The U.S. Department of Education this coming week is expected to announce which states are finalists for the first round of federal Race to the Top grants.

Tom Carroll of the New York Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability reviewed each of the 40 state applications and predicts what he believes will be seven states likely to get awards. Hint: New York is not among them.

Mr. Carroll's analysis was published in the City Journal here.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
twitter.com/petermurphy26
Facebook: "Chalkboard Nycsa"

Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez is obsessed with Eva Moskowitz, a former member of the New York City Council and now charter school founder and operator.

This obsession predates my postings on The Chalkboard, the first of which discussed this very topic in early March of last year (here). Mr. Gonzalez's problem then was that private sector folk chose to pay Ms. Moskowitz well for creating and operating a network of successful public schools. I'm not sure what price one puts on inner-city minority children learning and achieving better than they would have otherwise, but that joyful outcome is thankfully worth the investment to those who support the Success Charter Network.

I'm not aware of any establishment figure ever criticizing Bill Gates or the late Walter Annenberg for pouring millions of dollars into traditional public education, regardless of the outcome. But, invest in charter schools governed by a performance contract to improve student learning and achievement, and you'll receive unhealthy envy and scorn from the likes of Mr. Gonzalez, UFT boss Michael Mulgrew (here), and Harlem state Senator Bill Perkins, to name three - the consumate defenders of what Ms. Moskowitz describes as the "union-political-educational complex."

Mr. Gonzalez's latest column this week (here) pretends to have a smoking gun from email exchanges between Eva Moskowitz and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein regarding Ms. Moskowitz's efforts to secure more district space for the charter schools she operates through the Success Charter Network. The city last year unsuccessfully sought to close Public Schools 194 and 241 in Harlem due to the political pushback from the Chancellor's plan to locate charter schools in those spaces.

City Provides Buildings Becuase of No Charter Facilities Aid
Mr. Gonzalez mentions that New York City is "one of the few" that provide free space to--egads!-- public charter schools. But he fails to acknowledge the reason; that is, charter schools do not get facilities aid. This amounts to a funding inequity of between $3,017 (IBO) to $3,432 (DOE) per student based on separate analyses released this week respectively by the Independent Budget Office and the city Department of Education. For those charters located in district space, still there is a funding gap of between $305 (IBO) and $877 (DOE) less per charter student.

Dealing with Charters Co-locations and District School Closures
As for closing public schools, charter schools understand it's part of the bargain and the risk of operating. If charters do not fulfill their contractual and statutory obligations, they risk closure. District schools are not used to such accountability, with the latest DOE effort provoking a lawsuit by that bastion of no accountability, the United Federation of Teachers. So, here's two suggestions respectively to minimize district school closures and charter co-locations in DOE space:

1) Empower the Chancellor to directly remove the existing staff at a school slated for closure and and hire new staff for the school to operate outside the existing UFT collective bargaining agreement. The employee contacts should be replaced with with brand new ones from scratch; or, not exist at all so the school operates like most of the country: at-will employment. That way, parents attached to the neighborhood, zoned school will still have it to send their children but under new management and staff working in a new accountability structure conducive to a genuine and rapid improvment.

2) Charter schools should receive state facilities aid of at least $3,000 per student to invest in getting space privately or, if using DOE space, pay this facilities aid to the school district treasury as lease payments.

As long as neither of these approaches is in place, conflicts will continue and students will lose out in the current arrangements where chronically low-performing district schools remain and successful charters cannot expand.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26 &
get "Chalkboard Nycsa" on Facebook)

Governor David Paterson will announce today that he is not running for Governor this year. It's everywhere in the news.

The Governor's administration is engulfed in a scandal involving allegations of interference in a domestic violence dispute involving a top aide to the Governor. This bombshell story was reported in the New York Times this week (here). The interference allegations involve the State Police and the Governor himself.

Speculation abounds whether the Governor will resign from office. If he does, the appointed Lieutenant Governor, Richard Ravitch, will assume office. My own view is that such speculation is very premature and that a Paterson resignation is highly unlikely, at least in the near term.

The matter involving interference in this domestic violence dispute will be under investigation by the state Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo (who also is widely expected to run for Governor). Barring clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing by the Governor (which likely would not be know for weeks or months), he will serve out his term of office which expires this December 31st.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard

The Albany Times Union today reported (here) on yesterday's vote by the SUNY Charter Schools Committee to close New Covenant Charter School at school year's end. This is likely to be reaffirmed and made final by the full SUNY Board next month.

TU education reporter, Scott Waldman, has done excellent, fair-minded reporting on the situation surrounding New Covenant, including capturing the personal and emotional impact of its pending closure on the families connected to the school.

Waldman also characterized New Covenant's likely closure as a "symbolic hit to the state's entire charter school movement." On this point, he is not only way off; in fact, the opposite is more the truth.

The closure of a low-performing charter school--or any public school--after sufficient opportunity and time for self-correction, is a symbol of accountability and a display that high standards are taken seriously. Failure to hold public schools accountable for quality education symbolizes a lack of seriousness and a tolerance for shoddiness and low expectations by adults toward children who deserve better.

Notwithstanding New Covenant's recent success and climb from its previous depths, this school for most of its 11 years has, in fact, been a test case of what a charter school should not be. The SUNY Board of Trustees gave this school too many chances and too many admonitions that were not followed through - until yesterday.

Lessons Learned from New Covenant
The persistent problems for New Covenant have been lessons learned for SUNY as an authorizer and for charter school operators throughout Albany and statewide. Though SUNY couldn't bring itself for years to hold New Covenant properly accountable for what can only be described as a blind spot, it has held other schools accountable. Back in 1999, the mistakes made in the approval and opening of New Covenant--that is, it opened too quickly and too large--were subequently corrected. After 2000, SUNY never again allowed for either mistake to be made with charter school proposals. In addition, for years, Edison Schools, Inc. managed New Covenant and several other charters in New York. Today, Edison manages only one school, Harriet Tubman in the Bronx, and has no prospects for more charters in New York any time soon.

There is no joy in witnessing or implementing a school closure. But they must occur not for symbolic reasons, but to enforce real accountability and ensure that quality education and higher student achievement are met and sustained by the adults entrusted with this sacred responsibility.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26 &
get "Chalkboard Nycsa" on Facebook)

The New York Times' "City Room" blog by reporter Sharon Otterman discusses the IBO study (here).

Patrick Sullivan, member of the Panel on Education Policy appointed by the Manhattan Borough President, commissioned the report. He is not a fan of charter schools and is content with them getting less funding: "the concept when charters were created is [sic] that charters should be less expensive." Really, Mr. Sullivan? Charter students count for less; guess they should all suck it up and make the best of it, courtesy of Patrick Sullivan.

Then there is Michael Mulgrew, United Federation of Teachers boss, who gets unsurprisingly churlish. He describes the funding difference between district schools and charters in district space as "negligible" and that charter advocates should basically just be quiet. He also ignores the DOE's figure that is nearly triple the IBO's funding gap. What if the opposite were true, and district schools got funding cuts of $300 to $900 per student? Mr. Mulgrew wouldn't call it "negligible;" he'd have a much different reaction.

Further, Mr. Mulgrew says that when you factor in private fundraising, why, charters would have resources "well beyond those of public schools." This is a throwaway statement with no evidence. The reality is that all those charter schools that bust their rear ends to raise money to put a roof over their heads, hire teaching specialists, assist with college preparation, or cover their budget gaps from the funding freeze courtesy of Mulgrew's organization need not make any apologies. The fact that charters must rely on private dollars to provide a quality education is itself a result of this inequality in charter funding going back a dozen years.

Since the UFT purports to represent some charter school faculty, one wonders when Mr. Mulgrew is going to be concerned about this funding gap that does them harm, instead of being so small and dismissive.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26
& get "Chalkboard Nycsa" on Facebook)

The New York City Independent Budget Office -- as in, independent of pro-charter Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Klein -- issued an analysis today (here) that calculated the funding inequity between charter schools and district schools. No surprise: charter schools do indeed get less than district schools in New York City, including charters housed in free district-provided space.

According to the IBO's report, based on 2008-09 data, charter schools get $3,017 less per student than a city district school. For charter schools in district space, the gap is narrowed to $305 less per charter student.

The report calculated per pupil amounts for in-kind support for charter schools, including textbooks, nursing, and transportation. For charter schools in district space, it assigned per pupil amounts for facilities, safety and debt service, among other expenses.

IBO Report Underestimates Funding Gap
The IBO's analysis I contend underestimates the gap between charter and district school funding. For example, funding levels are assigned to charter schools in facilities based on a district wide average, even though most charter schools share space with district schools which should result in lower proportionate facility and safety costs. In addition, non-recurring start-up costs for supplies and furniture costs provided for charter schools are erroneously counted in perpetuity. The IBO also compares charters against district wide per pupil spending levels rather than comparable, higher-cost district schools with higher poverty rates comparable to charter schools.

The New York City Department of Education reacted to the IBO report by releasing a statement (here) and providing its own funding gap estimates. DOE calculates that charter schools receive $3,432 less per pupil than district schools and $877 less per student for charter schools housed in district space - this latter figure is nearly three times the IBO estimate.

Funding Gap is Widening - Charter Students Matter Less
The IBO analysis uses budget data from last year, 2008-09. Since then, charter funding for this year has been frozen at these prior-year levels, while the city school district's spending has increased. Gov. Paterson has proposed to continue this charter funding freeze for 2010-11, which will exacerbate the funding inequity.

The state legislature should reject Gov. Paterson's proposal to retain the funding freeze on charters and instead allow them to be funding based on district spending, up or down. Failure to do so not only widens this perpetual funding injustice, but sends a terrible message to students in charter schools: You matter less.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26
& get "Chalkboard Nycsa" on Facebook)

The State University of New York Board of Trustees' committee on Charter Schools just after noon time today voted to close New Covenant Charter School at the end of the school year. The committee's vote was 3-to-1, with committee chairman Pedro Noguera voting against closure.

Interestingly, the SUNY Board Chairman, Carl Hayden, participated in the discussion and urged the committee to close the school, which was the staff recommendation by the Charter Schools Institute.

New Covenant is in its 11th year.

The committee's recommendation to close New Covenant will be taken up by the full SUNY Board of Trustees next month. Chairman Hayden promised a full airing of both sides of the issue.

Today's committee meeting included presentations by Institute director, Jonas Chartock, as well as school representatives, including the management company, Victory Schools, and the bondholders.

The SUNY trustees acknowledged that scores at the school improved, but in the end, came up short; while the school's finances were unsound. In addition, Hayden noted that the school's turnover in students and staff presented a dubious indicator of the school's academic progress since fewer students remained in the cohort showing academic improvement.

This is the end of the line for New Covenant. I cannot conceive of the full SUNY Board reversing the committee's decision, especially given position of the Board Chairman, Mr. Hayden, to close the school.

It's a sad day, but unfortunately, a necessary one.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26
& get "Chalkboard Nycsa" on Facebook)

The Buffalo News editorial board on Sunday weighed in on the issue of the New York State United Teachers agenda for unionizing teachers at charter schools (here), and admonished that the union's effort could turn charters into the kind of district schools from which charter parents removed their children.

The editorial presents both sides of the issue by mentioning the claim of NYSUT president, Richard Iannuzzi, that teachers need a "voice" at any school; and my own concern about NYSUT's conflict of interest in vacuuming union dues from charter school teachers while fighting against their schools' funding.

NYSUT's "Jekyll and Hyde" routine toward charter schools cannot be overstated. As The Chalkboard has posted numerous times (e.g., here): NYSUT advocated less funding for charter schools for this year, costing them nearly $50 million statewide, including more than $10 million for charter schools--and their teachers--in Buffalo.

And, the teachers union has been stone silent on Gov. Paterson's proposal to retain the funding freeze into next year which, if enacted, means that charter schools in 2010-11 will have to survive on funding levels from two years prior, in 2008-09. No school district is required to cope with funding levels from two years ago.

So much for that teachers "voice" from NYSUT.

The union is mute on this funding cut these days and it's no surprise: they are the reason for the legislative tampering of the charter funding formula in the first place. In fact, the only NYSUT "voice" you hear in the halls of the state Capitol is to undercut charter schools, most recently with its attempt to cripple them in the proposed Race to the Top legislation that nearly passed the state legislature last month.

Would the Source of Charter Funding Matter?
Mr. Iannuzzi claims that what's needed is a separate, state financed formula for charter schools, rather than the existing means with the school district paying the charter school. Amazingly, with this excuse, he is confirming his own Jekyll & Hyde conflict of interest by unionzing charters while simultaeously opposing more resources for them.

In fact, changing the source of funding does not remove NYSUT's conflict of interest.

First, school districts receive state aid on every resident student enrolled in a charter school since those students count as school district enrollment to generate state school aid. If there was a separate, state-financed charter fund, the school district's enrollment would decline accordingly by removing the count of charter students, leading to a drop in school aid for those districts. No one should spin themselves into thinking the state would hold harmless districts like Buffalo. If the state pays directly for charter schools, it's not going to also pay the school district for charter students, especially these days.

Second, more than any other school district, Buffalo makes money on charter schools because its state funding ratio is so lopsided in the district's favor that it gets more in state aid per charter student than it pays to the charter school.

Finally, NYSUT's conflict of interest would not end if the state funded charters directly. NYSUT would continue to advocate for more aid for school districts where its membership is employed at the expense of state funding for every other program, including charter schools. NYSUT already has done so for this reason; why would the union behave any differently?

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26
& get "Chalkboard Nycsa" on Facebook)

The old saying, "success has many fathers while failure is an orphan," does not apply to New York's failure to get a strong Race to the Top bill enacted last month.

Looking back, this failure has at least a couple of major culprits; Governor David Paterson is not fairly among them.

The New York Times series of highly critical articles on Gov. Paterson this week goes too far in its assessment of his role in the state's failure to enact a strong Race to the Top bill to competitively position New York for new federal education funds (here).

Gotham Schools reporter, Maura Walz, on Friday challenged the Times' assessment (here) by retracing the many factors leading to the state legislature not even voting on a Race to the Top bill.

RttT Money Not Worth Reforms to Teacher Unions
While New York State may have been slow to realize changes were needed for Race to the Top, that was not ultimately a factor in its demise. My own belief, expressed on The Chalkboard (e.g., here & here) even before the failure, is the teacher unions, UFT and NYSUT, simply did not view the extra federal dollars as worth the price of adopting reforms in public education that the Obama administration seeks through its Race to the Top competition (see also here and Time magazine's account here). Charter school changes are only one of a series of education reforms promoted by Race to the Top. Others include repeal of the ban on using student test data for making tenure decisions; school intervention strategies including takeover of chronically low-performing schools; streamline the teacher disciplinary process ("3020-a" reform); and other reforms (here).

In fact, charter school "opponents" confirmed this view in Gotham's story yesterday:

"Another camp of charter opponents argue that the expansion of charter schools would come at too great a cost to make the $700 million in grant money even worth it."

While it is not explicit this "camp" is one of the teacher unions, this would not be a new stance for them. Back in the spring of 1998, then-Gov. George Pataki offered to restore millions of dollars in item vetoes he made to the legislature's adopted 1998-99 state budget on the condition that the unions stand down in their opposition to his proposed charter school legislation. The unions refused and the item vetoes stuck. It was not until after Pataki's re-election later that year that a compromise Charter Schools Act was adopted, which was accompanied by a legislative pay hike.

With respect to charter schools, the idea that all the unions wanted to do was require more accountability and special ed students, reiterated in part by a NYSUT spokesman to Gotham, is patently absurd. Those issues were merely union soundbites in their attempt to discredit charters and defeat any real increase in the cap (e.g., here). Charter schools already are subject to rigorous accountability and transparency provisions both in statute and administratively. Codifying administrative requirements also was made part of the Governor's Race to the Top legislation (S.6470), which was not considered.

A Second Chance to Get it Right
Ultimately, the failure to enact a strong Race to the Top bill is the democratic system itself, that properly demands that many factions come to consensus, and which by design is difficult to achieve on a controversial subject. Accordingly, the process is set up to often lead to stalemate. But, in this case doing nothing was preferable to doing the wrong thing by crippling charter schools through a sham Race to the Top bill backed by charter opponents.

If New York fails to win a Race to the Top grant in April, it will get another chance in June with the second federal application process. With looming education cuts for next school year more palpable by then, hopefully the parties can strip away the rhetoric and expand charter school opportunities. This could be accomplished by cleanly raising the charter cap while providing a congenial process for locating charters in district space in New York City, which should include finally providing charters equitable facilities funding.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26
& get "Chalkboard Nycsa" on Facebook)

"You're Fired!"- even in public ed.

I posted a guest blog on the NY Education Reform Blog (here) which discusses the Superintendent of the Central Falls School District in Rhode Island, Frances Gallo, summarily firing the entire staff at the district's high school.

The state labeled this school as one of the worse performing in the state, and the teachers union refused to implement several reform ideas, demanded by the Rhode Island Commissioner of Education, without a higher pay raise. This provoked the superintendent to implement the next option: the "turnaround" plan which begins by removing the entire staff of a failing school.

The reforms rejected by the union were hardly out of the ordinary, and any suffering business or charter school under a performance contract would do that and more to remain in business and produce a better product or outcome. Not in the Central Falls School District.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26
& get "Chalkboard Nycsa" on Facebook)

I commented as a guest blogger on NY Ed Reform Blog (here) discussing the unfortunate likelihood that little will change regarding the "rubber rooms" for New York City teachers under discipline - or awaiting a discipline hearing.

Both the Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers have use for this purgatory, and neither side is likely to fundamentally alter their position on disciplining teachers.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26
& "Chalkboard Nycsa" on Facebook)

Charter schools do not get facilities aid - a common complaint made on The Chalkboard and everywhere else.

Several other states have provided support to charter schools for facilities, including formula-based funding. New York State has done nothing like that; instead it's given minimal competitive grants to some charter schools.

Yesterday's Daily News article (here) by reporter Rachel Monahan discussed three "politically connected" charter schools expected to receive "millions in city money for new buildings" from the New York City capital plan.

How about that?! Those three public schools will now get the "millions" that a thousand other district schools in the city already receive!

Like, some proper perspective is in order.

Charters Paying Millions for City-owned Space
This article is loaded with terminology about being politically-connected and playing favorites. Not hardly. Rather, as the article also mentions, all charters can access capital plan funding -- as long as the school can come up with one-third of the cost by itself. That is something no district school is required to do. That means a lot of fundraising and squirreling away money in the absence of facilities funding. Only a few charter schools have the means to do so, including schools like PAVE Charter School and Harlem Children's Zone Promise Academy. They should be praised, rather than thrown cheap-shots by critics.

The charter schools that can come up with one-third of the cost of the of a new building can access capital plan funds to build a city-owned building. Sounds like a bargain for the school district, which only spends two-thirds of the cost of a facility, while the charter school pays the remainder for something it doesn't own.

Until the state decides to provide funding justice for charter school students, arguments back-and-forth about charter facilities will continue to polarize in many New York City communities - even against those schools that are paying millions for one-third the cost of a city-owned building.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Today's New York Post has a column by me (here) discussing the funding inequity between charter schools and district schools.

For starters, charter schools have always gotten less--about one-third less--than districts on a per pupil basis primarily from the lack of facilities funding. This has now been made worse by the state-imposed funding freeze on charter schools at 2008-09 levels, which Gov. Paterson has proposed to continue into next year, 2010-11.

School districts have continued to spend more thanks to local taxes and federal stimulus. Charter funding should follow that spending like it did for their first ten years. This funding formula connection to school district expenditures has been severed by the charter funding freeze, which exacerbates the existing funding equity borne by charter students.

Charter schools must demand funding justice with their state legislators as they grapple with putting together the state budget in the next six weeks.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Come home, Senator Thompson, and stand for the best education possible for children, including charter schools.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Governor David Paterson released his 21-day amendments to his proposed 2010-11 Executive Budget yesterday and kept the charter funding freeze in place for next year -- at 2008-09 levels. New York Charter Schools Association President, Bill Phillips, issued a statement yesterday on the Governor's action here.

The pleas of more than 3,000 charter supporters in Albany last week did not persuade the Governor to reconsider this injustice. The Chalkboard has described how charters have been treated in such a punitive fashion, unlike any school district or locality, which do not have to live on funding levels from two years prior.

Governor Paterson's administration knows charter funding should be tied to district spending, yet they instead are cutting their funding disproportionate to any treatment given to school districts. It's an outrage.

Anyone who wants to stop more charter schools in New York need not worry about a cap lift since no school can live long -- or open its doors -- and deliver a quality education if this funding freeze remains.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Lobbying for [anti-charter] provisions while seeking to organize local charter schools would be "a conflict of interest," [Phil] Rumore said.
-- Buffalo News, Tuesday, Feb. 9th


Buffalo Teachers Federation president, Phil Rumore, has never liked charter schools and has mostly shown no interest in organizing their faculty. This man represents school district teachers and deals with the Buffalo School District superintendent and board of education.

Mr. Rumore also wants the state legislature to mandate provisions that, in my view, are unfavorable to charter schools, including cutting their funding; or are based a lack of understanding of existing requirements of charters. Based on his stance on charter schools, Mr. Rumore correctly views it as "a conflict of interest" to be representing charter school faculty, as he told the Buffalo News (here).

I have made this point repeatedly with respect to the New York State United Teachers trying to organize charter school faculty while working against charter schools' interests in the state legislature. I did so in today's Buffalo News, and often on The Chalkboard (e.g., here). In making this point, my concerns with NYSUT have everything to do with their lobbying positions, and have nothing to do with labor relations at the school level. They are different matters.

With this rare congenniality, just call me, for the moment, Phil Murphy (or Peter Rumore - see here).

The most obvious example of this conflict of interest was NYSUT's successful advocacy for the charter funding freeze last year (here), costing $50 million to charter schools statewide ($10 million in Buffalo). That is money denied for higher teacher pay in charter schools, among other needs. Gov. Paterson has proposed to maintain the charter funding freeze for next year at 2008-09 funding levels. A more recent example of NYSUT's anti-charter school agenda was its attempt to use the Race to the Top program (here) to push state legislation to prevent new charter schools, eliminate SUNY from chartering, and impose new costs on all charter schools.

NYSUT's Ethical Conflict Won't Stop Its Pursuit of Teacher Dues
Unlike Mr. Rumore, NYSUT president, Richard Iannuzzi, has no such ethical conflict when it comes to organizing charter school teachers--and collecting dues from them--while undermining their charter schools' finances and other interests at the state government level in Albany. Instead, he falls back on his straw-man arguments, describing anyone (like me) who questions NYSUT's lobbying behavior as anti-union.

Mr. Iannuzzi's soundbites may appeal to unionized teachers, with rhetoric about "solidarity" and anti-union bogeymen. But teachers should look carefully beyond the charter school building and understand the real conflict NYSUT is perpetrating (or attempting) with their money. The union's activities in the state Capitol are all about advancing school district, not charter interests.

If you don't want to take my word for it, then understand Phil Rumore's point acknowledging the conflict of interest; NYSUT's own words to support the charter funding freeze (which will lead to teacher layoffs); and Mr. Iannuzzi's own op-ed piece in the Buffalo News (Nov. 11th here) - hint: charter teachers are outnumbered and lose out to NYSUT's district interests.

Charter school teachers: take heed.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

The Regents committee on Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education today approved five more charter schools, each opening by this fall:

-- Bushwick Ascend (Brooklyn CSD 23);
-- Cultural Arts Academy (Brooklyn CSD 18);
-- Challenge Preparatory (Queens CSD 27);
-- Democracy Prep - Harlem (Manhattan CSD 5); and
-- West Buffalo Charter School.


Approval of these schools leaves just one charter remaining from the Regents 100. The State University of New York has 18 charters available and is reviewing 13 applications for new schools proposed to open in 2011.

Strong Community Support - for Charters Seeking DOE Space
Note that of the four New York City charters, two of them (Democracy Prep and Challenge Prep) are seeking to use district space while the other two are leasing privately-owned space. For all the angst about "co-location" in Harlem and elsewhere, what should not be overlooked is the community support these schools generated. For example, Democracy Prep's flagship school in Harlem received 1,500 applications for 80 available seats in that school for the current year. Few if any charters could boast of such numbers. Challenge Prep has letters of support from every major political figure representing the area of the school's location, including state Sen. Malcolm Smith, Congressman Greg Meeks, Assemblywoman Michelle Titus, City Councilman James Saunders, and Queens Borough President Helen Marshall.

Co-location is a fact of life for many district schools "sharing" space with other district schools. Considering the demand and support for charters in communities all over the City, there is no reason charter schools should not continue to access available district space.

The full board of Regents tomorrow will formally adopt the committee's action today, making it official. Congratulations to each of the school's founders!

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

The New York City "rubber room" for teachers who were removed from the classroom amid allegations of misconduct, but whose union contract protects against being fired, continues to get the attention of the New York Post, including from columnist Andrea Peyser (here).

The Post uncovered another sensational case of a teacher seven years in the rubber room who was accused of sexual molestation. There are about 660 teachers in the rubber room awaiting disciplinary hearings.

State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., of the Bronx, expressed outrage at this latest example in today's Post.

Rubber rooms have come under fire from some state legislators - too few, actually. State Senator John DeFrancisco of Syracuse, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, last week questioned NYSUT and the NYC United Federation of Teachers about the rubber rooms. Michael Mulgrew, the UFT president, responded indignantly based on his contention that most of the cases get hearings within a few months; many are settled beforehand; and that policy should not be dictated by sensationalized cases. Mulgrew also asserted that many teachers languish in the rubber room because the City Department of Education never formally charges the teacher of misconduct (but doesn't want them back teaching, either).

Mulgrew promised at last week's legislative budget hearing to say more about this issue, including a new proposal, in the coming weeks. The union has every incentive to want this issue out of the public domain. That will be interesting given the fact that City officials want this perk clamped down upon.

Rubber Rooms in the Union Contract and Embedded in State Ed Law
In effect, rubber rooms are a contractual issue that protects teachers from being summarily fired and designed to assure due process to the accused, which is agreed upon in the collective bargaining contract and reflective of state law (i.e., section 3020-a of the Education Law). Many teachers indeed languish either because the hearings take too long to schedule, or the legal cost is prohibitively expensive to proceed with firing a teacher.

As part of increasing accountability in education for federal Race to the Top funding, the Regents proposed reforms in the 3020-a teacher disciplinary process to streamline and lower the cost of disciplining teachers. Tellingly, this proposal was ignored in the state legislature to the point where no one dared introduce a bill.

A Hot Potato - Expect Nothing to Change
Unless more outrageous stories appear on the rubber room, I would expect nothing to happen legislatively. In addition, watch for the UFT to take the offensive on this and pin the problem back on the City DOE. The last thing the union wants is to be on the defensive about this, with its lack of accountability on display.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Rumors are surrounding Governor David Paterson's status, not just his prospects for re-election, but whether he'll remain as Governor.

Last night's Associated Press story by Capitol reporter, Michael Gormley captured the moment by reporting private meetings over the weekend between the Governor and Democratic officials, purportedly discussing his election campaign, but also involving unsubstantiated rumors of his personal conduct.

The AP story contained the following passage:

"A Democrat close to the situation, though, said the meetings included discussions about whether Paterson would resign or announce he will not run because of the unsubstantiated claims in the whisper campaign surrounding the governor's behavior."

Where this is going I dare not speculate. David Paterson is Governor and that matters, regardless of rumors, poll numbers, or what his fellow Democratic officeholders think of him. I do not believe the Governor is resigning, no matter what "rumors" may surface. For the record, his aides emphatically deny any speculation about a resignation.

On Tuesday the Governor will issue his required 21-day amendments to his Executive Budget proposed for state fiscal year 2010-11, which begins April 1st. The legislature will spend the better part of the next seven weeks dealing with budget issues and trying to close an $8.2 billion gap in an election year. This is the business at hand.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Governor Paterson's proposed Executive Budget for 2010-11 not only continues the charter school funding freeze at 2008-09 formula levels, but continues untouched the formula for "transition aid" to school districts outside of New York City for their charter school payments.

It's bad enough that charter schools get their funding frozen. But school districts meanwhile will next year receive nearly $22 million in transition aid for students that departed the district for a charter school, an increase of $3 million over the current-year amount of nearly $19 million.

The Governor should leave both funding formulas alone. Instead, he continues to freeze the charter funding formula and continues to pay districts for losing students to charters. (Reminder: transition aid to school districts is icing on the cake since they already count charter enrollment in the district-wide enrollment to generate state school aid to districts.)

Charter Funding Doesn't Impact State Budget; Transition Aid Does
The added irony to all of this is that from a state financial standpoint, freezing the charter formula does not impact the state budget since school districts actually pay the charter schools from state and federal aid and local sources. In other words, the state reaps no savings to lower its deficit by freezing charter spending.

By contrast, the transition payments to school districts for losing students is a state expenditure, and impacts the budget by widening the deficit another $22 million.

This is a funding injustice for charters - with an added twist of the knife.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

The Albany Common Council, made up of 16 members, met last Monday evening to consider a resolution introduced by Councilwoman Cathy Fahey to call on the state legislature to impose a local limit on charter school enrollment in the city.

This resolution, filled with misinformation and bogus data provided directly by the Albany City School District, is another example of how citizens should never assume their elected officials take their actions based on accurate information. Often they don't.

Anti-Progressive Resolution about Protecting the System
This resolution was all about protecting the school district. It had nothing to do with children and their needs. It had nothing to do with parental demand; nor about the quality of education in the district or charter schools. The Common Council is loaded with self-proclaiming "progressives" who were poised to approve of this anti-progressive measure: protecting a school district establishment. This school district's failures have been felt particularly among low-income and minority families who have sought refuge and opportunity in charter schools.

None of that mattered to Cathy Fahey and the Common Council - until Monday evening.

Albany Charters Speak Out
The Albany charter school community, which now educates nearly one-quarter of Albany's public school students, rallied against this resolution. Charter school parents, grandparents (including County Legislator, Wanda Willingham), and school leaders packed the Common Council meeting and spoke out against the resolution. Other residents, mostly from the Albany's more suburban-like areas, spoke in favor of the resolution to stop charter expansion.

After about four hours of public comment and member debate, the Council appeared split on the resolution. It was pulled from the floor and debate was ended. Clearly, Ms. Fahey, the Times Union reported (here), did not want to risk defeat or a bare majority approval, which would have sent a "mixed message to state Legislature."

The tabling of this anti-charter school resolution is a victory for charter schools in Albany. Their academic success and opportunities they represent for so many of the City's families was such that enough members of the Common Council did not want to be on record against them.

Councilwoman Fahey has not given up and she may resubmit her resolution. She is misdirected, to say the least. Instead, her focus and that of her colleagues on the Council ought to question why the school district kept increasing non-charter related expenses and remains the same size with the same number of employees during a period when when 25 of the students fled. The district is the taxpayer money pit that has much to answer.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

If New York State fails to win a federal Race to the Top grant in the first round, to be decided by April, it will not be enough for round two to simply raise the statutory cap on charter schools. Charter funding also matters; specifically, "how [funding] compares with traditional public per student funding applications," according to the Race to the Top application.

In New York's case, charter schools receive more than one-third less funding per student than district schools. If you add the in-kind amounts (textbooks, nursing, etc.) the inequity remains, with a funding gap of more than 25 percent.

The lack of facilities funding for charters has been the primary culprit in this funding gap. Now there is an added problem: the "freeze" in charter funding, stuck at 2008-09 levels. Governor Paterson has proposed to continue this funding level for next year, 2010-11. The injustice of this funding freeze has been discussed on The Chalkboard (here).

State Race to the Top Application: What Funding Freeze?
Reading through the charter school section of the state's current Race to the Top application, one would never know there is a charter funding freeze in place. The application explains charter funding thus:

"the charter school tuition formula is based upon the school district's operating expenditures rather than the revenue source, and reflects expenditures supported by both state aid and local taxes for public school students" (emphasis mine).

This much of the charter funding formula description is correct - until this year when its connection to district operations spending was severed by the funding freeze. Gov. Paterson and the legislature have never clearly understood the charter funding connection to district spending, thanks to the teacher unions, which they listen to far more than the state Education Department. The unions last year first made the false, apples-to-oranges comparison between charter funding and state Foundation Aid revenue to school districts, which led to enactment of the charter funding freeze and a $50 million loss to charter schools.

The problem with the Race to the Top application, written by the state Education Department, is that by ignoring the funding freeze, it leads to an erroneous claim that a charter student's resident school district provides "charter school pupils with an amount equivalent to the district's per-pupil operating expenses."

Lifting the Charter Cap Won't Matter with Funding Freeze
Keeping the funding freeze into next year will make this charter funding inequity worse. That will inhibit new charter expansion and bring greater harm to existing charters since a school cannot effectively operate on 2008-09 funding levels and remain without facilities aid, no matter how high the charter cap may be lifted.

What school district, pray tell, would operate on revenue levels from two years ago? None. So why should charter schools be crippled this way?

The U.S. Department of Education will understand this problem, regardless whether the New York Education Department explains it correctly the next time. The better way is for this charter funding freeze to end, and let funding be tied once again to school district spending. This must begin with Gov. Paterson dropping this "freeze" now, in time for his 21-day budget amendments due out on Tuesday (Feb. 9). Failure to do so would make a round two Race to the Top grant as dubious as it is for round one.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Americans are living longer, but you would think the opposite listening to the teacher unions demand early retirement with fewer years of service to earn near full pension benefits.

The teacher unions are fresh from getting a Christmas gift from the state legislature in December, when it granted teachers an earlier retirement age than other public employees, 57 rather than 62, in the newly-established Tier 5 public employee retirement system for new hires. The Chalkboard discussed this issue at the time (here).

NYSUT wants more. The Tier 5 law included a "legislative intent" to enact an even earlier retirement option this year. The union is demanding this earlier retirement option with near full guaranteed pension benefits at the age of just 55 years old with only 25 years of service ("55-25"). Not to worry, says NYSUT Executive V.P. Andrew Pallotta, there is "no financial hardship on the state" for granting this early retirement. Mr. Pallotta requested this early retirement option during his presentation at the legislature's hearing this week on the Governor's Executive Budget proposal.

Downside of Early Retirement Incentives
The cry for 55-25 is purportedly designed to get older, higher-paid teachers to retire in order to save money and avoid layoffs of newer, younger and lower-paid teachers that could result from the state school aid reductions. There are two big problems with this: 1) children lose more experienced teachers; and 2) school district pension obligations to the teacher retirement system increase by having to pay retirement benefits sooner to more retirees. Actually, there is a third problem: this demand comes off as greedy and self-serving by the union.

NYSUT's demand for 55-25 makes for a great rallying cry to its membership, with a historical echo of the 1844 presidential campaign of James K. Polk. Polk ran on the slogan of "54-40' or Fight!" during the dispute with British Canada over the Oregon Territory, where he demanded the U.S. northern border just above 54 degrees latitude. After his election, President Polk settled for a U.S. northern border at the 49th parallel in the Treaty of Oregon in 1846. War was averted (at least in the north).


President James Polk

NYSUT blustering like President Polk in the heat of a campaign could turn badly for New York. The state--meaning its students--needs quality and experienced teachers. We shouldn't be trying to make it financially worthwhile for them to leave sooner, while making future pension obligations more costly.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

More than 3,000 charter school parents, staff and trustees did indeed show up in Albany yesterday in by far the largest gathering for Advocacy Day since the law was enacted more than 11 years ago. Today's Albany Times Union covered the event (here).

(The only other comparable pro-charter school gathering of this magnitude occurred in Albany's Washington Park in September 2005 when thousands of Albany parents gathered for a barbecue in support of their charter schools.)

Gov. Paterson Addresses Charter Gathering
Governor Paterson addressed the gathering at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center, which was filled and required seating in an overflow room. I've never seen anything like it. He stated that he wants to try again and raise the charter cap, especially if the state does not get a federal Race to the Top grant; necessitating a second application submission in June.

Afterward at a press conference just outside the convention hall, the Governor said he would look into the charter funding freeze he is proposing to maintain next year for charter schools, which is a punitive measure that in effect cuts charter funding twice since they also will bear the brunt of any lower school district spending in subsequent years.

This double-cut in charter funding was foremost on the minds of the 3,000 charter school attendees, which was nearly five times the number from last year's record-setting Advocacy Day attendance. Valerie Babb, head of the Charter Parent Advocacy Network, discusses this double cut in charter funding in today's Daily News (here). Ms. Babb also did a superb job as master of ceremonies for Advocacy Day in the convention hall.

Several other legislators came to address the crowd, including Assemblyman Sam Hoyt (Buffalo); Assem. Michael Benjamin (Bronx); Sen. Martin Golden (Brooklyn); Sen. Craig Johnson (Nassau Co.); and others. Even Sen. Bill Perkins from upper Manhattan came to talk, but was not well-received.

Sen. Perkins continues his opposition to charters by claiming "over saturation" in Harlem and elsewhere. I doubt Sen. Perkins can claim the district schools in these areas are all brimming with success, yet he clings to this saturation argument nonetheless. Harlem students and parents from his 30th Senate district marched on the Capitol grounds chanting and holding signs. It was a sight to behold.

Charter Parents Getting Aggressive About Mistreatment of Their Schools
Charter parents are not appreciating this disparate funding and they are speaking up more than ever to their legislators. Throughout the day, they delivered the message against the double-cut in charter funding, demanding their legislators un-thaw these funding freeze. Parents were respectful, but more aggressive than in years past about their demands. They don't want to be treated as second-class, which is what the charter funding and union opposition has done to their schools. In fact, many meetings with legislators had to occur in the convention hall or in an adjacent meeting room since legislators' offices were too small to accommodate everyone from their district.

All in all, Charter Advocacy Day was a huge success. Many thanks and congratulations to the New York Charter Schools Association and the New York City Charter School Center for pulling this together; and most of all to the parents and school leaders for making the trip and delivering the message. This momentum must continue.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Today is the annual Charter School Advocacy Day where charter school parents, staff, trustees and students from across New York State gather in Albany to lobby their state legislators.

More than 3,000 attendees are expected in Albany. This is by far the largest Charter Advocacy Day turnout, shattering last year's record turnout of "only" 750.

The message for legislators is "restore our funding." As The Chalkboard detailed earlier today, charter schools are inequitably funded and it's been made worse by a state-imposed, unjust funding freeze that severs the connection to school district operations spending. This freeze cheats charter schools from funding that rightfully belongs to their students based on what district students have already received.

Charter operators and parents will educate their legislators on this and other issues about charter schools, as the misinformation from charter opponents was in gross oversupply last month during the Race to the Top debate.

So, expect the state Capitol and Empire State Plaza Concourse level to be packed today, more so than usual. Charter school stakeholders have a message and they're not gonna take it anymore - not without a fight. Legislators' actions on charter schools, especially this last month and throughout the state budget-making process, are under scrutiny as never before as charter constituents are watching more closely.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

Public charter schools are publicly funded as though their students are second-class citizens.

That's right. It's that ugly.

Funding for charter schools for ten years was tied to the operations spending of the school district(s) in which a charter school students reside. They do not get facilities funding. When school district operating expenditures increase--which has been the norm--the charter school funding formula increased. For those seldom occasions when a school district's spending declined, charter funding from that district decreased.

That is how it should be: charter funding tied to the expenditures of the resident school districts of their students. Today, this is no longer the case, and it's a travesty for charter schools.

This school year, via an act of the New York State Legislature, charter school funding was "frozen" to prior-year levels; that is, 2008-09 payment levels for the 2009-10 school year. This cost charter schools statewide an aggregate of nearly $50 million.

Now, Governor Paterson, who acquiesced to the current-year funding freeze, is proposing in his 2010-11 Executive Budget to continue the "freeze" at 2008-09 payment levels -- two years prior.

This is a continuation of an outrage and an injustice to charter students.

Double-cut for Charter Schools, Which are Overly Reliant on Single $ource
If cuts in state education aid to school districts results in lower school district spending, charter funding will be reduced on a one- to two-year lag basis based on the statutory formula's calculation. Yet, the state imposition of a funding ceiling for charter schools means that prior years' spending growth by school districts will not accrue to charters - compounding the funding reduction and constituting a second funding cut; or, a double cut in charter school funding.

Charter school funding is heavily reliant on a single source: school district payments. Note that all charter school students are counted as district enrollment when calculating state school aid payments to districts; and, for those school districts with more than two percent of their enrollment and budget connected to charter schools, districts get "transition aid" for added charter school enrollment on top of the state school aid for all charter students. Not for nothing are those same charter school student households paying school property taxes.

False Equivalence Between Charter Funding and District Foundation Aid
The state legislature and Governor Paterson have made the false equivalence between state "Foundation Aid" (i.e., general school district aid) and charter school payment levels, egged on by the state teacher unions, the UFT and NYSUT, which strenuously oppose charter schools. Since Foundation Aid has been frozen, the story-line goes, so should charter funding.

In reality, state Foundation Aid to school districts and charter school funding has been an apples-to-oranges comparison since Foundation Aid is one portion of a school district's revenue (e.g., for NYC, it amounts to funding one-third of the education budget). School districts have other funding "buckets" from which to draw, such as local property, taxes if they choose; and federal funding, including Stimulus Funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Charter schools, in contrast to school districts, have no such luxury. They are dependent almost entirely for their funding from student payments from their resident school district(s) which, in turn, are aided by the state.

School districts this year (2009-10) were aided heavily from the federal ARRA program with additional funding, leading to higher school district spending. Yet charter funding was artificially frozen by the state. Thus, after a decade, the direct connection between school district operations spending and charter funding was severed this year. That means school districts spent more thanks to federal sources, while charter funding was artificially frozen by the state.

Charter Funding Inequity Made Worse by So-called "Freeze"
This funding discrimination consigns charter students to a gross funding inequity. Never mind these students get no facilities funding; now their operating aid has had an artificial ceiling that Gov. Paterson is proposing to continue.

Part of the confusion between state Foundation Aid to school districts and charter school funding is that charters are funded on a one- to two-year lag based on school district operations expenditures. Thus, large state funding increases for New York City and urban districts generated by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity litigation were supposed to flow through the charter formula this year. Instead, charter funding was frozen by the state.

Stop Treating Charter Students as 2nd Class Citizens!
Charter schools for too long have tolerated inequitable funding with school districts, primarily from lack of facilities aid. Now, the funding freeze in charter school funding exacerbates this inequity even as school districts can spend more from other sources besides state aid.

Governor Paterson and the state legislature must rethink this double-cut in charter funding. They should undo the funding freeze and provide facilities funding to charters. Anything short of that would continue to treat charter school students as second-class citizens.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ "PeterMurphy26")

The New York City United Federation of Teachers, with its opposition to a strong Race to the Top application and more charter schools has gotten national attention, to the embarrassment of New York State. First by Time magazine (here), and now in today's Washington Post editorial.

The Washington Post noted that failure to raise the charter cap in New York and to remove the ban on student test data "may well doom" the state's Race to the Top application. It went on to admonish U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan that if he's serious about his reform program, "he can begin by tossing out New York's bid and challenging it to do better." Ouch.

This nationally-recognized disgrace by the UFT and its state parent, NYSUT, may not embarrass the unions or cause them to change their behavior. But it should cause state policymakers to rethink what they do on the unions' behalf.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)

The state and New York City teacher unions, NYSUT and UFT, have been bellowing quite a bit in the last month about charter schools needing more accountability and transparency. NYSUT boss Richard Iannuzzi himself, the New York Times reported on Saturday, "was able to persuade the Assembly to add requirements to its bill" for that (and much more in an attempt to derail charter schools altogether).

The teacher unions concern for "accountability" is touching -- if it were real. In actuality, it's not real but phony.

School Accountability? Nah - Lawsuit!
Lest anyone doubt the fraudulent nature of the unions call for accountability for charter schools, look no further than the lawsuit being filed today by the UFT to stop the City Department of Education's plan for closing 19 chronically low-performing district schools. They don't want those schools, or their teachers, held accountable - period. When the City attempts to do so by closing a bad school or firing a teacher, a the union sues and the teacher gets the infamous "rubber room" with no work at full pay. See Sunday's New York Post for the latest rubber room celebrity (here).

UFT Bussed In The Crowd
That's not all. Last week's crowd protesting the meeting of the City's Panel on Education Policy that voted to close these schools appears to have a dubious connection to the schools, and unrepresentative of the parents attending those schools. Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said that most of the people speaking out were UFT union leaders and chapter leaders, and the UFT bussed in people to attend the meeting.

Michael Mulgrew, UFT's leader still trying to pretend to be John L. Lewis, acknowledged the union provided 50 buses. But, hey, he denied the that those in attendance were being pushed by the union. Got it?

Do Parents Really Want Those Schools Remaing Open?
Today's Daily News editorial provides a very telling analysis of parental demand for these schools slated for closure which sheds doubt the genuineness of last weeks raucous meeting and substantiates the union's manipulation of the crowd. Every year, about 75,000 eighth grade students rank the high schools they wish to attend, and "hardly mentioned" are those on the closure list. "Parents know what's up," the News writes.

It cannot be said too often: teacher unions are about serving adults, including protecting them from accountability. Sure, teacher unions want quality education for children, too. But when it's absent, they are back to protecting the adults who are culpable, be it a lawsuit, legislative action, or the rubber room. Whatever it takes.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)