Washington Post: Michigan Coalition Opposes Race To Top Finalist In Letter To Obama, Duncan

I wanted to re-post this today, given that I am one of the many signatories, and that the collection of lame duck bills includes provisions to drastically expand online learning in the state with not checks or balances and no measures to ensure quality.  It essentially throws open the doors to a system of K-12 online learning that, to date, has produced very poor results in Michigan (e.g., one news item noted that the Michigan Virtual Academy reported results lower than that of the Detroit Public School District).

For those not familiar with what is happening in Michigan, I would recommend reading Michigan again: ‘This bill … disenfranchises voters, ends their local control, and unconstitutionally hands taxpayer-owned property over to for-profit companies.’

---

Michigan coalition opposes Race to Top finalist in letter to Obama, Duncan

A large coalition of Michigan parents, PTA leaders, K-12 teachers, professors and others — including the superintendent of Detroit Public Schools — sent a letter (see text below)  to President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan protesting the selection of a new education entity as a finalist in the latest edition of Race to the Top, the administration’s signature education initiative.

The U.S. Education Department this week announced 61 finalists in the latest Race to the Top edition, this one designed to award a total of nearly $400 million in federal funds to school districts that agree to implement specific school reforms. The list of finalists was somewhat unusual, given that it was intended for districts but a few individual public charter schools won, as well as charter school networks. In Michigan, the only finalist named was the “Education Achievement Authority,” a newly created entity that will operate  the lowest performing 5 percent of schools in Michigan. The state government had applied to three previous rounds of Race to the Top, not winning any of them.

Here’s the letter that explains why so many people in Michigan oppose the naming of the EAA as a Race to the Top finalist:

Dear President Obama and Secretary Duncan:

We are encouraged that education continues to occupy such an important space in the national agenda, and we thank you for your efforts in promoting dialogue around this critical issue.  We are writing to share our deep concerns with the possible awarding of Race to the Top funds to the “Education Achievement Authority” or EAA in the state of Michigan.

The EAA, a “state reform” district modeled after the problematic New Orleans Recovery School District (RSD), was established through an August 2011 interlocal agreement between then-Emergency Manager of Detroit Public Schools Roy Roberts and Eastern Michigan University under the former Public Act 4 of 2011 (“The Emergency Manager Law”), an act that was repealed by the Michigan electorate in the November 6 election. Shortly thereafter, the Detroit Board of Education voted to disband the EAA and to sever ties with Eastern Michigan University.  Despite the voice of the electorate, our Michigan state legislature is pressing forward with bills during the lame duck session that would codify the EAA into state law.

To continue reading…

Spotlight On Ohio

Another in what seems to be a series of news items to post.  This time it focuses upon the State of Ohio.  The series is described as:

These stories are the result of a reporting partnership between The Plain Dealer and StateImpact Ohio, a collaboration among National Public Radio and Ohio public-radio stations WCPN, WKSU and WOSU. StateImpact reporters Molly Bloom and Ida Lieszkovszky teamed up with Plain Dealer reporter Patrick O’Donnell to examine the growth, funding and performance of online schools, as well as what draws students to them.

Anyway, here are the items:

• Online schools enroll thousands of Ohio students
• Online schools serve students with a range of goals, officials say
• Online schools get millions in public support
• A Day in the Life at an E-School

Unlike some of the recent investigative reporting, this series is largely favourable.  The quotes selected for even those presenting an opposing view are portrayed in a favourable manner (so Susan and Tom won’t be writng about the “hit pieces” in Ohio).  In fact, I’d say it was bordering on a puff piece, although not quite that flattering.  A little disappointing, given that there is a lot to examine in Ohio.  For example, some issues that continue to exist just from my own archives:

• Funding And Legislative Issues In Ohio For K-12 Online Learning
• Report: Ohio E-Schools Show Superior Results, Data: Academic And Cost Effectiveness
• Commenting On Two Disparate Stories
• Ohio e-Schools: Funding Failures

Oh well, I suppose journalism is as much a business as online education these days.

CA Assembly Bill 644, CA Online Learning Legislation

This was posted to the iNACOL forums in the past day or two or three.

Today, Governor Brown signed CA AB 644:

“This bill, commencing with the 2014–15 school year, would authorize, for purposes of computing average daily attendance, the inclusion of pupils in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee of the school district or county office of education who is delivering synchronous, online instruction, as defined, provided that this instruction meets specified criteria.”[B][/B]

Bill Link

Haven’t read through the text of it yet, but figured I would pass it on.

Model Legislation For Online Learning

This showed up in my inbox on Friday.  Again I find it interesting that there is still no reference to the model legislation drafted by Justin Bathon.

Dear iNACOL Members,

I hope you received my note last week announcing the release of our “Statement of Principles for Model Legislation in States”, guidance for lawmakers as they craft policies around online and blended learning. This effort, created in collaboration with many within our membership, will be a valuable tool as we communicate with state and local leaders. It has received tremendous feedback. Thank you!

You may have seen, too, that separate model legislation focused on the use of technology in education was produced this week by another organization, The Alliance for Excellent Education. While some of our work was cited within this model law, iNACOL was not a part of its writing. In fact, we continue to work with them to address our concerns – as well as concerns expressed to us by members – over its highly prescriptive nature, among other issues.

Should you also wish to comment, AEE has set up an email address for public response – legislation@all4ed.org. We encourage members and colleagues throughout the industry to copy us on their notes in order to maintain a running “pulse check” from the field.

Please let us know if we can answer any questions you might have.

Sincerely,

Susan Patrick
President & CEO

I wonder if it could be because for all of the talk about high quality, iNACOL is unwilling to recommend limiting the growth of its for-profit members to manageable levels that they can service in an effective manner or tying funding to student performance (I mean afterall, online learning DOES equal high quality learning). However, instead we have to ideologically neo-liberal organizations trying to come together on how best to carve up the public education pie.

Statement Of Principles For Model Legislation In States

This showed up in my inbox in the past 24 hours or so…

Dear iNACOL Members and Partners,

Working across the field, I am proud to share with you iNACOL’s Principles for Model Legislation in States, guidance created with student achievement front and center.

I hope that you will find these five principles helpful as you communicate with policy makers key points of thoughtful legislation for online and blended learning in your state.

iNACOL believes high-quality education is a civil right for each student, regardless of zip code or socio-economic background. Our mission is to ensure all students have access to a world class education and quality online learning opportunities that prepare them for a lifetime of success.

Please download a copy of the PDF at our website http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/iNACOL-PrinciplesForModelLegislation.pdf and share it with your online social communities via Scribd http://scr.bi/MKb3d4.

Sincerely,

Susan Patrick
President & CEO

I’ll take some time next week and examine these principles as compared to the model legislation that Justin Bathon prepared, I suspect the differences will be stark and predictable.