial, parent advocate Esthere Tolbert, who recently provided legislators with a demonstration of the virtual learning that benefited her son while in Washington State, said, "I read the denial letter from the Commissioner and I am really at a loss of words as to how I feel. I must say that our response was excellent. Please know that I am still in the running to try help move this forward. If we have to talk with the commissioner and/or the governor in person, Micah and I are there. Our participation includes testimonies to attorneys and all the way up the Supreme Court!”

Another mother writes, “I would just like to express my disappointment, with the decision to deny the application for the K12 Virtual Charter School in NJ. I have a special needs child that would have benefited greatly from the K12 Charter School. Signed, Very Disappointed!” 

Yet another mom of a boy diagnosed with ADHD states, “I really feel strongly that we are doing a disservice to children by not having alternatives to traditional classroom situations, and many of those children are very bright and will not reach their full potential.”   

This is written as if Clark is a parent himself, representing all the other supposedly bereft parents, left in a state of disbelief that the virtual education they so desperately wanted for their children will not materialize. Clark implores the Commissioner "to meet with the aggrieved families."

Norris Clark, Man of Mystery

So who is Norris Clark, and why is he speaking for these supposed parents and attempting to broker a meeting between them and the Commissioner?  Why aren't they speaking for themselves? Why isn't the comment section FILLED with comments from the "aggrieved families" Clark claims to represent? 

Because Clark isn't a parent looking to enroll his kids in NJVACS, he's the Executive Director of NJPublicSchoolOptions.org. (Scroll to the bottom of the link.)

But that's not even the tip of the iceberg.  Clark also just happens to be the Managing Partner of Princeton Strategic Communications.

And Princeton Strategic Communications Group lists PublicSchoolOptions.org as one of it's clients. (Please note, the NJDOE is also listed as a client...) 

So let's try to get this straight. Norris Clark, as Managing Partner of Princeton Strategic Group, has himself, as the Executive Director of NJPublicSchoolOptions.org, as a client.

But if you think that's twisted, wait until you read this. Princeton Strategic Communications is part of a "Circle of Companies" that includes the "largest state lobbying firm in the country," Princeton Public Affairs Group.

And here's the big payoff.  Who's paying for the lobbying services of Princeton Public Affairs Group?

Why, that would be K12 Inc. 

The school noted that it had also hired experts to speak to the legality and effectiveness of the programs. K12 also signed on with the state’s top lobbying firm, Princeton Public Affairs Group. (emphasis mine)

So, the "parent advocacy" group that put together the testimony, demonstrations and open houses for NJVACS was hired by K12 Inc.

I'm sure K12 Inc. is distressed their scheme didn't work.  After all, Norris Clark should have been able to not only successfully manage "strategic communications" for them, both as the Managing Partner of Princeton Strategic Group and as the Executive Director of NJPublicSchoolOptions.org, but he REALLY should have been able to successfully manage the NJDOE.  

Ya know, because he used to work there...

Next week, an organization called Public School Options, headed by former state education department official Norris Clark, will follow up with a public presentation in the Statehouse. Families and educators will talk about virtual schooling and demonstrate how it works in real time. All 120 legislators have been invited to the session.

That's right, Norris was the former director of DOE’s Family and Community Relations Office.

Well, isn't that cozy.

So just to be clear, K12 Inc. hired Princeton Public Affairs Group, which is part of a "Circle of Companies" with Princeton Strategic Communications, whose managing partner also happens to be both an ex-NJDOE employee and the Executive Director of NJPublicSchoolOptions.org, a seemingly astroturf "parent advocacy" group that staged demonstrations and testified for legislators about K12 Inc.'s NJVACS to help secure approval from the state.

Maybe a visual will help.

Yeesh. You need a score card to keep up.

New Jersey Don't Play That

No wonder New Jersey legislators didn't buy the horse and pony show K12 Inc. put on for them. Even if they didn't KNOW that K12 Inc.'s lobbying efforts were taking on many guises, they must have FELT like they were being played. 

Perhaps even Commissioner Cerf felt like he was being played, and that's why he denied them a final charter. 

I hope this serves as a warning to other corporate ed reform snake oil salesmen sniffing around for a piece of the New Jersey public education pie.

TRUE public education advocates in this state are a formidable foe. 

Don't mess with Jersey.

Oh dear, even the K12 Inc. stock took a beating yesterday.

Charismatic Charter Charlatan Amir Khan: Mayor Of Camden?

This one comes straight out of the "I couldn't make this %#*@ up if I tried" file. Amir Khan is running for Mayor of Camden.  

Yes, THAT Amir Khan.

The Amir Khan who got a charter school approved despite his utter lack of qualifications and clear inability to provide a stable foundation upon which to build a school.

The Amir Khan Governor Christie denied knowing at a Town Hall as Khan and his wife sat directly behind him on the dais.

The Amir Khan who, in a church/state blurring video, lobbied his parishioners to vote AGAINST local control measures.

The Amir Khan who crashed and burned. HARD.

He got evicted from the property he intended to buy from the Catholic church and the state denied him his final charter, citing "misrepresentations and a lack of forthrightness."

So what's a charter charlatan to do?

I KNOW, RUN FOR MAYOR OF CAMDEN!!

Just last year Khan was living in Voorhees, trying to open a charter in Cherry Hill, but now he has moved to Camden and wants to be mayor. This is from an April, 2013 profile of Amir's son Micah in the Philadelphia Daily News:

Khan says he recently moved to the Fairview section of Camden with his father, Amir Khan, president of an outreach ministry called the Nehemiah Group, to be part of the community he's trying to help.

Sounds like the definition of a carpetbagger, no?

: outsider; especially : a nonresident or new resident who seeks private gain from an area often by meddling in its business or politics

Especially when you consider that when he was trying to open the charter school in Cherry Hill, he was clear he DIDN'T want kids from Camden enrolling in his suburban charter. This was from Regis Academy board meeting minutes:

The addition of Camden students may deter enrollment. Camden has it's own charter schools.

Those two sentences should make ANYONE taking Khan seriously for public office in Camden wince.

With the state poised to take over the public schools in Camden, the mayor appointing board members, and the terms of the takeover still unclear, it is simply inconceivable that someone who failed to get a single school off the ground could be elected to play a huge role in running ALL of Camden's schools.

Especially when just last year he saw Camden students as a deterrent.

Amir Khan is a self-proclaimed salesman.

Charisma is his defining characteristic. Let’s just say he’s a man who gets a lot of windows opened. Or, in Khan’s words: “I could sell a bikini to an Eskimo.”

Charisma can get you pretty far as a politician.  And Khan is, quite literally, putting on a carnival show for the people of Camden.



But you can't see urban school children as a hindrance in 2012 and want to control their schools in 2013.  

You just can't.

The children of Camden deserve far better than Mayor Amir Khan.  

Could YOUR District Lose Real Funds To K12 Inc.'s Virtual Charter?

Well folks, it's getting close to that time of year again, when almighty Education Commissioner Chris Cerf decides which charters get to play in the big leagues and which need to sit back down on the bench for another year. One that was benched last year but is hoping to come up to the plate in September is K12 Inc.'s New Jersey Virtual Academy Charter School (NJVACS).

K12 Inc. CEO Ron Packard celebrates the company’s
listing on the New York Stock Exchange in 2007

I've written extensively about what a disaster K12 Inc. is here, here, here and here.  Highlights include K12 Inc. CEO Ron Packard making over 5 million dollars in 2011, Packard's friends and allies selling virtual learning to the NJ Legislature and K12 Inc. potentially getting paid over $5,500 more to virtually educate kids in NJ than they get to virtually educate kids in Arizona.

K12 Inc. is running into trouble getting it's doors open in states like Maine and North Carolina, and K12 Inc. disasters keep piling up in state after state.  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has done some great stories on K12 Inc. and problems not only at the Georgia Cyber Academy, but other K12 Inc. virtuals around the country as well.

The last time we discussed Georgia Cyber Academy was in response to parent comments about their significant roles as academic coaches under the online school’s instructional model.

Now, it is the state board of education discussing the state’s first online school, suggesting it will pull its charter if it does not improve services for students with disabilities.

Georgia Cyber Academy is part of K12 Inc., a for-profit company that is the nation’s largest virtual school provider with online public schools in 30 states.

The charter school’s parent company has been garnering headlines lately, many of which have not been flattering, including a scathing investigation by The New York Times.

A report released this summer by the National Education Policy Center found that less than 28 percent of K12-run schools were meeting Adequate Yearly Progress during the 2010-11 school year, compared with 52 percent of brick-and-mortar schools nationwide. Georgia Cyber also did not make AYP in 2010-2011

K12 refuted the center report in a lengthy statement.

In the last three months, the company has come under fire in several states, including Florida where the state education department is investigating after several K12 teachers refused to sign class rosters showing students the teachers had never taught.

The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting/StateImpact Florida reported: K12 officials asked state-certified teachers to sign class rosters that included students they hadn’t taught, according to documents that are part of the investigation.In one case, a K12 manager instructed a certified teacher to sign a class roster of more than 100 students. She only recognized seven names on that list. “I cannot sign off on students who are not my actual students,” K12 teacher Amy Capelle wrote to her supervisor. “It is not ethical to submit records to the district that are inaccurate.” The documents suggest K12 may be using uncertified teachers in violation of state law.

In Tennessee, state education commissioner Kevin Huffman said in September that student performance at the K12 Inc.-managed Tennessee Virtual Academy was “demonstrably poor.”

K12 Inc. is doing such a bang up job in other states how could Cerf NOT let them open up in New Jersey, right?

NJVACS is looking to serve 850 kids statewide in its first year. For the privilege of joining the growing number of states that have become disillusioned with K12 Inc.'s offerings, the taxpayers of New Jersey will have to pay an astounding $10,820,669. Where is that money going to come from?  Well, some of it could come straight out of your district's budget.  If kids from your district enroll, the money comes from your bottom line. And at $10,820,669 for 850 students, that's a per pupil cost of $12,730.
  
For a VIRTUAL education.

I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.

And bear in mind, 850 is just the number of kids in Year 1.  The school will continue to expand each and every year.  By Year 4 NJVACS intends to enroll 1,200 students.  At $12,730 per kid that'll come to $15,276,238.

And that doesn't mean they'd stop at 1,200. The Georgia Cyber Academy mentioned above has 6,545 kids enrolled.

Go ahead, take another moment.

Now that you have a firm sense of what kind of money we could be looking at for what has been shown in other states to be an entirely ineffective educational option, let's look and see which districts the kids may come from.  I received this document last year via the Open Public Records Act (OPRA).  I was curious which and how many districts would be impacted by NJVACS. And boy was I surprised by how many districts will potentially take a hit. 

(Please note, this was the initial enrollment information for the 2012-2013 school year.  Since Commissioner Cerf was pressured into not allowing NJVACS to open this year, the districts and numbers may look quite different for next year.  I am posting this merely to give a sense of how many districts could be impacted.)



Kind of shocking how many districts could be sending kids, don't you think?  And how many may potentially enroll from certain districts, too.  

Like poor Teaneck. They fought successfully to get out from under the Garden State Virtual Charter School, and now they could get stuck with a $178,000 bill for 14 kids to go to NJVACS. My neighbors in Edison, after helping my district to successfully fend off Tikun Olam, may have to fork out $152,760. And my friends in Cherry Hill could see more kids (and money - $127,300 for 10 kids) go to NJVACS than ever enrolled in Amir Khan's ill fated Regis Academy.   

Scroll through the list to see what your district could lose. And keep in mind, this is just Year 1.

If there is one thing I have learned since being dragged into the world of public education advocacy, it's that often people only get involved in an issue when it comes knocking on their door. 

But K12 Inc. has already canvassed the entire state, most of us just don't know it yet.

That's why it's important for me to post this document, and for you to share it with your friends.  Let them know that a bunch of well connected Wall Street savvy entrepreneurs, posing as educators, have figured out how to stuff tax dollars intended to educate our children into their own coffers. 

And they're providing virtually nothing in return.  

The tax dollars go in,
and virtually nothing comes out.

My 52 Views on High-Stakes Tests

Today marks the second week of NJASK testing here in New Jersey. Grades 5 and 6 began testing this morning, and make-ups are being conducted for 7th and 8th graders that weren't tested last week.  

Last week parents were told that if they insisted on opting out their child's test would be scored a zero and their child would be placed in remedial classes next year.

Reports are coming in today that students are being forced to sit through make-up sessions even though they opted out last week. The only options presented to parents are to keep children home during the make-ups or have their child pulled from class only to sit in front of a blank test booklet. 

NJ opt-outers are attempting to work with administrators to come up with more student-centered solutions for their children.  

Diane Hewlett-Lowrie is one of the brave moms starting an opt-out journey this week. Here is a guest post she wrote clearly demonstrating that New Jersey parents know EXACTLY why they are opting out!  

Generally, I am opposed to high-stakes standardized tests because: 

• They constitute an undue burden of stress on young children;  

• They constitute an undue financial burden on schools; 

• They don’t tell the classroom teacher anything about how well any child learned new skills or topics; 

• 21st Century skills include cooperation, collaboration, critical thinking, etc. These skills will not be developed in a ‘pass the high-stakes test at all costs’ world;  

• Teaching students how to do well in these tests will result in this generation of children acquiring skills that are NOT required in the work world they will enter, while losing valuable lessons in the skills they DO require;  

• Linking test scores to teacher evaluation over such a short time period is inappropriate, untested, untried, still in the developmental stage, not recommended even by the test companies, and will result in the loss of many good teachers;  

• Linking test scores to teacher evaluation does not take into consideration the top reasons for students doing well in school or not, that is parental involvement and socio-economics; 

• Linking test scores to teacher evaluation that may result in teachers losing their jobs will result in a lot more pressure on students to perform well in these test;  

• Good teachers are leaving the profession because they cannot educate the children in an innovative and creative way, meeting the needs of every child - they are being forced to teach-to-the-test;  

• It is inappropriate to use our children to resolve labor issues;  

• No professional writer would produce a finished product essay in 30 minutes. Why then ask kids to do this 3 or 4 times in two days?; 

• Teaching the children how to write a finished essay in 30 minutes is only teaching them how to write to pass this test, it is not teaching the real approach to the writing process;

• The tests are too heavily weighted in favor of people with strong language arts skills; 

• Numeracy evaluations are polluted with language arts portions. This is not fair on students who are very strong in math, but weak in writing;  

• These standardized tests are biased against budding scientists, engineers and mathematicians; 

• These tests tell children if they can’t write, they can’t excel. Wrong!; 

• Over-emphasis on testing is narrowing the curriculum in all schools; 

• Test scores are being used inappropriately to close down schools in poor neighborhoods leading to overcrowding of the schools that remain; 

• The current tests were never designed to be ‘high stakes, they were supposed to be ‘snapshots’ to let school know if they are on the right track; 

• Policy makers, legislators, and big business are using “the test” in ways it was never intended to be used; 

• The high-stakes nature of these tests and the curriculum they assess force teachers to teach subjects and concepts to young children who are not developmentally ready under the guise of being ‘rigorous’; 

• Too much time that could be spent learning is spent getting ready for the test, or taking tests and this is only going to get worse when there is a test for every subject in every year; 

• The time, money and other resources that have been spent on establishing these tests could have been better spent on instruction of students and professional development for teachers; 

• There is inappropriate product placement (aka free advertising) in the tests; 

• One company seems to have a monopoly on these tests, and therefore the text books. Last week, a passage from Pearson’s text books showed up in a standardized test. MASSIVE conflict of interest; 

• There is too much emphasis on learning via ‘informational text’ leaving no time for real-life, hands-on, exploratory learning; 

• There is too much emphasis on learning via text books, leaving no time for field trips, museums, historic sites, environmental education centers, etc; 

• The writing that is being taught is formulaic – probably because it’s easier to score on a test, not because it’s the best way to write; and 

• Nobody I know in the real work world has to produce a 5-paragraph persuasive essay in 30 minutes – without being able to research and verify facts via good sources.

Personally, I am opposed to high-stakes standardized tests because

• Participating in four days of testing is not in the best interests of our child; 

• Preparing for and participating in four days of testing is destroying our child’s love of learning; 

• Participating in four days of testing does not help our child’s learning, especially as the neither the teachers nor the parents are permitted to view the completed and graded test; 

• Preparing for four days of testing takes away from a well-rounded exciting and engaging education; 

• Our child is good at math, reading, and science, but the test will not show that as it is so heavily weighted with language arts (e.g. writing in words how a math problem was solved); 

• Our child has a writing disability, yet will be forced to write for hours during these tests. This will cause pain and anxiety; 

• Our child has a writing disability, yet will be evaluated on writing skills (One does not evaluate a person with a mobility disability on how well they can run); 

• Our child has a writing disability, but can type very well. He is not able to type his answers on these tests;

• An education psychologist told us that our child’s brain ‘shuts down’ under high pressure situations, like timed tests, because of a low-performing ‘working memory’. All standardized tests are conducted under pressure with an enforced, unworldly time limit;

• I refuse to have my child be a part of a research project for a testing/curriculum company; 

• Please note, our child consistently gets As and Bs on report cards. Our arguments with the standardized tests are not related to our child’s academic ability, but are everything to do with the numerous reasons listed here.

International perspective

• Other successful developed nations are moving AWAY from this type of ‘education’ because it does not prepare children for the real world; 

• Wales outlawed national testing under the age of 14; 

• The Scottish education system uses a balance of continuous assessment, mixed with
• end-of-year exams, to evaluate learning; 

• Finland – known to have the best education system in the world - does EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what are currently doing in the US; 

• In Finland, teachers are valued and paid as well as doctors – and the students excel; 

• In Finland, there are no mandated standardized tests, except one at the end of senior
• year – and the students excel; 

• In Finland, the teachers are free to mold their own instruction – and the students excel; 

• The Scottish education system doesn’t have national tests for children under the age of 16; 

• The Scottish education system evaluates students through assessing them, not teachers; 

• Teachers in England boycotted the national tests for 11-year-olds because it took away from valuable teaching time and put an undue burden of stress on young children. The United State’s education system and its current direction is becoming the laughing stock of the world. 

WE ARE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, AMERICA!!!!

How Do Education Foundations in New Jersey's Top Towns Stack Up To Billionaire Philanthropy? Not So Well.

A comment I received on my post Hebrew Charters Hit The Broadway Stage kind of irked me.  Don't get me wrong, I LOVE a good debate, and have no problem being challenged. In fact, I welcome it. 

I just wish anonymous commenters that take the time to do some research and go toe to toe with me would let me know who I have the pleasure of debating.  

Anonymous brought up an interesting point, that when I compared the Hebrew Charter School Center's (HCSC) Broadway fundraiser to my school's PTO collecting boxtops, I was leaving out the fact that often Education Foundations raise far more money for districts than PTOs or PTAs.

Point well taken.

So it made sense to look at how Education Foundation giving stacks up to the likes of the HCSC.

As I was doing some research for my response to Anonymous' comment I realized there were lots of links I wanted to add, so here is the comment and my response as a post instead.

AnonymousMay 2, 2013 at 6:29 PM 

Darcie, really? 

It seems to me that that the Hebrew Language people may have learned from Highland Park what a good fundraiser theater can be: This past year the Highland Park Education Foundation hosted an evnet using its Broadway connections to raise money when they featured Amy Herzog at the Italian Bistro.  

The Highland Park Education Foundation has boasted over the years raising thousands of dollars for the Highland Park Public schools, and I would think that the Highland Park Education Foundation folks would love to leverage other famous HPHS grads like Sam Hoffman, Willie Garson and Soterios Johnson. So while the Matilda fundraiser may have been a bit more sucessful, Highland Park is hardly limited to boxtops. 

And while the Highland Park Education Foundation may have not been sucessful raising big money for the Highland Park public schools, other public school supporters have been very effective in raising very large sums: 

The Princeton Education Foundation has boasted giving their district $113,000 this past school year. 

The Rumson Education Foundation boasts having raised $15 Million since its inception for their school district. 

The Somerset Hills Education Foundation just raised over $100,000 at their chiili cook off. 
and,  

The Summit(NJ) Education Foundation just raised $150,000 at their Casino night fundraiser. And the foundation boasts giving their public school districts $342,000.00 in grants in 2012.

My response

Ah, I love it when Anonymous posters make a point to call me out by name. 

Really, I do. 

Anonymous, I can't speak for Rumson, Princeton, Summit or Somerset Hills.  Those districts have nothing to do with my district, or Hatikvah. 

But I do appreciate your point that often Education Foundation fundraisers pull in more money than PTO, PTA or parent driven fund raisers, and I ignored that.  

So lets compare the Highland Park Education Foundation (HPEF) and the Amy Herzog fundraiser you mention with the HCSC and the Afternoon at the Theater fundraiser I wrote about and see if you have a valid point when you claim that "other public school supporters have been very effective in raising very large sums."

Amy Herzog is an HP alum, and is now a successful, albeit still off-Broadway, playwright. She came back to her home town and gave a talk at a local restaurant. I forget the ticket price for the event, but I can assure you it was far less than the $50,000 some of New York's wealthiest families paid to see a private showing of a Tony Award nominated Broadway production of the Royal Shakespeare Company.   

According to their website, in the last two years the HPEF has awarded a little more than $25,000 in grants. That's two years worth of work to raise HALF of the $50,000 some folks shelled out for just 12 of the 1460 seats at the Shubert Theater.

According to HCSC's 990, in 2010 alone Hatikvah received $248,596, and that DOES NOT include the $142,000 that was given to their after school programs.  

So Anonymous, your attempt to equate a home town girl done good helping to raise a little bit of money at a local bistro and the HCSCs ability to commandeer an entire performance of a hit Broadway musical kind of falls flat.    

I'm kind of intrigued now, so let's explore this idea a little further. Above I said I wouldn't address the other Education Foundations you mentioned, but doing so may in fact be interesting. The towns you list are some of the wealthiest in the state, so I wonder how they stack up against the giving power of the HCSC?  

NJ Monthly says Rumson is number five in NJ's Top 20 Towns, so let's use them as our test case. Their Education Foundation has raised a whopping 1.5 M since it's inception 17 years ago. (In your comment you erroneously state it was 15 M - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this was an honest mistake.)

That sounds like a lot of money, right?

Except according to that same 990, HCSC gave out 1.2 M in 2010 alone and had 4M in total assets. 

And let's take this comparison just one step further.  Rumson has about 1,000 students and Hatikvah has around 200. 

If Rumson schools get about $90,000 per year from their Education Foundation, that breaks down to approximately $90 a student.

We've already established that Hatikvah got almost $400,000 in 2010 for their charter and after school programs.

That's $2,000 per student. 

Anonymous, while you may have a point that Education Foundations raise more money than the bake sales, book fairs and box tops I wrote about in my original post, they're not exactly raking in the "very large sums" you indicated. Even Education Foundations in New Jersey's wealthiest towns fall FAR short of the giving power of billionaire backed foundations like HCSC.

So yes, REALLY Anonymous. 

Traditional public schools can not match the private money that flows into charter schools backed by hedge fund billionaires.

But thanks for stopping by!

Darcie 

Are Children Being Used As Pawns In The Game Of High Stakes Testing?

Today marks the end of NJASK testing for 7th and 8th graders in New Jersey, with 5th and 6th graders in the hot seat next week. NJ parents across the state are opting their children out, and we are working together to find ways to make the experience as smooth as possible for our children.

NJ mom Lisa Grieco-Rodgers has chosen to have her 6th grade child opt out, but her 4th grade child will take the test. She explains that her daughter is a strong student and has taken the NJASK in 3rd, 4th and 5th grade. This year her daughter has already sat through end of the marking period tests, district placement tests and now weeks of test prep.

Grieco-Rodgers asks, "when is enough, enough?"

Guest post from Lisa Grieco-Rodgers  

 

We can all appreciate the need for standards and guidelines and the people that must enforce them.  However, when the pendulum swings too far and these standards and guidelines become counterproductive, adversely affecting our children, then the constituents who voted in our representatives need to speak up.

We chose to keep our 6th grade daughter home during NJASK testing this week, because enough is enough.  Our daughter has taken the NJASK for 3 years now, and based on the NJ DoE changes that are coming in 2014, she along with her brother will be tested until 11^th grade.  Our   daughter is a straight A student, in AP Math and in general actually finds testing to be a fun challenge – go figure. 

However, when NJ ASK prep started 2 weeks before the actual test, she came home saying.  “Mom, I just finished all the trimester tests and the district placement test.  Do I really need to go through 10 more hours of testing?”  Her father and I said “NO!”  Enough is enough.

As her parents we are actively involved in her and her brother’s education.  Each night we review their homework and weekly, we discuss their work to determine if they need more support. 

In her particular case, this year, NJASK proves no value to her.  In fact her placement into 7th grade will be decided on before the NJASK results are published in September 2013.

As for our son, we chose to allow him to take the NJASK in 4^th grade for after discussing his abilities with his teacher and the principal we decided that since he has not gone through the battery of testing our daughter has the NJASK will help reinforce what he has learned and strengthen his test taking abilities.   

Many folks have said to me, aren’t you contradicting yourself?  No, it’s OUR CHOICE based on the needs of the individual child.  We are their parent’s, we decide what is best for our kids.

NJ DoE however, does not believe we have the right to decide and in the end could potentially penalize the school districts and our kids for OUR CHOICE!

We understand that the school district must follow State regulations – for they have NO CHOICE.  But it is time for each district to take a stand and speak out that the district should NOT be adversely affected financially or otherwise, because of a parental right.  The State is holding the district hostage.  Less than 95% participation could potentially impact district funding from the state.  The children also have to miss 10 hours of class during test make up week, because the State DoE has stated that they cannot attend class if they don’t take the make-up test.  How ridiculous is this! We have already decided that they NOT take the test!

Since when do we live in a communist state?  Please tell me we have not fallen into a dictatorship! Why should the state penalize the school district because of OUR CHOICE?

There is nothing wrong with assessment testing, when administered appropriately, but when is enough, enough?  Whether or not you believe the pendulum has swung too far already, wait…. NJASK currently tests kids for 10 hours per year from 3^rd-8^th grade.  When PARCC testing is implemented, it will bring this to a whole new level with FOUR new rounds of tests totaling 12 hours per year from K-11^th grade.

We hear over and over from state regulators that parents are using their children as pawns.   Really?

When the State withholds money from the district if the district does not achieve 95% participation rate on the NJASK and when the State does not allow our children to attend class during test make up week – then who is REALLY holding our children as pawns?