Monday, February 28, 2011

Charter Schools Independent and Innovative


classroomCharter Schools are independent public schools that are free to be more innovative and held accountable for improved student achievement. They foster a relationship between parents, teachers, and students to create an environment in which parents are more involved, teachers can be more innovative, and students are provided the structure they need to learn.

Charter schools operate from 3 basic principles

  1. Choice: Parents select the school their child attends. Teachers and principals choose to work in the school.
  2. Flexibility: Charter schools are free to make timely decisions about developing curricula, structuring the school day and hiring teachers who meet the needs of their students.
  3. Accountability: Charter schools operate within a multi-tiered accountability system – to parents, to authorizers via a performance-based contract, to the state and lenders – that leads to quality schools and high achievement.

There are five different types of charter schools

  • Type 1 – Charter with local school board (new start-up)
  • Type 2 – Charter with BESE (new start-up or conversion)
  • Type 3 – Charter with local school board (conversion)
  • Type 4 – School Board Charter with BESE (new start-up or conversion)
  • Type 5 – Charter with BESE (pre-existing public school under the jurisdiction of the RSD)

History of Louisiana’s charter schools

Louisiana’s Charter School Law was originally enacted in 1995 (Act 192) as a pilot program allowing up to eight school districts to volunteer to participate. These districts could either grant charters to eligible groups or apply to the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to operate a charter school themselves.
The law was substantially revised in 1997 (Act 477) to allow all school districts to participate, but the number of charter schools statewide was capped at 42. The 1997 act also allowed an “appeals-type” procedure under which an eligible group could submit its charter proposal directly to BESE if a local school board failed to approve it or if the local school board placed conditions on the approval of the charter which were unacceptable to the group.
In 2003, a constitutional amendment (Act 1293) and four bills (Act 9, Act 260, Act 381 and Act 944) impacted the operation of charter schools. The constitutional amendment authorized the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to take over failing public schools or provide for others to do so; it also authorized BESE to receive, control and spend the state and local per pupil share of the Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) for those schools. Companion legislation (Act 9) spelled out the procedure BESE is to follow to implement the provisions of the constitutional amendment; created a new “Type 5” category of charter schools as one option BESE has for providing for the operation of a failing public school it takes over; and includes special provisions for the creation and operation of Type 5 charter schools.

Louisiana’s Charter School Law

  • Download the full text of Louisiana's Charter School Law through 2009 (PDF)
  • Download the full text of the Charter School Bulletin (PDF)

Saturday, February 26, 2011

A Vivid Example of Putting Foolish Labels: “Gulen Charter Schools

By Harmony Parent
December 6, 2010 - Harmony Parent

A recent article on Leave Charters Alone grabbed my attention about charter schools, their relative accomplishments within their short history and the baseless attacks on these schools some of which have been deliberately labeled as Gulen Charter Schools.
Author starts his/her article with an allusion to the recent movie (Waiting for Superman) about charter schools: Stories related to charter schools and their self-described movement has lately been featured in the media probably more than it has been for the past five years combined. This increase in public attention is indebted to many factors such as dedication of updated resources to the movement by the Obama administration and the latest documentary by Oscar winning director Davis Guggenheim, “Waiting for 'Superman'”. As it has been the case wherever money is involved, the issue stirred a hot debate, emotions ranging from characterizing charter schools as the new savior of the broken education system to the latest demons to hijack money from our much-needy schools.


….. The charters that achieved the reputation of being “high-performing” paved their success in this “high-accountability” period. Today there are dozens of these schools such as nationwide KIPP schools, California’s Green Dot public schools, Texas’ Harmony public schools or New York’s Harlem Success Academy. These charters have long track records and are subject to increasing public scrutiny.
After giving a few reasons for the students re-entering traditional public school system, the author unfolds a recent misconception about a group of charter schools: On August 17, 2010, USA Today ran a story on Texas’ acclaimed Harmony Public School. In the article, Ed Fuller, a University of Texas-Austin researcher, was quoted "It's not hard to be 'Exemplary' if you lose all the kids who aren't performing" (www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-08-17-turkishfinal17_CV_N.htm).
More than one month later Harmony was featured on Texas Tribune on September 27, 2010 with a title “What Drives High Achievement At Harmony Charters?” (www.texastribune.org/texas-education/texas-education-agency/what-drives-high-achievement-at-harmony-charters-/). This time Fuller conceded that the percentage (Fuller reported the network’s attrition rate as 50% in USA Today) was merely an estimate based on an informal review of high school-level data, not a comprehensive study. Fuller also said that he did not find that the students who left had significantly lower test scores than those who stayed. This is an example of the same account reported in two completely different ways.
How come a researcher like Ed Fuller falls into the trap of declaring unverified data? Is it because of some sort of pressure on him to publish those bogus data? Or is it something else that we don’t know? Why did he make his claims so confidently on national level and then pulled in his horns on statewide level? Besides, which data are we going to trust from now on? What is worse, there are substantial amount of people basing their accusations and attacks on these unverified facts, using such data or similar ones to attack certain charter schools and label them ‘Gulen Charter Schools’. This ‘Gulen Charter School’ concept, by the way, has recently become a popular tag. There are plenty of amateur free-to-buy websites and blogs that have started an unprecedented smear campaign on so-called Gulen Charter Schools. It is not easy task to determine their main causes, because, so far, in charter movement history, no such smear campaign has launched on any charter school group with all various blogs and amateur websites. Ironically, this campaign is performed against one of the most successful charter school chains in Texas or in any other state. It is also not fair to call these schools “Gulen Charter Schools” giving credit to Fethullah Gulen who repeatedly insisted that he has no ties with these schools in any way (see the same USA Today article). If there is a success story, it belongs to teachers, parents, administrators and of course the students of these schools. We should refrain from putting simplistic labels such as Gulen Charter Schools.
On one occasion, I saw a mini-article claiming that Math-Count is a Gulenist organization. That is just plain ignorance, not knowing the years-long American tradition. When you combine your ill-intention with utterly ignorant approach, you just come up with nothing but some embarrassment. How can someone be filled with so much hatred and ignorance at the same time? Like I said above, it is not easy to find out the main motives of people attacking charter schools and labeling them with something (Gulen Charter Schools) Americans have never heard until recently. Maybe this labeling (Gulen Charter Schools) is the 21st century version of a new opposition in American society. We have already wasted the 20th century with labeling people, groups and organizations and this century will put the burden on the shoulders of those labeled ones: get rid of your “Gulen Charter School” or any other label if you can!
After seeing Ed Fuller’s initial accusation and subsequent deflation, I wonder if other accusations of those attackers (on the same blogs) are the products of same helter-skelter approach. The attacks and accusations are solely based on rumors with no academic credibility. At the end of the day, it is curious to know the thing operating behind the curtain. Are “Gulen Charter School” attackers doing this just because they are against charter schools or they really care about our children’s education or they want to add more fuel to their Gulen antagonism? Throughout the history, seemingly innocent intentions have turned out to be a part of a bigger plan.
To make long story short, having served and positively changed the lives of hundreds and thousands of children, charter schools, just like any other schools, deserve to get rid of foolish labels put by clumsy researchers and ill-intentioned people.

Article from Harmony Parent

Thursday, February 10, 2011

BESE honors teacher, students from charter school

  • Advocate Capitol News Bureau
  • Published: Jan 21, 2011 - Page: 8A

  • Students from a Baton Rouge middle school and a Baton Rouge teacher were recognized Thursday by the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
    A robotics team from Kenilworth Science & Technology Charter School was given a resolution from BESE, which sets state policies for public schools statewide.
    The team, called “Alienbots,” earned first place for overall performance during the state’s First LEGO League Championship in New Orleans.
    The students were also picked as the best rookie team.
    The competition was held in November.Students built autonomous robots to perform tasks related to a biomedical and engineering theme.
    Teams were also required to present judges with a biomedical problem and proposed solution. Students were rated on teamwork and professionalism.
    Members of the Kenilworth team are Jabir Abdullah, Fazil Ozcelik, Matthew Kingsley, Emma Lacy, Dylan Aguiluz and Nathaniel Batiste.
    The coach is Irfan Demir, a computer teacher and robotics coordinator at the school.
    BESE also recognized Laura Hill, a teacher at Cedarcrest-Southmoor Elementary School, who recently won a Milken National Educator Award.
    The award includes a $25,000 gift from the foundation, which issues the honors annually to teachers around the country.
    Hill teaches fourth grade. In 2009 all of her home room students passed the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program.
    Passage of the test, which measures math and English skills, is required for promotion to the fifth grade.
    The state’s other Milken winner, Renee Lee Ward, was also recognized by BESE.
    Ward teaches at Delhi Charter School in northeast Louisiana.

    Source : 2theadvocate
    Videos for this success : www.kenilworthst.org





A New Fictitious Phenomenon: Gulen Charter Schools

By Dr. Kurt
January 28, 2010
Gulen and Charter Schools

In the last two years, a new trend has been started by some mysterious bloggers later joined by a few self-identified scholars with PhDs. They came up with a brand-new term, a totally new coinage, for the charter school world: Gulen Charter Schools. While the early-bird alarmist bloggers tried to attract people’s attention to those so-called Gulen Charter Schools by claiming that Fethullah Gulen involved in the foundation and administration of some US charter schools, others – specifically the academics – based their arguments on these blogs as if the latter were highly credible sources. Moreover, in an effort to make their claims look authentic alarmist bloggers employed Charter Schools’ open-to-public data, such as tax returns and H1B visa applications which indeed have been scrutinized by local and federal government agencies many times for various procedural reasons.

The question here is what charter schools are and in what sense they could be compared with the schools founded throughout the world by the people inspired by Fethullah Gulen.
According to uscharterschools.org;
Charter schools are nonsectarian public schools of choice that operate with freedom from many of the regulations that apply to traditional public schools. The “charter” establishing each such school is a performance contract detailing the school’s mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3-5 years. At the end of the term, the entity granting the charter may renew the school’s contract. Charter schools are accountable to their sponsor– usually a state or local school board– to produce positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract. The basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for this accountability. They are accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices to several groups: the sponsor that grants them, the parents who choose them and the public that funds them.
Uscharterschools.org also provides some other definitions of charter schools from various independent sources such as this one:
Charter schools are semi-autonomous public schools, founded by educators, parents, community groups or private organizations that operate under a written contract with a state, district or other entity. This contract, or charter, details how the school will be organized and managed, what students will be taught and expected to achieve, and how success will be measured. Many charter schools enjoy freedom from rules and regulations affecting other public schools, as long as they continue to meet the terms of their charters. Charter schools can be closed for failing to satisfy these terms. (“Charter Schools Description”, Education Commission of the States, 2005)
These definitions clearly state that charter schools are public institutions owned by the public, operated for the sake of public by using public money, and responsible to the institutions representing the public. They have to be transparent – as dictated by the laws in the US – open to public by providing equal opportunity of enrollment to anyone legally eligible for the application to the school, cannot discriminate even by requiring certain test scores as a requirement for enrollment. Charter schools are operated by contractors for a specified term and the contract could be renewed based on the schools’ performance. They are accountable for their academic and fiscal performances to the institution (state, local school board etc) who granted them this privilege in the name of public. This means the contractors do not really own the schools but operate them for a pre-arranged time period. Then, if the contract is renewed they are good to go; but if not, it turns into a regular, government operated public school overnight.
Academics studying Gulen-inspired schools founded throughout the world by the people who were inspired by Fethullah Gulen’s teachings have coined the term Gulen Schools (or Gulen-inspired schools/institutions) for convenience purposes (see Ebaugh, 2010, p. 96). Although Fethullah Gulen does not accept any affiliation to his name, whether it is people or institutions, it has been useful to call them Gulen Schools. Dr. Thomas Michel describes Gulen Schools as follows:
[T]he schools inspired by Gülen’s educational understanding are not religious or Islamic. Instead, they are secular private schools inspected by state authorities and sponsored by parents and entrepreneurs. They follow secular, state-prescribed curricula and internationally recognized programs. (Michel, 2006, p. 111)
Gulen-inspired schools, unlike charter schools, are private schools financed by tuition fees and donations of local businessmen who pledged their support at school fundraisers that are held on yearly basis. They are open to public as long as students could pay the tuition and at the same time pass a certain qualification test held either by the school itself or – in Turkish case – by the state. For those who are well qualified without proper financial support, there are scholarships such as tuition waivers and even stipends. Moreover, these private schools are predominantly boarding schools where there usually is no option other than living in the dormitories under the tutelage of school administration.
The business circles of the movement are the main sponsors of these schools, supporting them financially until they are able to raise their own revenues through school fees. In each country, the community works in co-operation with the local authorities, who often provide logistical assistance and supervise the curriculum:
Some schools are completely built and funded by businessmen and industrialists, while some are joint ventures between the state and the trusts. The state provides the building, electricity, water, etc., and the trusts provide teaching, the teaching staff, and all educational materials and resources.
Some are eventually completely funded by student fees. They work as non-profitable companies or trusts, that is, all the income incurred goes back to the students again as educational investment (new teaching materials and resources such as books, computers, software; and facilities such as labs, gyms, hostels, residence halls, etc).
Ruth Woodhall says, “Every school has its own independent accountants and accountancy system. They are all accountable to the local authorities (the state) and the trust’s inspectors, and comply with the state and international law.”[1] Ian G. Williams adds that the schools do receive summary and unpredicted inspections.[2] On the other hand, a qualitative field research about Kenya’s Gülen-inspired schools suggests that the schools have been functioning not only as a secular alternative to religious, Christian missionary schools and Islamic schools, but also as barriers to potential ethno-religious conflict between Kenya’s local Christian tribes and its politically empowering Muslim minority.[3]
Charter schools allegedly affiliated to Fethullah Gulen and mistakenly called Gulen Charter Schools have none of the abovementioned characteristics that Gulen-inspired schools display. They are neither founded as private institutions, nor funded by private entrepreneurs and they are not allowed to charge any sort of tuition fee let alone putting enrollment requirements to select students that have promising academic potential. They don’t administer any entrance or qualification test. Unlike Gulen-inspired schools, charter schools have almost no donations from generous businessmen. If there is any donation, it probably comes from certain foundations like Dell Foundation or Gates Foundation within the scope of a larger project or initiative such as T-STEM. The budget of a charter school largely consists of the state money that is paid annually to each and every charter school in the nation. Charter schools also may not make zip code distinction as public schools and more than half of their students, statistics show that, come from disadvantaged areas. There is also no boarding school option as in the example of Gulen-inspired schools. Charter schools are day schools; therefore there are no dormitories that students can stay overnight.
Here remains a question: Is there any Gulen-inspired school in the sense that I have described above? I can say “Yes,” this question. There are indeed handful Gulen-inspired private schools in the United States. One of them is the Pinnacle Academy of Northern Virginia (DC metropolitan area). Lately they have attracted the attention of the national and international media after President Obama hosted Inaugural White House Science Fair. Pinnacle team developed a digital and three-dimensional model of “Yeshilist,” an imaginary city that anticipates the accommodation needs of citizens who lose their homes during an earthquake and they introduced their project to President Obama at the White House.
Another Gulen-inspired school is Brooklyn Amity School, a well-known school by its achievements at some of the top academic competitions such as Science Olympiad, Math Contests, Robotics Competitions, Art Contests, and Future City Engineering competition.
I guess there are five or six Gulen-inspired schools in the US and those schools have no connection with some other charter schools called mistakenly Gulen Charter Schools. As I stated in my article entitled Gulen Charter Schools, the fact that some people inspired by Fethullah Gulen work for a charter school does not necessarily make this school a Gulen Charter School.
Finally, I need to reiterate the fact that we should definitely make a distinction and put some space between Gulen-inspired schools and the non-existent concept of Gulen Charter Schools mistakenly claimed by some alarmist bloggers. I have described the nature of Gulen-inspired schools and their main differences from US charter schools. I hope self-proclaimed academics won’t fall into the trap of mistakenly-coined Gulen Charter Schools concept again.
[1] Ruth Woodhall, “Organizing the Organization, Educating the Educators: An Examination of Fethullah Gulen’s Teaching and the Membership of the Movement, delivered during “Islam in the Contemporary World: The Fethullah Gulen Movement in Thought and Practice” conference, Rice University, 12-13 November, 2005, pp.3-4
[2] Ian G. Williams, “An Absent Influence? The Nurcu/Fetullah Gulen Movements in Turkish Islam and Their Potential Influence upon European Islam and Global Education”, delivered during “Islam in the Contemporary World: The Fethullah Gulen Movement in Thought and Practice” conference, Rice University, 12-13 November, 2005, pp.8.
[3] Mehmet Kalyoncu, “Gulen-inspired Schools in the East Africa: Secular Alternative in Kenya and Pragmatist Approach to Development in Uganda”, delivered during “Islam in the Age of Global Challenges: Alternative Perspectives of the Gulen Movement” conference on November 14-15, 2008, Georgetown University, p.1

SOURCE: Gulen and Charter Schools

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Parents deserve charter choice

January 28, 2011
Palladium-Item

Opponents of charter schools in Indiana are saddled with a fundamental weakness in their argument against expansion of educational choices. They must persuade the public, and members of the Indiana General Assembly, that parents aren’t qualified to select the best learning environment for their children.
After all, parents aren’t forced to ship their children to charters. They choose to do so. …
Now, the General Assembly is debating whether more families should have the option of choosing a charter for their families. House Speaker Brian Bosma and other key legislators from both parties are pushing a bill that could greatly expand the number of charter schools in Indiana. Only 62 charters now operate in the state, in part because Statehouse Democrats used their majority in the House to attack educational options.
The legislation would give authority to a host of new sponsors, including a new state charter school board, mayors in cities of more than 35,000 people, and private, nonprofit universities.

Opponents are aghast that private universities would be allowed to sponsor charters. That’s another tough argument for the opposition to win.
However, one component of the legislation, although well intended, does present a problem. The bill would require districts to rent vacant school buildings to charters for only $1 a year. It’s certainly a challenge for charter school organizers to raise capital to obtain and often renovate buildings, but the state shouldn’t take away school boards’ ability to make decisions about how best to use public properties.
With that weakness noted, and with the understanding that charters are by no means a panacea to what ails this state’s educational system, the legislation deserves strong public support.

SOURCE: Palladium-Item

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Minnesota ranks first in 2011 charter school law rankings

January 23, 2011
Alexandria Echo Press

Minnesota has the nation’s strongest charter school law for the second year in a row, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ second annual ranking of state charter school laws.
Mississippi’s new charter school law ranked last.
Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Public Charter School Laws analyzes the country’s 41 state charter laws and scores how well each supports charter school quality and growth based on the 20 essential components from the Alliance’s model charter school law.
“Minnesota tops the chart most notably because of its laws promoting quality and funding equity for charter schools,” said report author Todd Ziebarth, vice president of state advocacy and support, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. “However, legislators could do more to ensure equitable access to capital funding and facilities for charter schools.”

Minnesota enacted the nation’s first charter school law in 1991. In 2009, Minnesota enacted a “second generation” charter school law that addressed a comprehensive series of measures to strengthen the accountability of authorizers, schools, and boards of directors as well as to enhance the innovation within charter schools.
“Our ongoing effort has been to enhance accountability, quality and innovation in Minnesota’s charter schools and authorizers – so we are extremely pleased to see that, for a second year in a row, Minnesota’s charter school law is ranked first in the nation, especially as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the enactment of Minnesota’s first in the nation charter school law. The first in the nation ranking, however, does not mean that we cannot continue to improve our law. In fact, we will be introducing a number of proposals during this legislative session to continue to promote quality and accountability,” said Eugene Piccolo, Executive Director of the Minnesota Association of Charter Schools.
The new report captures all the legislative moves states made to be more competitive under the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top program. As a result of positive policy changes made over the past year, Florida made the biggest jump from 2010, moving from number 11 to second place. Because of charter schools legislation passed in 2010, Massachusetts also made a jump, from number six to third place. And, the charter school legislation New York enacted in 2010 moved it from number eight to number five.
Conversely, the District of Columbia tumbled the furthest from 2010, dropping from the second to the eighth place. In addition, California fell from the third to the sixth position, Georgia fell from fourth to seventh, and Utah dipped from seventh to tenth.
As a new crop of governors and legislators prepare for the upcoming legislative sessions, the rankings provide clear indications of where some states excel and others come up short in charter school laws and offer a positive roadmap for how governors and legislators can take action to strengthen their charter school laws.
“High-quality charter schools start with strong charter school laws. Our state charter law rankings describe how laws can ensure charter schools are able to innovate in ways that boost student achievement while being held to high standards of academic, fiscal, and operational performance,” explained Peter C. Groff, president and CEO, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. “The rankings and the model law developed by the Alliance and other key stakeholders are moving lawmakers in key states to make positive policy changes.”
The 10 states with laws shown to best support the growth of high-quality charter schools are: Minnesota, Florida, Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, California, Georgia, District of Columbia, Louisiana and Utah.
The report also found that 24 states and the District of Columbia still have caps that impede the growth of charter schools. In nine of these states, such caps are severely constraining growth: Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio. More than 420,000 students across the country are hoping for an additional seat at a charter school and there is no correlation between caps and school quality or student achievement. “These states should remove their arbitrary restrictions on charter growth,” added Ziebarth.
In addition, 10 states have still failed to enact a charter school law: Alabama, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.
The complete analysis can be downloaded at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools web site: www.publiccharters.org/charterlawrankings2011 . See detailed state-by-state summaries and color-coded maps of how states measure against each component at the http://charterlaws.publiccharters.org.
For more information on Minnesota’s charter schools, visit the MN Association of Charter Schools website: www.mncharterschools.org

SOURCE: Echo Press

D.C. Charter School Laws Earn an ‘A’

By Deborah Simmons
January 12, 2011
The Washington Times

 
Education-reform group cites city, underscoring Rhee’s efforts

As unions move to organize charter-school employees, former D.C. Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee rolled out a taut school-reform agenda that pushes charter expansion and public-private vouchers, and she said the untold number of charter teachers she has encountered are not “interested in joining a union.”
Ms. Rhee‘s proposal and comments came as the District of Columbia won the No. 1 spot for its charter-school laws, which are touted in a new Center for Education Reform study for supporting school and teacher autonomy. Ms. Rhee supported those efforts as chancellor by pushing union roadblocks aside to institute groundbreaking reforms and broaden school choice.
“I am in favor of employees being able to organize. That said, I’ve met significant numbers of charter-school teachers, none of whom are interested in joining a union,” Ms. Rhee, now head of an organization called Students First, told The Washington Times. “Rather, they are focused on working with the students, parents and administrators in their school to create the best learning environment possible. Work rules and tenure are the least of their concerns.”

Those learning environments, which often include longer school days and weekend classes, are least restrictive when teachers and administrators are free of traditional red tape and parents are encouraged to select the best academic fit for their children.
Labor organizers already wield influence in charter schools in several states, such as New York and New Jersey, as well as Florida, California, Illinois and Michigan.
But charter schools and “union shackles” are incompatible, Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform, said Wednesday.
“In states where charters are not granted the freedom and flexibility to provide innovative learning environments for their students, they are not able to fulfill their intended purpose,” Ms. Allen said.
“This is especially true when it comes to their staff. Teachers should be allowed to achieve success in the classroom free of union contracts that could restrict extended school days or additional instruction. At the same time, charters should be empowered to identify and remove staff who are not making the grade for kids. Union shackles are at odds with the nature of charter schools,” she said.
The new study reviewed 40 states and the District of Columbia on their charter-school laws, and graded them on the number of authorizers, schools allowed, fiscal equity and operations, including autonomy, teacher freedom and union influence.
D.C. charter laws ranked No. 1 on all criteria, with two other jurisdictions — second-place Minnesota and third-place California — also earning an A. Minnesota was the first state to establish charter schools, doing so in 1991.
Virginia ranked 40th out of 41, one of four states to earn an F — the others being Kansas, Iowa and Mississippi.
Maryland wasn’t much better — placing 35th, or seventh from bottom.
New York ranked as the seventh strongest even though its “union-forced rules dominate some aspects of charter [school] contracts,” the report said.
But the state got good marks because it raised its cap on the number of charter schools in 2010, grants a blanket waiver on most centralized rules and regulations, and grants limited autonomy based on individual schools’ enrollment numbers.
A total of 14 states earned a C, largely attributed to funding inequities and the lack of autonomy. For example, while New Jersey’s laws allow teachers in new charter schools to negotiate contracts as a unit or as individuals, teachers in traditional schools that convert to charters retain collective-bargaining agreements and their schools must participate in the state’s retirement system.
With Ms. Rhee looking on Wednesday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called union demands problematic for school reform and fiscal responsibility.
Promising to push merit pay, end tenure and expand charters, the Republican governor said in his State of the State address, “Teaching can no longer be the only profession where you have no rewards for excellence and no consequences for failure to perform.”
He also vowed to trim the rising costs of union pensions, which he called “this cloud that hangs over us and almost every state in the union.”
Ms. Rhee, who implemented a teacher-evaluation plan that continues to draw heavy union criticism, is an educational adviser to top officials in New Jersey, Florida and several other states.

SOURCE: The Washington Times