Opponents of education reform have seized upon a one-word retort to voice objection to an assortment of education reforms ranging from charter schools, to teacher preparation programs, to online learning sites.  That word is privatization, and its application has been, at once, effective and confounding.  As an example, consider a recent entry titled "Sad News from Louisiana," posted by Diane Ravitch on her eponymous blog.  To read the title, one might think that the famed historian of education was announcing the loss of a loved one or friend.  Instead, the blog piece lamented the demise of Delmont Elementary School, which has apparently succumbed to failure to meet Louisiana's adequate yearly progress requirements, as required by the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

Professor Ravitch writes:  "With Governor Bobby Jindal in charge and with a compliant state board and a compliant TFA state commissioner, Louisiana is ground zero for the privatization of public education in America."  There's that word!  What makes the application of the term confusing is that every last student enrolled at Delmont Elementary could, conceivably, be absorbed by local charter schools and Professor Ravitch would still consider the shift evidence of "privatization."
 
Longtime readers of the E-Mailer will be familiar with an oft-cited article authored by Rick Hess some ten years ago, titled, " Making Sense of the 'Public' in Public Education."  Today, the same Dr. Hess, who works as the American Enterprise Institute's Director of Education Policy Studies, oversees a series of AEI policy papers under the name of Private Enterprise in American Education.  The latest in the series, a piece written by Alex Hernandez of the Charter School Growth Fund, is titled, "Focus on For-Profits in K-12 Education Misses the Real Divide." A summary of the work can be viewed, here, and the complete paper can be downloaded, here.

Noting the tendency of defenders of the education establishment to utilize the term "privatization" in the manner illustrated above, Mr. Hernandez observes the following paradox: the $19 billion textbook publishing industry - a clear exemplar of private enterprise - appears to be exempt from the charge of "privatization," while nonprofit charter school operators wear something akin to "privatization!" bullseyes on their backs.  This is so, he explains, "...because publishers have carved out a role as system insiders, and as such present no threat to existing institutional arrangements. Conversely, nonprofit charter management organizations are accused of privatizing education and placing public schools in the 'hands of businessmen' when they provide students a public school option in addition to their assigned district school."
 
The distinction between for-profit and nonprofit entities, argues Mr. Hernandez, obscures what he sees as a more significant dividing line on the education reform playing field.  In his view, more meaningful distinctions can be drawn between incumbents and nonincumbents, with the former group including school districts, teachers unions, schools of education, and education publishers.  In short, incumbents are seen as entities "whose interests are strongly protected through laws and regulations."

Mr. Hernandez makes the case that incumbents thwart the entry of new providers which, in turn, has a damping effect upon innovation, as well as product and service quality. "It is easy to frame this resistance," he writes, "as a moral stand against selfish forprofit interests, when, in many instances, incumbents are more concerned with trying to protect dominant market positions from new providers." He provides several illuminating examples of incumbent pushback involving Aspire Charter Schools, Teach For America, and Relay Graduate School of Education.

 

Looking ahead, Mr. Hernandez points to two developments that are likely to weaken the existing coalition of incumbents: "... a focus on performance-based outcomes, and, second, the expansion of technology." In a cautionary note to which private school leaders should pay heed, he sees a time on the near horizon when "districts and unions will grapple with a world in which parents ask what value educators will provide beyond what students can already access in the cloud." All in all, it's a good read peppered with many an interesting observation. Take a look.

 

Acclaimed New York Times world affairs columnist and author Thomas L. Friedman, widely known for best-selling works such as The World is Flat and From Beirut to Jerusalem, recently weighed in with a suggested successor to current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Mr. Friedman's choice: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  Really.  The poignant, if unconventional piece titled, "My Secretary of State," does a nifty job of illuminating the centrality of education in a rapidly evolving global political environment. You can read it, here.
 
After acknowledging that Secretary Duncan is neither interested in changing cabinet seats nor likely to be considered for the job, Mr. Friedman proceeds to outline his qualifications and make the case for his consideration.  For starters, he offers the following:  "A big part of the job is negotiating. Well, anyone who has negotiated with the Chicago Teachers Union, as Duncan did when he was superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools before going to Washington, would find negotiating with the Russians and Chinese a day at the beach. A big part of being secretary of education (and secretary of state) is getting allies and adversaries to agree on things they normally wouldn't - and making them think that it was all their idea. Trust me, if you can cut such deals with Randi Weingarten, who is president of the American Federation of Teachers, you can do them with Vladimir Putin and Bibi Netanyahu."
 
While it's unclear whether American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, Russian President Putin, or Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should feel flattered or offended by Mr. Friedman's comparisons, there's no doubt that his words have sparked controversy, as this incendiary blog piece attests.  Heat aside, has anyone noted that whatever arrangements Mr. Duncan's negotiations with the Chicago Teachers Union may have produced failed to forestall a recent, rather tumultuous strike?

Drawing another imaginative analogy, Mr. Friedman writes: "At the same time, as our foreign budget shrinks, more and more of it will have to be converted from traditional grants to 'Races to the Top,' which Duncan's Education Department pioneered in U.S. school reform. We will have to tell needy countries that whoever comes up with the best ideas for educating their young women and girls or incentivizing start-ups or strengthening their rule of law will get our scarce foreign aid dollars. That race is the future of foreign aid."
 
Here, Tom Friedman confirms the fact that his expertise lies in the realm of foreign affairs, rather than domestic education policy.  While "Race to the Top" may well be the Obama Administration's signature education program, the question of whether the billions of federal dollars spent to induce systemic reforms will bear significant fruit is likely to remain unanswered for years to come.  A number of states have already indicated difficulty in implementing various promised reforms required by RTTF, raising the concern that recipients of the grants are doing little more than gaming the system. 

The heart of Mr. Friedman's article is undeniably flattering to education.  He writes: "The biggest issue in the world today is growth, and, in this information age, improving educational outcomes for more young people is now the most important lever for increasing economic growth and narrowing income inequality. In other words, education is now the key to sustainable power"  Hear, hear!  But then he adds, "to have a secretary of state who is one of the world's leading authorities on education, well, everyone would want to talk to him."  Perhaps.  But which nation's employee does Mr. Friedman have in mind?  Surely, not the United States, considering the fact that in the most recent administration of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, U.S. students did no better than to score roughly in the middle of the international pack.  Why, one wonders, would "everyone" wish to talk to an educational expert whose stewardship produced average results, rather than an expert associated with superior outcomes?

Still, the Friedman column lauds education, and concludes with a statement that succeeds in distancing the author's tongue from his cheek: "So while we're not likely to shift our secretary of education to secretary of state, let's at least understand why it is not such a preposterous idea."  Fair enough.

New Graduation Rate Data Show Gaps

Drawing state-by-state comparisons of high school graduation rates has been a perennial problem owing to a lack of uniformity in the methods used to calculate such rates.  Now, for the first time, the U.S. Department of Education has released graduation rate data that employ a common method of calculation across states.  According to Education Week's Politics K-12 blog: "The new method requires states to track individual students and report how many first-time 9th graders graduate with a standard diploma within four years."  A table displaying state-by-state data can be accessed, here.

The data reveal considerable gaps between White (non-Hispanic) and minority-group students, as well as between the overall graduation rate and the rate for economically disadvantaged students.  There is also considerable variability in the overall graduation rate from state to state, ranging from a low of 59 percent in the District of Columbia to a high of 88 percent in Iowa. 

How is California faring?  Not particularly good.  The Golden State's overall graduation rate of 76 percent was surpassed by 31 states, including the populous states of New York (77%), Pennsylvania (83%), Illinois (84%), and Texas (86%).  Among the four-year grade cohort reported for California only 70 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, and 63 percent of Black (non-Hispanic) students graduated together with their 9th grade cohorts, compared to 85 percent of White (non-Hispanic) peers.


Louisiana's Statewide School Program Hits a Judicial Snag

A Louisiana district court judge has ruled that while the state's constitution permits the provision of publicly funded scholarships enabling children to attend private schools, the current funding mechanism used by the program does not pass constitutional muster.  At issue is the use of Louisiana's "Minimum Foundation Program," which has nothing to do with charitable foundations, but is a formula employed to determine the minimum cost of a public elementary and secondary education, and to effect an equal allocation of funds among school districts and parishes (Louisiana's equivalent of counties).

Reacting to the court's decision, American Federation for Children Senior Advosor Kevin P. Chavous commented: "It is unfortunate that defenders of the status quo have opted to pursue this litigation that has but one goal, which is to deny Louisiana children from low-income families access to a quality education."  The voucher program currently benefits some 5,000 children.  An additional 10,400 students have recently applied for new scholarships.  Supporters of the program submitted an immediate appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, an action that suspends the application of the district court ruling until the higher court weighs in.

The American Federation for Children comments on the development, here.  The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice provides a description of Louisiana's "Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence" program, here.


Race to the Top - District Edition: Slim Pickings for California

In late November, the U.S. Department of Education identified 61 applicants as finalists in the federal Race to the Top - District Competition that will award a total of some $400 million, "to support locally developed plans to personalize and deepen student learning, directly improve student achievement and educator effectiveness, close achievement gaps, and prepare every student for success in college and careers."  The USDE anticipates the selection of 15-25 winners, each of whom will receive four-year grants ranging from $5 million to $40 million, depending upon the number of students served by the respective proposals.  Winners are expected to be announced later this month.

The Department received a total of 372 applications, including one submitted by the Los Angeles Unified School District.  The LAUSD proposal was quickly disqualified because United Teachers Los Angeles failed to endorse the planned reforms.  All told, 57 applications were submitted by California school districts (including various charter schools whose status as quasi-districts made them eligible to participate).  Of these, the Animo Leadership Charter High School (Los Angeles County), Galt Joint Union School District (Sacramento County), Lindsay Unified School District (Tulare County), and New Haven Unified School District (Alameda County) emerged as finalists.  In the unlikely event that all four finalists should receive grants, a total of approximately 21,700 students would be served - a figure representing about 3/10 of one-percent of California's total public school population in grades K-12.  A complete listing of applicants can be found, here.


2013 CATE Conference

The annual convention of the California Association of Teachers of English (CATE) will take place February 8-10, 2013, in Santa Clara.  This year's convention theme is Keep Calm and Read On. The program will feature an array of strands and workshops conducted by a host of distinguished presenters that includes Rebecca Mieliwocki, the 2012 National Teacher of the Year.  Organizers of this year's program note that one area of emphasis will consist of sessions providing professional development related to the Common Core standards.

Additional information and online registration can be accessed at CATE's convention home page.  A listing of major speakers can be found, here, and a convention flyer can be downloaded, here.


Meet Assembly Education Committee Chair Joan Buchanan
 
Assembly Member Joan Buchanan (D. Alamo) is certainly no stranger to the education arena.  Named by Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez to serve as Chair of that body's Education Committee, Ms. Buchanan brings with her nearly two decades of experience as a member of the San Ramon Valley School Board, including four terms as its president.  A graduate of San Francisco public schools and UC Santa Barbara, the new Chair also possesses business experience, having served as Director of Commercial Operations at Delta Dental.  Ms. Buchanan, who succeeds Julia Brownley as chair of the key Assembly committee, was first elected to the State Assembly in 2008.  (Ms. Brownley was recently elected to the U.S. Congress.)

Asked by EdSource about her priorities as committee chair, Ms. Buchanan responded, "I do not have a predetermined agenda. I plan to do all I can to ensure that every child in California receives a high quality education. Given our current funding challenges, it will be important to bring the entire education community together and seek consensus."  A recent interview conducted by EdSource's John Fensterwald, in which Ms. Buchanan discusses public school finance, Common Core standards, teacher evaluation, charter schools and more, can be read, here.

Seldom has as much been at stake for the future of education - certainly, for the future of public education - in California as was true of last month's elections.  When, at long last, the campaign ads ceased and the votes were counted, three key outcomes set the stage for the future of K-12 education in the Golden State.  First, Governor Jerry Brown's Proposition 30 won approval, stemming, at least for the time being, draconian mid-year budget cuts and the potential elimination of additional days of instruction in the state's public schools.  Indeed, the Los Angeles Unified School district quickly moved to restore school days to its annual calendar.  Second, Proposition 32 was defeated, leaving intact the ability of the teachers unions to automatically deduct funds earmarked for political activity from their members' paychecks.  Third, Democrats achieved super-majorities in both houses of the state legislature.
 
All told, the elections provided the education establishment and teachers unions with a massive victory.  With a Democratic super-majority in both houses of the legislature, Assembly Speaker  John A. Pérez has effectively become the most powerful politician in the state.  Think back to the era prior to the imposition of term limits, when California was pretty much run by men such as Willie Brown and Jess Unruh, each of whom was also an Assembly Speaker.  Those titans were able to accumulate power through years of skillful deal making and coalition building.  Mr. Pérez has been handed the keys to the kingdom by dint of the ballot box.
 
Because Speaker Pérez is a relative newcomer (certainly by way of comparison to Mssrs. Brown and Unruh), he is likely to show greater consideration for those interests responsible for facilitating his election to office.  And what would those interests happen to be?  If calculated on the basis of campaign contributions, they would be general trade and public sector unions.  Mr. Pérez is a champion of big labor, and in this state, big labor is tightly coupled to the teachers unions.

What might the new, post-election picture hold in store for California's private schools?  I believe we are likely to see two developments that, while not directly involving private, K-12 schools, will significantly impact the environment in which they operate.
 
By way of background to the first probable series of activities, one must consider that the teachers unions have been hemorrhaging members and revenue.  The situation has become so pronounced that United Teachers Los Angeles, with revenue from dues in excess of $25 million, operated at a deficit last year.  One imagines that UTLA and the California Teachers Association (CTA) are eager to replenish their war chests following their successful efforts to defeat Proposition 32 and pass Proposition 30. 

The most effective way for teachers unions to grow their revenue is to expand their membership base by increasing the number of public school teachers.  In the short term, look for the unions to work with local school districts to restore class size reduction targets to an annual average of no more than 20 pupils per teacher in grades K through 3.  But with a Democratic super-majority in both houses of the legislature, I believe the CTA will pursue a more ambitious objective consisting of a statewide downward expansion of California's public education system to include pre-kindergarten. 
 
In past years, several unsuccessful efforts to move the state in the direction of universal pre-kindergarten (UPK) have been mounted, with various initiatives ultimately failing either at the ballot box (as was true of the so-called "Reiner Initiative" in 2006), or in the state legislature owing to little more than a lack of available funding.  I look for the CTA to re-animate the UPK support networks and push some form of legislation during the coming legislative session.  In the previous session, a CTA-sponsored UPK bill was authored by none other than former Assembly Education Chair Julia Brownley. 

CAPSO has expressed concerns regarding prior UPK proposals.  It is currently estimated that a significant majority of Californians with preschool-aged children utilize a wide array of privately provided early education programs and arrangements.  Many of these programs serve as "feeders" for nonprofit private K-12 schools, and often operate under the same institutional auspices.  The potential availability of "free" alternatives will, undoubtedly, pose a serious challenge to many existing programs, and can be expected to indirectly impact private school enrollment at the key kindergarten entry level.

A second likely development consists of push-back against the proliferation of charter schools.  Over the course of the previous legislative session, charter school proponents were generally able to ward off legislative attempts to put the kibosh on charter expansion.  In the new political environment the strength of the charter school movement will be put to a severe test with recently proposed policies floated before the L.A. Unified School District hinting at what might follow in Sacramento. Among such measures were proposals to impose a moratorium on new charter school applications, and a resolution designed "...to prevent board members from voting on any business having to do with a charter school if they had received a campaign contribution within the last six months from the charter organization involved."
 
During the previous legislative session, a bill that would have made it possible for a public school district to deny a charter application if the creation of the charter school was deemed to pose any negative fiscal impact upon surrounding "traditional" public schools gained substantial traction, but ultimately faltered.  This time around, I'd look for similar pieces of legislation to be passed.  In addition to new laws that put the clamps on charter school growth, I anticipate stepped up investigations of charter school governance, fiscal management and student achievement.

Whether this potential development bodes ill, or bodes well for private schools may depend on whether one takes a broader, or narrower, short-term, or long-term view of school choice.  Over the shorter term, reduced access to public (charter) schools that appear similar to private schools in certain respects may prompt (re)consideration of private schools by parents seeking educational options.  From a broader perspective, and over the long run, however, any successful diminution of school choice may prompt further efforts that more directly target private schools.  I'm afraid my crystal ball is a bit too cloudy to see that far down the road...so stay tuned!

Ron Reynolds

The next edition of the CAPSO Midweek E-Mailer will be published December 19, 2012.