Sign up for our newsletter

Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal: Trump’s School Choice Opportunity

November 9, 2016
Wall Street Journal
Opinion Journal Live

CER Founder and CEO Jeanne Allen talks with Wall Street Journal’s Mary Kissel about what Election 2016 results could mean for the future of education, including the election of Donald Trump, a defeated Massachusetts ballot initiative on charter schools, and states that saw the election of opportunity-minded Superintendents, Governors, and U.S. Senators.

screen-shot-2016-11-15-at-12-56-43-pm

Watch the video here.

Where Does President Elect Donald Trump Stand on Education Reform?

Now, only a few months ago, Donald Trump pledged that—should he be elected president—he will immediately invest $20 billion in school choice. This plan would, essentially, reprioritize existing federal dollars in order to establish a grant that will allow for children who live in poverty to attend the school of their choosing. Trump actually argued that this voucher system would not be the only thing that could help such children to enroll in higher quality schools, but also that a better—and more truly—free market economy would revamp all of the education system.

Of course, simply introducing a voucher system is one thing; implementing it is another thing entirely. After all, eligibility for these vouchers will vary from state to state. As such, Trump has also promised to campaign across the country to call upon each state (and city, effectively) to elect the right officials who will support the school choice initiative.

At a campaign event in Cleveland, on Thursday, Trump said, “If the states collectively contribute another $110 billion of their own education budgets toward school choice on top of the 20 billion in federal dollars, that could provide $12,000 in school choice funds to every single K-12 student who today is living in poverty.”

Supporters of the program attest that the vouchers will help disadvantaged students. For example, Center for Education Reform communications director Michelle Tigani comments, “Voucher programs largely help low-income middle-class kids—these are the kids that most need access [to quality education].”

Obviously, the proposal also has its share of opponents. Those opponents argue that the bill will siphon crucial funding away from the already shallow pool of public-school funds available. Some even argue that this bill is unconstitutional (because these taxpayer-funded voucher could benefit religious schools).

But Trump also supports the charter school system. These are publicly funded schools run by private firms; and he supports them because he believes that “the traditional way” is not working as well as it should. He argues that teachers unions may be something that stands in the way, especially since these unions are loudly against school-choice policies.

Furthermore, Trump continues to blast the Common Core State Standards as well as the cost (and policies behind) higher education. Of course, how he will manage to change these things we are yet to discover

What Will a Trump Presidency Mean for K–12 and Ed Tech?

By The Journal Staff
The Journal
11/09/16

Disturbingly little is known with any certainty about President-Elect Donald J. Trump’s plans for education. Even credible speculation is difficult, given that Trump is far from a traditional Republican and that his statements on a range of issues have proved somewhat inconsistent over the last year or so. But one thing is certain for a Trump presidency backed by a Republican-dominated Congress: Education policy is going to move in a new direction.

A Smaller Role for ED in K–12?

Trump’s statements on education are few and far between. He has declared he would “get rid of” Common Core. And he’s implied he’d eliminate or pare down the federal Department of Education.

But are these two positions mutually exclusive?

Common Core State Standards are, of course, state-level standards. But the incentive to adopt the standards came in no small part from a competitive grant program developed and administered by the U.S. Department of Education — Race to the Top. States that pledged to adopt the standards were awarded bonus points in their application evaluations for the high-stakes grants. The Education Department also tied waivers for NCLB to Common Core adoption. Presumably, then, some sort of incentive program would also be required to push states to back away from Common Core now that they have invested so heavily in both curriculum and testing.

Ed Tech Is an Unknown

The growth of the education technology sector has been fueled in no small part by the education reform movement. While the ed reform movement doesn’t fit tidily into any particular political milieu, its proponents do tend to lean Republican in these regards: They favor an increased role of the private sector in public education; they tend to favor school choice; they’re highly supportive of charter school expansion; they like the idea of connecting student test scores with teacher evaluations; and, on the rare occasion when they speak of teachers’ unions, they tend to be somewhat unflattering in their language. For example, theCenter for Education Reform, or CER, issued a statement last month deriding unions for obstructing charter school expansion. That organization also applauded Donald Trump for referring to school choice as the “civil rights issue of our time.”

To read the full article visit The Journal.

How Education Opportunity Fared on Election Day

 

WASHINGTON, DC — The Center for Education Reform (CER), the nation’s most senior advocate and pioneer for expanding educational opportunities so that all may achieve the American dream, analyzed Tuesday’s results through the prism of education innovation and opportunity.

The Center’s EDlection Roundup provides analysis on races up and down the ballots, including:

The White House: Jeanne Allen, Founder and CEO of The Center for Education Reform (CER), today congratulated Donald Trump on his victory and called on the president-elect to unite the nation’s families and communities around improving education through innovation and opportunity. More here.

Governors: Out of the 12 states holding gubernatorial elections, 5 states so far will be inaugurating governors with passing grades on parent power. (The North Carolina gubernatorial race has not been decided yet). Those states are: Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Utah, and Vermont. They join 31 states currently led by Governors earning a grade of A, B, or C when it comes to parent power and innovation. Is your state one of them? See our governor grades at Education50.

Senate Races: It was an exciting night for parent power and innovation in the US Senate. Some highlights include:

  • Alabama: Richard Shelby, a DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (DC OSP) supporter and opportunity supporter, won his senate seat.
  • Arizona: John McCain, who earned straight A’s from CER for his strong support of education reform, won back his seat.
  • Colorado: Michael Bennet gets high marks from us for expanding opportunity through the Quality Schools Act.
  • Florida: Marco Rubio’s senate win is a win for parents given his strong track record and commitment to school choice and charter schools.
  • Georgia: Johnny Isakson has been a vocal supporter of charter schools and earned high marks from CER.
  • Indiana: Todd Young, who took the win, has voted in support of pro-charter school legislation and the DC OSP.
  • Iowa: Chuck Grassley has been a vocal supporter of choice and opportunity for all children.
  • Kentucky: Rand Paul, a strong supporter of charter schools and opportunity, won his senate seat.
  • North Carolina: Richard Burr, who voted in support of the DC OSP and who is, in general, a vocal supporter of charter schools and opportunity, won his seat.
  • South Carolina: Tim Scott, an unabashed supporter of school choice who is on record supporting the DC OSP, was re-elected.

Ballot Initiatives: It was a disappointing night for ballot initiatives. Ballot measures that would’ve most notably made a mark on expanding opportunity – charter school expansion in Massachusetts and takeover of failing schools via an Opportunity School District in Georgia – were defeated.

Superintendents: Of the 13 states that elect their state education chiefs, five held elections this year. Notable victories for parent power occurred in North Carolina and Indiana. In the Tarheel State, newcomer Mark Johnson’s win signals a fresh perspective on expanding opportunity. In the Hoosier State, Jennifer McCormick defeated incumbent Glenda Ritz, who has a clear record against parent power, leading the fight against the state’s school voucher program.

More: Founder and CEO of The Center Jeanne Allen is available for in-depth commentary on education results. To set up an interview, contact Michelle Tigani at (202) 750-0016 or michelle@staging.edreform.com.

 

 

About the Center for Education Reform

Founded in 1993, the Center for Education Reform aims to expand educational opportunities that lead to improved economic outcomes for all Americans — particularly our youth — ensuring that the conditions are ripe for innovation, freedom and flexibility throughout U.S. education.

Educators ponder meaning of a Trump presidency: Plea for “the vulnerable and the bullied”

by November 9, 2016

NEW YORK – President-elect Donald Trump said very little about education during the bruising and divisive campaign, leaving those who devote their life to it baffled and unsure about what he’ll actually do and what his policy choices will be.

The Republican has pushed for school choice using federal block grants and for giving private lenders control of the student loan system, as well as calculating students’ loans based on the kind of jobs they’ll likely be able to get.

Related: Trump plan bases student loans on employability

The topic was not, however, a cornerstone of his campaign, or even an issue he spoke much about, beyond pushing 09competition, charters and vouchers. As a result, many of those who are reacting to his presidency say more is unknown about what’s next than is known.

Related: Educational choice is a slogan slick enough for Donald Trump

The Hechinger Report is compiling a wide range of reactions, views and advice concerning Trump; we’ll update throughout the day.

[…]

Jeanne Allen, Center for Education Reform:

“President-elect Trump – We believe there is much you can do to address the hopes and dreams of all who elected you. We hope you will embrace innovation, applaud and incentivize ambitious state efforts to create opportunity for all learners at all levels, reject the status quo and think hard about all those you appoint to support you and the needs of citizens everywhere.”

To read the full article visit The Hechinger Report

CER CEO Jeanne Allen President-Elect: Advance Opportunity & Innovation

Statement by CER Founder & CEO Jeanne Allen on the Presidential Election

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 9, 2016

Jeanne Allen, Founder and CEO of The Center for Education Reform (CER), today congratulated Donald Trump on his victory and called on the president-elect to unite the nation’s families and communities around improving education through innovation and opportunity.

“On behalf of the millions of people we represent who are working across the nation to bring excellence in education to all students and learners at every level, we offer the new President our support and counsel to help advance dramatic change in education throughout America.

“For the last 23 years the Center has pursued its mission faithfully, regardless of the political composition of our elected officials. Our work spans three presidential administrations and we have seen governors and legislators through dozens of terms. No matter what the differences in the viewpoints of our elected officials, our commitment to expanding opportunity has never changed or constricted – nor will it now.

“Our hope is that in the coming days President-elect Trump and his transition advisors will consider all good ideas and begin to learn from the myriad people working throughout the nation who are transforming their schools and communities.

“President-elect Trump – We believe there is much you can do to address the hopes and dreams of all who elected you. We hope you will embrace innovation, applaud and incentivize ambitious state efforts to create opportunity for all learners at all levels, reject the status quo and think hard about all those you appoint to support you and the needs of citizens everywhere.

“We will provide concrete recommendations for you to consider in the days and weeks ahead. Until then, congratulations. And welcome to Washington.”

About the Center for Education Reform

Founded in 1993, the Center for Education Reform aims to expand educational opportunities that lead to improved economic outcomes for all Americans — particularly our youth — ensuring that the conditions are ripe for innovation, freedom and flexibility throughout U.S. education.

EdReform Revived

By Tom Vander Ark
Education Weekly
November 7, 2016

Securing great education opportunities for all learners at all levels was the originating intent of modern education reform. Animating the movement was a perceived threat to the economy and big gaps in opportunity.

Standards-based reforms sought to set clear high standards, measure progress, build capacity, attack gaps and expand options. With origins in the 1980s, we’ll look back on 1993 to 2015 (the tenure of secretaries Riley, Paige, Spellings and Duncan) as the era of standards-based reform. Most states got on board and passed legislation in the mid ’90s, the feds followed with bipartisan fervor, but execution never lived up to the hype.

While there was progress including thousands of proof points of what’s possible, it was the unintended consequences–including a narrowed curriculum and weeks of time devoted to testing and test prep–that monopolized the education dialog over the last two months. And now, even the poof points of possibility themselves are under attack in many cities.

Outside of education, innovation is sweeping the globe and transforming service delivery. But in U.S. K-12, policymakers are increasingly constraining the supply in order to predict the outcome, rather than set the outcome and allow the supply to develop to meet all demands.

The Center for Education Reform hosted a forum last week to look back at thirty years of EdReform and consider the path forward–in particular how to revive EdReform by incorporating innovation and opportunity to rapidly improve results.

The conversation between advocates, researchers and policymakers resulted in 10 takeaways–and perhaps an early framework to revive EdReform.

To read the full article visit Education Week.

Advice to the next president: Do no harm and embrace educational innovation

By Jeanne Allen, Contributor
Washington Examiner
November, 7 2016

Dear Madam or Mister President,

While responsibility for education lies squarely with the states, your role in advancing or rolling back progress in American education reform can be dramatic, depending on your approach. With that in mind, I offer a few thoughts for your consideration.

Simply put, do no harm.

To Hillary Clinton, “do no harm” might mean not appointing dyed-in-the-wool union representatives to high posts in the Department of Education, and not unravelling the need for vital tests and measurements that help expose where things are working or not working. It might mean ignoring the education establishment’s proclivity to want more money for programs regardless of their effectiveness.

To Donald Trump, “do no harm” might mean not appointing people who frown on any federal role whatsoever, who do not recognize that a limited federal role can be a stimulus for the deployment of innovation.

It might mean not waiving any requirement for states to comply with certain rules governing testing. Just because the Every Student Succeeds Act now requires testing (without mandated consequences for the results of that testing, as No Child Left Behind did) doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.

I would instead advise you to do well by the people of our country by following three simple concepts:

1.) Appoint a secretary of education who understands their first mission is to be an ambassador for all kinds of education, not just the kind prescribed by 150 years of the status quo. The states and the people employ hundreds of different approaches to educating students on all levels. There should be millions. Education is not about space or place — it’s about learning.

People everywhere, from our youngest Americans to our oldest, are in need of education. You should be agnostic about which methods states and communities use so long as the communities they serve willingly buy in with their feet and the states who create the varied approaches live with their decisions.

2.) Use the bully pulpit to highlight great ideas and exceptional new discoveries. Just three presidents ago, the Internet was in its infancy. We know more than we ever did about how learning takes place. We know now that the brain and the way it works is far more complicated than what a square classroom with 24 chairs can accommodate.

When Bill Bennett was secretary of education, he traveled the world and told about the contrasts between them and us. When Arne Duncan was secretary, he invited education innovators to help transform his department. Don’t be tied to your conception of schooling. Embrace education, however it can be done.

3.) Recognize that appointing people, assembling commissions and promoting legislation often have nothing to do with what is really occurring with rank-and-file families and learners. Too many appointees arrive at their posts in departments and agencies that have a hand in education, thinking it is their jobs that make things work.

To the contrary, education reform started from the ground up. Breaking up the education cartel; allowing freedom and flexibility in schools, among teachers and among families to engage in picking their educational venue of choice regardless of zip code; standards and teacher profession reforms that value success over tenure.

All these ideas started in collaborations of normal people and scrappy legislators who had the tenacity to drive such ideas to state halls and eventually into school halls.

Listen, watch and applaud no matter what the political party, no matter whether your constituency is in favor.

Our democracy depends on an educated citizenry. Encourage it, no matter how, or where, it occurs.

Jeanne Allen is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is CEO and founder of the Center for Education Reform.

This Is Too Important Not To Share!

If you know anyone in MA, even long lost friends, please forward this email to them! It’s time to expand parent power for our kids.

“If you were told that your only option for school for your child was currently underperforming, what would you do?”

A Note from Beth Anderson (Excerpts)

I am sending this email widely, to friends in my life, fellow parents in my daughter Ciara’s district public school, my son Galileo’s JCC school, and most of all, supporters and colleagues in an almost 30 year fight to disrupt bad educational practices and create new and better ones that serve our youth and young adults most challenged by poverty, racism and oppression.

Phoenix public charter (and other) schools give ALL students a chance to succeed academically and access to the ability to be economically viable. You have all seen, first hand, the ways in which Phoenix students in particular have disrupted narratives around what is possible for powerful, resilient young people in urban areas to succeed in this country.

Phoenix exists today only because of the Massachusetts public charter movement.

The autonomy of the public charter model allows us to be innovative and entrepreneurial, to remove barriers and change the game for disconnected and off track youth. Phoenix is now one of the leaders in statewide thinking about access to high quality and rigorous education for off track youth and they are excited, with many others, to continue this work. The current debate on Question 2 threatens the very lifeblood that allowed Phoenix, and other public school reformers and revolutionaries, to produce lasting change.

destiny-at-bdeis

To all parents, I ask – If there was the ability to open a new, high-performing, free and public school for your child, wouldn’t you stop at nothing to make sure that could happen for her/ him? Would you wait in a failing public school for large scale district reform? I honestly believe that if Swampscott and resourced towns like it had a problem with viable public schools, I don’t think there would be a debate on Question 2. 

So, we are squarely in a civil rights fight here. Let’s not forget our history as a nation. The public charter school battle is a question of rights and access and power. In this ballot question, we have yet another situation where mostly white families are responsible for critical, life altering decisions that are going to affect the lives of black families and families of color. This is far from right and is the reality of poverty.  Just like in 1954 with desegregation, and in 1964 with civil rights and in 1973 with bussing in Boston, we as a people have the ethical responsibility to make this disparity in our cities disappear for the young people that can and should be our citizens and leaders tomorrow.

Currently, more than 60% of the state’s charters are in just 10 districts, all Massachusetts cities that struggle with providing a good public education option to all students. A yes on 2 will not change that. Question 2 will NOT impact families and children who live in high-performing suburban districts. However, it is those suburban votes (many of you receiving this email) that will determine the fate of families that don’t have the ability to move to more affluent districts with uniformly good public schools or enroll in private school. Put simply, if you live in a town like Hingham, Duxbury, Concord, Newton, Lexington, Wellesley, Ipswich, Lynnfield, Marblehead, Longmeadow, Stockbridge, Andover, etc. – the ballot will change nothing for schools in your communities, but your YES vote will enable schools like Phoenix and others to continue quickly giving kids in urban communities like Boston, Lawrence, Holyoke, Springfield and New Bedford educational options as academically rich as what some of you are able to access for your own children. 

Make no mistake, Question 2 is a civil rights question of choice and (in)equity in access to quality education for ALL Massachusetts students. What is at stake are the academic and life opportunities of economically disadvantaged kids of color who live in Boston and beyond, who largely do not have a public school option that is set up to succeed for them.  The current campaign against Q2 has been perniciously inaccurate about the effects of Q2 on communities in MA. 

Let’s do some truth telling.

Opponents of the ballot question have many alarmist and pervasive claims about charters:

1. The claim that charters drain funding from public schools, leaving district systems at a disadvantage as they struggle to meet the needs of the remaining students; and 

2. The claim that charters create a “selfish” two-tier system of public education that leaves most families behind.

District schools are reimbursed for every student that leaves them for a public charter school. Because of state budget constraints, the state has funded reimbursement at about 65% in total, and did fully fund the first three years of the six-year reimbursement schedule. What this means is that the districts are only not being reimbursed for children they haven’t educated in 4, 5 or 6 years. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation recently put out a report  countering the funding drain argument.  The report was followed a Boston Globe editorial refuting the funding drain argument; last year public charters received less than 4% of the $14-billion spent on public education in Massachusetts. More locally, the Boston Municipal Research Bureau released a report last spring indicating that the Boston Public Schools budget has actually increased every year even as charter enrollment has nearly doubled since 2010. 

The second, more philosophical argument is particularly offensive to me, a lifelong Democrat. Charter opponents claim to be fighting for the “greater good” of high-performing traditional public schools in all neighborhoods making attempts to frame the charter movement as “anti-democratic” and producing a “two-tiered” education system. What do we have now? Given the economic disparity across our cities that match class and race lines, we are living in nothing but a two-tiered system.  Massachusetts has the best public schools in the country, but also has the third largest achievement gap. Quality is uneven between and among wealthy and poor communities, and within these communities there are disparities across neighborhoods. This current, two-tiered system is EXACTLY why I founded Phoenix schools. 

jordangsm

When public charter schools educate and graduate students at increasingly more successful and higher rates than their district counterparts, they effectively erase this two-tiered system. Question 2 opponents have yet to put forward plans to reform struggling district schools other than the “wait and see” plan. Well, wait and see didn’t work for women, for Black and Latino and gay and lesbian folks in prior civil rights battles, and it isn’t enough for our urban children and families now. We are out of time. We have an option for these students, some argue the best option in the entire country, and we need to allow it to do what it is designed to do – produce change.

The vitriol and slander that has accompanied this debate is distressing because both sides of this question fundamentally want the same thing: stronger education through better schools. Both sides claim to stand up for kids and schools– however, one is fighting to maintain the status quo, inherently indicating that the two-tiered system that currently exists is ok. They want slow change. However, I have never in my lifetime seen a slow, incremental change effort transform anything. Civil rights movements are disruptive. They are necessarily uncomfortable. They challenge the status quo. They demand that we look at what is important. Suffrage, marriage equality and the recent transgender rights movements have all pushed us to think differently about families and access.

As former state Senate President Tom Birmingham discussed in an op-ed published widely across the state, many public charter operators – in partnership with some former thinking city and district leaders – have proven that district schools and charters don’t need to be at odds– in fact the opposite is true, the most effective educational reform will come from strong partnerships and the infusion and development of some charter tenets into district schools (e.g. principal autonomy, extended school days, advanced work programs). This is best exemplified in education turnaround models such as Lawrence Community Day, UP Academy and Phoenix in the city of Lawrence, where districts and charters are operating in tandem to close the gaps in student achievement. However, there are examples of district and charter leader partnership around MA including my own critical and long-standing relationships with several superintendents in Chelsea and Revere MA.  But, we can’t wait for districts to plummet to state takeover before such collaboration and best practices are inserted. A lifted cap will allow for more charters–in the needy bottom 25% of districts–which will increase opportunities for differentiated models and elevate accountability around outcomes for all public schools, district and charter.

For those of you who want to hear some more voices on this debate, I will leave you with the editorial support of Question 2 by many major papers in Massachusetts that have examined this issue. Even the New York Times, and national groups such as the Center for Education Reform and the National Public Charter School Alliance have weighed in, understanding the national impact of this vote in Massachusetts on public charter school reform in the United States.  

  • The Boston Globe
  • The Boston Herald
  • MetroWest Daily News
  • Bay State Banner
  • Boston Business Journal
  • The Lowell Sun
  • The Lawrence Eagle Tribune

The fact that the vast majority of current charter schools, like Phoenix, serve children in urban communities makes this a poverty issue. The fact that it’s mostly Black and Latino students who are sitting on waiting lists for public schools that work makes this an equity and race issue.  Creating opportunity and change through great public schools makes this an American issue.  We are lucky to have so many titans in this field who have quickly produced public education options that make a resounding difference for urban youth.  Roxbury Prep Public Charter, Brooke Public Charter Schools, the MATCH Schools, Neighborhood House and Lowell Community Charter were all birthed by people who ended up, in less than five years time, showing that they could shrink, and in a few cases in Boston, close the achievement gap between urban youth and their suburban peers. This movement, and your support and help, allowed us at Phoenix in 2005 to implement a different idea and build a road for a lot of kids.  It’s far from perfect and still evolving but it has made a difference in its 11 years.  There are so many more future American education leaders growing up in this amazing state.

I implore you, on behalf of these future education radicals and the thousands of young people that are waiting for a great school, to do the right and responsible thing.

Vote YES on Question 2 on Tuesday.

In solidarity,
Beth

Beth Anderson is a lifelong Democrat voter, a mom, an educator and founder of Phoenix Academy Charter School for students most in need.

Online Charters Cause Rift Among Supporters of School Choice