Testimony on virtual ("cyber") charter bill - SB 619, 1-18-12
The House Education Committee held more hearings today on the remainder of the bills in the so-called “parent empowerment” package. We offered testimony opposing one bill in particular: Senate Bill 619, which would remove any limits on the number or enrollment of entirely online charter schools, called “cyber schools” in the bill.
Legislative briefing on the "school choice" package - update
We’ve updated our legislative briefing on the “school choice” package of bills to reflect the final version of SB 618 being sent to the Governor, as well as other legislative action.
The update document is in PDF format, and we will be updating it regularly as the bills make their way through the Legislature. The download link is at the end of the article.
The document is current as of 12/16, reflecting the bills as reported from committee or as passed by the Senate or House.
Plus ça change....
When would you guess the following two sets of quotes were written? You might be surprised.
Getting clear about "profit" in our public schools
No matter what some people say, local public schools don’t make a “profit.” But many charter school operators do. Is that what’s best for our kids?
After years of quiet, malign neglect, the issue of profit in our public schools has become a topic of public discussion. What’s the problem? The problem is that we are starting to see a separation between the “school” and the companies that run the schools and hire the people who actually teach our kids. That is where the issue of profit raises its ugly head. Because where there’s profit, there’s also an incentive to use the political process to create more.
Historical Amnesia: Schools don't need that money, do they?
Talk of an ever-growing flow of money to schools is, like many such things, wildly exaggerated. But it does serve to frame the debate about school funding in such a way that cutting schools seems only “fair.”
We started to hear it during the debate over next year’s state budget. Lawmakers backing the governor’s budget responded to constituents worried about cuts to K-12 schools with two, oddly contradictory, palliatives: that money for schools continued to “pour in” even though there were fewer students; and that “getting spending in line with reality means understanding our lack of revenue.” Sometimes these earnest-sounding claims were in the same paragraph.
The most recent example of this effort to depict schools as awash in cash comes in an interview of State Budget Director John Nixon by the AP’s Kathy Barks Hoffman.
Testimony on "School choice" package to Senate Education Committee, 9-20-11
We delivered testimony on 20 September to the Senate Education Committee, asking its members not to move forward with charter expansion, new kinds of charters, or teacher privatization.
The bills before the committee would remove the numerical and geographic limits on charter schools, introduce a new kind of charter, the “conversion school,” expand “cyber schools,” and allow schools to privatize their teachers.
Legislative alert: "charter school package" could dramatically undermine our schools
Dear supporters of public education,
Much-anticipated legislation was introduced today that would dramatically reshape the public school landscape in Michigan. We cannot afford to wait and see how the legislative process works itself out - we must start making our voices heard now. Use the Michigan Parents for Schools advocacy system to contact your Senator!
The four-bill package, driven by co-sponsor Sen. Phil Pavlov (R-St. Claire), was just made available to the public today - coinciding with the start of hearings on these bills in the Senate Education committee.
The bills can only be described as an assault on traditional public schools in this state.
Achievement: Right answers, or right questions?
An interview in Education Week helps to highlight some of the issues that are crucial to education but don't get a lot of discussion.
Ed Week columnist Anthony Cody's interview with business consultant Steve Denning is worth a read for anyone interested in the content of our education.
Teacher evaluation: we need to get it right!
Dear friends,
Because you're a supporter of public education, I know you've heard from us about the "tenure bills" now before the Senate - and I'm sure you've heard from a lot of other groups, too. This is the first time we've felt we had to go in a different direction than some of our allies, and I wanted to explain personally why we're asking you to oppose these bills.
[Read our action alert here!]
People who support public schools can be split on this issue, so it helps to understand what the issues really are. Lots of folks who support these bills are focused on the need to reform teacher tenure. They want to make it less cumbersome to remove teachers who shouldn't be in the classroom. And that's perfectly reasonable, as long as there are protections to make it fair.
But that's not what these bills are really about.
Legislative Update: Tenure Bills’ Solution Worse than the Problem
6/27: See our update in the comment section about the bills as reported from committee. The full Senate will be voting soon: take action here today!
Last week, the state House of Representatives approved a package of bills that would remake the teacher tenure process, change the rules regarding seniority, and enforce a state-wide teacher evaluation framework that would guide promotion and firing decisions. While the bills individually appear to address reasonable concerns about the difficulty of disciplining tenured staff and the “last-in-first-out” system used for layoffs, taken together they have the potential to do tremendous damage to our public schools.
School districts would have to move quickly to institute a comprehensive evaluation system which relies primarily on standardized tests – tests which do not yet exist for most grades or subject areas. The burden on administration would increase exponentially, with no added resources to make sure the evaluations are performed effectively. Teachers would have no guaranteed voice in the construction of evaluation systems, since the bills would prohibit collective bargaining on those issues. Finally, the changes would, in our view, create a powerful incentive for principals and administrators – who face unrelenting budget pressures – to bias performance evaluations so that it would be easier to remove senior, more expensive teachers regardless of their actual performance. As a result, Michigan Parents for Schools cannot support this legislation and calls on the state Senate to defeat the bills.
