Opportunity Missed
Posted by BKisida | Education, Fayetteville, AR, Politics | September 24, 2009
In a move that can only be described as 20th century-esque, the Fayetteville School Board has voted not to approve the open-enrollment public charter school proposed by the Prism Education Center. While this vote was merely symbolic, it does give the citizens of Fayetteville a chance to gauge the district’s stated commitment to listen to the voice of the people. Back in 2001, The Arkansas Poll found that 56% of Arkansans approved or strongly approved of charter school creation in Arkansas. Only 26% disapproved or strongly disapproved. That’s a fairly clear indicator of the voice of the people, especially when one considers that the poll was done eight years ago. Public support for charter schools has only grown since then, and now President Obama has made charter school creation a cornerstone of his education agenda.
Ironically, the district also announced that they plan on having another go at gathering public input regarding the new high school. Plans are being made to mail questionnaires to the people who voted in the millage election to try and determine what the community wants.
Confused?
It is unclear at this point exactly why the board opted to vote against the charter school, but the Morning News is reporting that board member Susan Heil felt that the charter school would duplicate efforts of what the district already offers.
It is not yet known to what extent the board intends to follow this line of reasoning, but one can only imagine that more schools are going to have to be closed for being duplicative. There are currently nine elementary schools in the district, and each one duplicates what the other ones have to offer. Likewise, the three middle schools are additionally similarly redundant as well, too.
We’ll post more details here when we get them.
Aren’t charter schools essentially small learning communities? So, why is it that the school board and FPS administration are against them when small learning communities was a major component of the proposed high school plan? Do they believe they are the only ones who could implement it correctly?
Why don’t we let parents and children decide if the proposed charter offers similar services? If the district currently offers the same or even better services, then no one will enroll, the state won’t pay the school, and the charter school won’t be an issue. But if the school can provide a better fit for subsets of the Fayetteville population, then why should its existence be hindered?
I was at the meeting. I like Susan Heil a great deal, but board members are busy and I have to assume that she and the rest of the board never read Prism’s proposal. They took all of four minutes to consider a proposal that Prism spent a year putting together. Board members say it’s the norm to turn down charter applications on the reasonable assumption that the state has more expertise to judge charters than we local yokels. Plus the state has less of a dog in the hunt. If we embrace a charter and it fails; we get the blame. if we embrace a charter and it succeeds, we don’t get the credit. Given that dynamic, school boards naturally oppose any and all charters—even when they would obviously help kids.
Prism promises a longer school year, a longer school day, school uniforms, different curricula, and a different deployment of staff than is FPS schools, so I don’t see how it duplicates anything FPS does. I suppose they also will use teachers, books, computers, and building, but other than that…
But if the district actually took its role in the charter approval process seriously, they could endorse quality proposals and oppose poor proposals. That would probably make the state board more likely to approve the high quality proposals that the local board also endorsed, which would be much better than relinquishing all local input and leaving it entirely to the state board.
Emmett — you’re assuming that local school boards actually want to allow the best competitors to open up a school that isn’t subject to their control and that would become a competitive alternative.
For a thorough explanation of the rationale for the administration’s recommendation, including the duplication of services, please see the Board Agenda packet on the FPS web site:
http://www.fayar.net/imagesBoard/Agenda_9-24-09.pdf
I am not here to dispute your opinions, but I will try to provide the information you seem to be unable to locate.
Susan, thanks again for commenting. I edited your comment to fix the link.
The reasons listed on the school document seem to be fairly benign. I suppose they made a decision not to support the school, and then looked for some reasons to justify that decision. My favorite is reason #6:
6. 21st Century Skills
While the Total Instructional Alignment documents provide basic alignment of academic content to the Arkansas Frameworks, they do not incorporate the 21st
Century skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and the other habits of mind that will be required for students to be successful in our global
society.
I’m sorry to see the Fayetteville School Board relying on misinformation:
It’s true that lots of research supports having highly effective teachers in the classroom, but there is no evidence for claiming that certification is the “baseline” for measuring teacher quality. No valid research study has found much of any difference between certified and uncertified teachers.
Check out the excellent studies by Dan Goldhaber, the recent Mathematica study, or the Gordon/Kane/Staiger study. (NOTE: You can’t tell, because our site isn’t showing visible links for some reason, but there are three links in the above sentence.)
Check out this chart to see that there are basically no differences between uncertified and certified teachers:
http://jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/gordon-1-739885.jpg
On page nine of the document it states that Fayetteville Public Schools spent $2.4 million on “C21 Curriculum”. What exactly is the C21 curriculum? Can we get a breakdown of the expenditures?
We didn’t pay $2.4 million to bring in Tony Wagner and get some books… or did we?
(Again, the document can be found at http://www.fayar.net/imagesBoard/Agenda_9-24-09.pdf)
The district was funded in several categories to support the development of Project 21C. Tony Wagner was one of several external resources that have been used to work with leadership and teachers as they embark on this project. Many other opportunities for professional development for teachers are being brought in to support a collaborative teaching and learning environment.
Capital equipment funding was also approved. New collaborative virtual workspaces are being designed and there will be pilot classrooms that use unique technologies identified at every grade level, including special education. An Internet2 link with the University will provide visualization tools for upper grades and opportunities for global interactivity for all grade levels.
New assessments for students and data analysis tools for teachers are being designed. Classroom learning walks are being designed to help principals and vice principals identify best practices in the classroom and focus on academic leadership. This is a comprehensive program. You can keep up with it here:
http://www.fayar.net/community/project21c.html
These pages are updated frequently to show progress.
The project has been underway for less than a year but has a comprehensive PreK-12 focus.
The National School Board Association Technology Learning Network has selected Fayetteville Public Schools for one of 4 international site visits because of our emphasis on our comprehensive curriculum update, focus on 21st century skills, and technology integration.
Susan,
Thanks for the quick and helpful response.
I have two more questions:
1. Is there an itemized FY09 budget available online that details the C21 Curriculum expenditures? If so, could you please provide a link?
2. It sounds like the C21 program is an ongoing process; yet the “C21 Curriculum” category is not listed in the FY10 budget. Is the district planning on continuing with these ongoing, comprehensive changes? Or does the district believe the FY09 expenditure has sufficiently met its goals?
We do not have an itemized FY09 budget online that details the C21 Curriculum expenditures. The C21 program is an ongoing process and the $$$ are within the “restricted carry forward” category of the FY10 budget. The district is committed to these ongoing, comprehensive changes. The most significant expense, over time, will most likely be the professional development for teachers and principals.