My Statement At the Public Hearing on the Future of Pencader Charter

Last Wednesday I attended the public hearing on the future of Pencader Charter School.  For several weeks prior to the hearing I had received correspondence from Christina constituents regarding the Charter School Accountability Committee's recomendation to revoke the schools charter.  I chronicalled much of their fight here on C&E 1st.  I also approached the school's leaders to discuss the schools financial viability and history of achievement and rates of graduation.  I arrived at my own personal opinion regarding Pencader's place in Delaware's educational landscape.  I presented those opinions during the public hearing.  Mine was but one short statement during a hearing that ran nearly five hours, far exceeding the two hours originally allotted by DOE. I was not the only elected official to offer a statement - Sen. Margaret Rose Henry sent a representative on her behalf to request that Pencader continue to operate.

I made statement 1) knowing that there would likely be repercussions back at home from those who are unable to speak frankly about Christina's acheivement struggles 2) acknowledging that this was an opportunity to have honest discussions about achievement and the current state of education across Delaware, and 3) betting that some media outlet would fully distort my message (which absolutely occurred in the Thursday News Journal and was finally partially rectified online Saturday night.)

Today, I am posting my entire statement, as it was presented during the hearing in Dover:

Good Evening,                                                 July 12, 2011


I am Elizabeth Scheinberg. While I am a school board member in the Christina School District, I am not here to speak on behalf of the Board. However, I have been asked by my constituents to share my personal concerns for the Christina Students who attend Pencader Charter High School.

I am fully aware of the status of Pencader’s finances. Their deficit is not insurmountable and pales in comparison to the debt that my own district actualized only five short years ago. It was our legislative champions who recognized the dire need for the Christina School District to continue operating. Today, that same dire need exists for Pencader. To that end, our dedicated legislators have acted to impart the necessary safeguards through HB 205. As of today, the bill is before the Governor awaiting his signature. His hesitation should not be held against Pencader or any other charter school.

I’d like to talk to share my thoughts on the impact of closing Pencader Charter High School and my concerns for the approximately 308 Christina School District Students who have choiced to Pencader. If Pencader were be closed, 308 Christina families will be forced into a mad dash for placements for their children. Some may, although it’s highly unlikely, find a home at other existing charter schools. Those who are economically advantaged may seek out Delaware’s private schools, space permitting.

However, in all likelihood, the majority of my 308 Christina students will return to their home schools, Newark, Christiana, and Glasgow. I welcome those students back with open arms. However, in doing so, I am ethically-compelled to address the hard reality of Christina’s achievement history, especially that of my comprehensive secondary schools. It is an unpopular decision to vocalize these concerns. But, these are the hard conversations that must occur if we are to improve achievement outcomes for all students in Delaware.

Christina is currently a district under academic watch.

Newark High School, traditionally referred to by the community as our college prep school, is in Academic Watch. Newark High School is closed to choice due to capacity limitations and will likely remain so for some time to come. Only those Christina students who naturally feed into Newark High can be accommodated at NHS.

Glasgow High School is also under Academic Watch, in addition to undergoing an intense, disruptive, and destabilizing transformation as part of its selection into the Partnership Zone. As we prepare to re-open Glasgow for the 2011-2012 school year, we have already completed assigning students into academies according to preference. While Glasgow will have a business academy, that option is only available to freshman and sophomores, and only if space permits. Juniors and Seniors who transfer to Glasgow will be required to join the Success Academy. Even though Christina’s s juniors and seniors at Pencader have already demonstrated a commitment to completing their secondary education with a business focus, the business academy will NOT be available to them.

Christiana High School is currently under Academic Progress, a rating shared by Pencader. However, CHS spent much of the 2010-11 school year in triage after the loss of its foundation, when our capable principal left to work with the Department of Education. It was spring before Christina was able to hire a permanent replacement. While I am confident that CHS will rise above its recent instability, it should be noted that

1) DCAS data and AYP achievement are embargoed until the July 21st State Board of Education Meeting, and until the embargo is lifted, it is nearly impossible for the constituents to determine if CHS has continued to improve achievement and therefore could be a good fit for any of Christina’s Pencader students.

2) There are prolific rumors abounding regarding which schools will be selected by the Department of Education to be a part of the final cohort of Partnership Zone schools. Many in our community deeply believe that CHS will go into the PZ, the net result of which would be prolonged de-stablization while turnaround plans are created, approved, finalized, and implemented. I am troubled because I cannot assure my constituents that CHS will not be chosen for PZ intervention.

As a district, Christina is working hard to improve our educational offerings and increase student achievement. I applaud the many dedicated employees in Christina who have made student success their number one priority. But if student success is to be the pinnacle priority, we must admit the reality – Pencader’s businees offerings do not innately streamline with Christina’s academic offerings or electives, nor can we offer Christina’s Pencader students a seamless transition into a comprehensive high school that performs on par or better than Pencader.

While many of us are here today to support the continued operation of Pencader, I have come to support Christina’s children and families, who have chosen Pencader for their academic future. I understand why many of these Christina families choiced out of the district. For at least a decade, Christina leadership fostered an environment of status quo failure. While I am certain that today, the Christina board is driven to mitigate the failures of our predecessors, we still have much heavy lifting to do. The families at Pencader have made their choice and I believe that given a solid plan for financial solvency, it is our moral obligation to continue to respect the decisions of those families and allow their children to remain at Pencader.

Turning families out at the end of July is morally-reprehensible. Again, I reiterate that I believe Pencader will be solvent. However, should closure be the ultimate recommendation, we owe our families a comprehensive exit plan. I urge the decision-makers to approve Pencader’s operation for an additional year, to prove their solvency, and provide accountability regarding said solvency in January 2012. Should Pencader fail in this task, such a delay would allow for DOE and the receiving districts and schools to plan appropriately for the transition of the affected students, while providing parents and guardians with the time to research which school would be the best option for their family. I believe that given such a plan, Pencader will prove successful and continue operating for years to come.

I urge you to support Pencader Charter School, and respect the work of their reconfigured board and school leadership. When we speak of student achievement, we speak of haste, of racing – the time is now! Despite Pencader’s financial woes, Pencader’s student achievement was NOT impacted. Their time is now and we, educators, tax payers, and Delawareans, need to give this school a second chance.

[Continue Reading]

How does a report that exposes the Charter School Accountability Committee to such harsh criticsm get buried?

The NACSA report released in March continues to boggle the mind.   We've already learned that the DeDOE does not assign anyone to review applications in their entirety, instead carving out subsections to various education associates.  The net result has been no eyes ensuring continuity of the application to fulfilling a proposed-charter school's mission statement.  We also now know that DOE fails to ensure that Charter applicants have the capacity within in their boards and leadership to ensure that a proposed school is actually viable.  NACSA has found that DOE's criteria for educational programming "are vague, incomplete, and overly focused on alignment to state content standards."  There is no requirement for a budget narrative, financial projections, or requirements to share research/data to support a charter's specified mission. 

And that's just part of the application process. 


More from NACSA:

• "As applied and in practice, DDOE has not taken any tangible steps to determine its priorities as an authorizer for new schools. Specifically, the authorizer has not defined educational needs it could or would like to address by authorizing new or replicating charter schools. Likewise, the authorizer has not identified schools in its portfolio, or analyzed how currently operating schools - if replicated - could meet educational needs in certain in any strategic way the characteristics (strengths, weaknesses, uniqueness, etc.) of the communities or among specific demographic groups, and therefore increase quality choice opportunities in the state." (p.11)
• "the application process is not well tailored to assess school proposals that differ from traditional school designs, such as on-line models, alternative schools, or academically rigorous schools specifically focused on under-served communities." (p. 12)
• "There are no high performing schools serving significantly at-risk and disadvantaged student populations" (p. 12)
• "The application for renewal and replication of existing schools is the same as for new schools." (p. 12)
• "As applied, the review and decision making process, including timelines, is generally well understood by charter school applicants and operators. In practice, applicants are given an opportunity to respond to questions raised by reviewers, and to provide additional information prior to, or at, public hearings. However, because the timeframe for such feedback or follow-up with applicants during the review process is not specified or consistently applied, applicants sometimes get minimal advance notice of CSAC questions or concerns before public hearings." (p.13)
• "As established, the application document is not well constructed; in places, it is not clear precisely what information the authorizer is requesting. The disparate pieces of the application do not connect in such way as to allow applicants to present a coherent articulation of the entirety of the school they are proposing." (p.13)
• Specifically, the application is not aligned with a comprehensive evaluation rubric or with authorizer established evaluation criteria. Rubrics used to evaluate curriculum examine items not specifically required by the application. In addition, some application requirements do not appear to be reviewed whatsoever by the CSAC. (p.13)
• "The review process does not include a structured applicant interview of the sort that strong authorizers use to evaluate applicant capacity and cohesiveness. After a charter application is submitted, the CSAC meets with applicants during an informal “meet and greet” session." (p.14)

C&E 1st Note:  NACSA's joking right?  DOE approves charter school applications without ever having a formal interview with the applicant?  I can't get a job without an interview... how the hell can DOE approve Charters and allow children to attend them without interviewing the people applying for and running them? (Anthony White, anyone?) Nearly every highlighted point in this series of posts is a knock on DOE.  But, that's because the majority of NACSA's report is an indictment of a very broken, under-developed process, the result I believe of years of neglect on DOE's part! 

What deeply disturbs me is that at the point in time this report was completed and submitted to DOE, there were two charters going through the review process.  The same committee that has had its wool shorn in the NACSA evaluation, the CSAC, has since recommended closing these schools.  These schools are in trouble primarily because CSAC did not do a thorough job during the application and review process.  Now, rather than fix their mistakes, CSAC passes the blame and moves to close the schools.  How can the State Board of Education seriously evaluate any recommendation that comes from CSAC at this point in time?  DOE has had this report since March and the public has seen little to know action on DOE's part to address the allegations asserted by NACSA... Mind blowing...

[Continue Reading]