North Carolina’s “Charter Schools Lite” Plan? Stand on Street with Sign “Will Trade Asinine School Reform for Federal Dollars”

North Carolina’s “Charter Schools Lite” Plan: “Will Trade Asinine School Reform for Federal Dollars”
North Carolina, please, stop. You’re killing me. So desperate for Race to the Top Funds, so unwilling to innovate, and so focused on the dollar that you’re ignoring the real needs of our schools and our kids.

Like anything “lite” or “zero calorie” or “sugar free” there is a reason one is not choosing the “non-lite” version and usually it’s because the thing that makes the full-on version so awesome is usually the thing that makes it also not so desirable.

In the case of charter schools the thing that makes them awesome (when they are) is the autonomy innovation and the freedom allowed school principals and leaders to build their staff team and run the school as their own.

However, Autonomy+Innovation+Freedom happens to be the secret formula for inducing nausea and vomiting for most politicians and school boards so now we are left with “Charter Schools Lite.” It will have a similar name, tastes a little funny, won’t actually be all that great, but will make us feel like we are doing a good thing.

North Carolina's "Charter Schools Lite"

Instead of raising the 100 charter school limit in North Carolina and expanding an ever-improving landscape of success, North Carolina has opted to add another bureaucracy to support an untested and ill-conceived “bizzaro” charter school model.

North Carolina’s Charter School Lite (SENATE BILL 704 (http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&Bil...) is probably the best worst attempt by North Carolina to kabuki dance its way into getting some Race to the Top funding from the Department of Education and conforms to what I’ve witnessed over and over, that public policy is what is the remainder of the best idea divided by politics.

It basically would allow low-performing schools to be transformed into charter-looking schools that are run by the same local board that oversaw that school perform poorly in the first place.
That said the bill does vaguely outline few potentially workable solutions, all with pros and cons.

One overarching con that this new model would require ANOTHER bureaucracy within the State Board of Education which is just now getting its stride with regular charter schools.

There are 4 reform models outlined in the legislation.

1)Transformation Model - Increases teacher and school leader effectiveness, creates comprehensive instructional reform strategies, increases learning time, creates community oriented schools, and provides operational flexibility and sustained support.

Pros:
•Sounds great.

Cons:
•Sounds great but provides no details and is not anything that a motivated school board could not do already.
•Local board runs the school.

2)Restart Model -Allowing the school to operate under the same rules as a charter school or under the management of an educational management organization with no increase in the maximum number of charter schools as provided.

Pros:
•Open the door for schools to be run by third-party, professional educational management organizations that has been “rigorously reviewed.”
•Local board can operate with the same exemptions and statutes and rules that govern charter schools.

Cons:
•Employees of the ‘Restart School’ are employees of the local school board, apparently EVEN if run by an education management organization.
•Local board controls the school.

3)Turnaround Model- Replacing the principal if the principal has been in that position for at least three years and rehiring no more than fifty percent of school staff, adopting a new school governance structure consistent with article 8b of chapter 115c of the general statutes, and IMPLEMENTING an instructional program aligned with the standard course of study:

Pros:
•None

Cons:
•Introduces nothing of value and sets arbitrary conditions.
•Max 50% staff replacement: Not only is 50% clearly an arbitrary number haggled over in the bowels of the General Assembly, but anyone who has worked in a school, a business, or any other organization knows that the number of people it takes to make a team or staff ineffectual, demotivated or poisoned can be as small as 1 or 2. One or Two teachers with bad attitudes or a misaligned mission or ideology can undermine and entire school culture.
•Local board controls the school.

4)Closure Model - Closing the school consistent with G.S. 115c 72 and enrolling the students in another HIGHER ACHIEVING school in the local school ADMINISTRATIVE unit consistent with article 25 of chapter 115C of the general statutes,

Pros:
•Makes bad schools disappear.

Cons:
•Does not address, in the statute, expectations for the future performance and achievement of displaced students.

This model consistent with North Carolina’s general over-emphasis on “School” performance versus “Student” performance and achievement.

No Grant Once, Shame on You. No Grant Twice, Shame on North Carolina

Why North Carolina’s politician don’t have the moral fortitude to take the bold steps to radically improve the educational opportunities for our children who in the worst possible schools in the State is disappointing, embarrassing and infuriating.

Just as North Carolina’s stubbornness and lack of vision caused it to lose out on the first round of Race to the Top funding and go back to the drawing board, perhaps Washington will again see through this next ruse and force our politicians to stop trying to craft law and policies to win grants and to craft law and policies to improve education.
If you put the children first, perhaps the grants will follow.