The Kansas State Department of Education recently gave out federal grants of $1,995 each to at least 16 individuals to provide technical assistance to groups wanting to start charter schools. And though the department says that each grant recipient was qualified, the awards appear fishy.
As our editorial today notes, four of the grants went to charter school advocate Betty Horton and her husband in Topeka, and to her sister and brother-in-law, who have a Georgia mailing address. Most of the other grants went to associates of Horton, including several who live in Kansas City, Mo.
State Board of Education member Sue Gamble asked Education Commissioner Bob Corkins last month for copies of the applications but has yet to receive them. She planned to press him on the matter at today’s state board meeting in Arkansas City.
Gamble doesn’t have any confidence in the credibility of the grant recipients. She said it appears as if anyone could have walked off the street and said, “I like charter schools,” and gotten a check.
“This smells to high heaven,” she said.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
25 Comments
Phillip, ya’ really ought to check Pat Hayes blog in the mornings when you get here. I posted this prior, from RED STATE RABBLE:
Moderate School Board Candidate on Fiscal ConservatismThe so-called fiscal conservatives on the Kansas school board seem to be operating under a double standard. When schools need money for education, the board piously tells them to look for cost savings in their districts, but when the board wants to do something, no dollar figure is too high — just ask Connie Morris’ travel agent.
Now, moderate candidate Don Weiss, who is running against right-wing hypocrite John Bacon in the 3rd District, is asking tough questions about more board spending on one of its pet projects — charter schools. Bacon, you will remember, likes to talk up fiscal conservatism while using taxpayer money to get away from it all in a fundamentalist setting.
“The board recently gave away almost $40,000 in a series of checks for $1,995 to virtually anyone who lined up and said they wanted to start a charter school,” says Weiss. “What controls were on this money? Did it matter if two of the checks went to Alpharetta, GA? What is Kansas going to get for their money? I’d like to know.”
Voter disgust with the right-wingers on the school board cost Connie Morris her job in the primary. Voters in the 9th District who were burned once by Iris Van Meter refused to put their hands on the stove again and declined to elect her son-in-law, Brad Patzer, the drive-by candidate from the Republic of Idaho to replace her.
Moderates will have a majority on the board come January. The election of two more moderates, Don Weiss and Jack Wempe, will ensure that the board stays on track and gets some work done — such as dealing with declining test scores in some districts — over the long haul.
To do sustained work on the state’s schools, the board has to stay focused. It can’t keep popping through the rabbit hole into Wonderland every couple of years with the election of nutty right-wingers. Electing Weiss and Wempe will ensure the board keeps its feet planted firmly on the ground for years to come.
Maybe CKD will weigh in with her take on the subject?What do you say Cindy?
Tracy,
I have no “inside scoop” on this but I do think I remember hearing that these were federal dollars that had to be spent or lost — for whatever difference that makes.
I don’t really understand the intent with these dollars. In education terms, $2000 buys very little.
In Pingree Grove, IL, a charter school is starting up using $10 million in tax exempt bonds.
Some Massachusetts schools will be eligible for an ADDITIONAL $25,000 per year in funding above and beyond their current levels. New Jersey has available grant money for new charter applicants where the minimum grant amount would be $150,000 per year.
I’m not sure what might be accomplished with just $2000 from the Kansas grants other than, perhaps, some best practices research or maybe some of the legal paperwork necessary to open a new school.
For an excellent FAQ on charter schools, see the following link: http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=60
Don Weiss’ point that, “The board recently gave away almost $40,000 in a series of checks for $1,995 to virtually anyone who lined up and said they wanted to start a charter school,” is really a moot point.
Charter schools CAN be founded by “virtually anyone.” That is one significant difference that separates charter schools from traditional public schools.
From the web link posted above: “The Founders: Virtually anyone can submit an application to open and operate a charter school. Parents, educators, museums, civic groups, business leaders, service organizations and teachers have started schools in United States. Charter schools are started when community members see an educational need and decide to actively address it.”
I wish ‘em luck with $2000 but I don’t know how they will go very far with such a piddly sum unless they pool the resources together into a single pot.
CKD
CKD, the funding apparently isn’t for “founding” private schools, it’s for providing technical assistance to (other?) people who want to found charter schools. I think that qualifies as a little fishy, especially considering the connection of the people who got them. As you say, it’s a “piddly sum”, and I guess a little chicanery is better than a lot. Sad state of affairs when ripping the government (us taxpayers) off for a piddly sum of 2 grand is ok.
I’d be very surprised if any of the people who got grants ever provide “technical assistance” to anybody.
NO FAIR!
I teach my son stuff at home all the time. Why wasn’t I notified about this so I could get my 2 grand?
Hey all, let’s watch for a program like this one to pop up again. We can take the 2 grand and have one helluva meet up. Someone can bring up charter shcools so the state investment is covered.
XXX,
I “think” that these were federal grant dollars. I would have to read the wording of the grant applications to find out of funding for “technical assistance” was one of the acceptable provisions.
If so, then the distribution of the funds for such use would not qualify as “fishy.”
The key question is what stipulations were in place in connection with the funding source.
CKD
Following is info about info on the federal charter school grant funds. Paragraph #4 specifically addresses “technical assistance.”
http://www3.ksde.org/outcomes/chtscpressrelease.doc
KANSAS AWARDED $10 MILLIONTO HELP CREATE MORE CHARTER SCHOOLS
The U.S. Department of Education has awarded Kansas a $10 million three-year No Child Left Behind grant to help plan, design, and create new charter schools and increase the school choices that parents have to provide their children, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced today.
Kansas is one of nine states receiving funding through the department’s Charter Schools Program (CSP), designed to increase national understanding of the charter school model and to expand the number of charter schools available to the nation’s students. In addition to providing for the start-up and operation of charter schools, these funds are also used to evaluate charter school effectiveness. The program also aids in the dissemination of information and successful practices.
The other states receiving grants are Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, South Carolina, and New Mexico.
Kansas will use its grant funds to expand the number of new high-quality charter schools; disseminate best practices among charter schools and other Kansas public schools; increase the effectiveness of sub grants through expanded technical assistance, monitoring and evaluation; improve student academic performance in charter schools; and develop a statewide charter organization to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of the charter community.In addition, Kansas will seek to create high quality charter schools that will provide new opportunities for improved pupil learning; increased learning opportunities for pupils in special areas of emphasis; creative, innovative and unconventional instructional techniques and structures; new professional vistas for teachers who operate such schools or who choose to work in them; and for freedom from conventional program constraints and mandates. Kansas aims to grant 20-25 new charters by the end of 2009.
As intended in the Kansas Statutes Annotated 72-1903, charter schools in Kansas are independent public schools that operate within a school district structure that provide an alternative means within the public school system for ensuring accomplishment of the necessary outcomes of education. They can be designed and operated by parents, educators, community leaders, education entrepreneurs and others. Charter schools are operated free-of-charge to parents and are open to all students. In addition, every charter school in Kansas is subject to accreditation requirements of the state board of education and must be accredited to maintain its charter.
The board of education of any school district may authorize the establishment of a non-sectarian charter school upon receipt of a satisfactory petition. The petition is forwarded to the state board of education for review to determine whether the charter school can reasonably be expected to accomplish the program goals. A charter school that has been approved for establishment by the local school district board of education and the state board of education maintains it charter status for a period of five years.
Following is the vendor application document. It’s a fairly straight-forward application, posted publicly on the KSDE web page. I don’t see anything “fishy” here at all.
CKD
http://www3.ksde.org/outcomes/chtscvendorcontracts.doc
Kansas Charter SchoolTechnical Assistance FundingVendor Application Instructions
ObjectivesIn order to meet the need for quality charter school petition development, technical assistance funds may be awarded through contract to an approved vendor who can provide, at a minimum, the following services:1. Planning2. Research3. Organization4. Compliance with State and Federal program requirements
Fund UsageTechnical assistance funding awarded through contract to an approved vendor can be used to achieve the objectives by engaging the clientele in activities such as:1. Consultation in the area of need2. Site visits to other organizations which have successfully implemented an innovative program3. Convening work groups and meetings4. Training and other staff development
Submittal Procedures1. Complete the Application form.2. Attach a brief one-page resume highlighting your knowledge and experience in charter school administration.3. Submit no later than Monday, August 21, 2006 to KSDE for review** Applications will not be accepted after this date.4. Approved vendor contact information and available services will be posted on the Charter/Virtual website and the KSDE homepage.
Awarding/Payment of Contracts1. New petitioner: Before initiation of services from an approved vendor, submit to KSDE a Letter of Intent to enter into contract with the specific name of the vendor.2. Vendor: Prior to initiation of services, a Letter of Agreement to enter into contract needs to be submitted to KSDE by the vendor on behalf of the group receiving technical assistance.3. Letter of Agreement: Include initial meeting minutes and the agreed-upon timeline of specific activities, dates, times and participants as well as signatures of both parties and standard vendor information required by KSDE.4. Services must begin before September 12, 2006 and be completed by November 8, 2006.5. Final invoices for payment must be submitted to KSDE by November 15, 2006, accompanied by a summary of services provided and signatures of both parties.
AT A GLANCE
Eligibility RequirementsVendors must be able to demonstrate knowledge and experience in the area of charter school administration.
DeadlineVendor applications will be accepted on an on-going basis through August 21, 2006.
Contract AwardOne-time award per vendor up to $1995
Submit your application and one-page resume to
KSDECharter Schools120 SE 10th AveTopeka, KS 66612Attn: Linda Geiger
Or
Email the application and attachments to:lgeiger@ksde.org
More info on the federal grant. These grants were awarded to 9 states in June, by the way. If anything smells “fishy,” it’s the fact that this topic has only just now become “newsworthy.”
CKD
http://www.ed.gov/programs/charter/index.htmlProgram at a GlancePDF (42K, 06/2006)Source: Guide to U.S. Department of Education ProgramsCFDA Number: 84.282Program Type: Discretionary/Competitive GrantsAlso Known As: Charter Schools, Public Charter Schools Program, CSP
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program provides financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and the dissemination of information on charter schools. Grants are available, on a competitive basis, to SEAs in states that have charter school laws; SEAs in turn make subgrants to developers of charter schools who have applied for a charter. If an eligible SEA elects not to participate or if its application for funding is not approved, the Department can make grants directly to charter school developers.
TYPES OF PROJECTS
An eligible applicant that receives a grant or subgrant may use the funds only for post-award planning and design of the education program of a charter school. It may carry out such activities as the refinement of the desired education results, the refinement of the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those results, and the initial implementation of the charter school. Implementation may include informing the community about the charter school and acquiring necessary equipment, materials, and supplies. Other eligible operational costs that cannot be met by state and local sources also may be covered. A state may reserve up to 10 percent of its allocation to support eligible charter schools for dissemination activities.
Additional Information
The Public Charter Schools Program supports the planning, development, and initial implementation of charter schools. Charter schools provide enhanced parental choice and are exempt from many statutory and regulatory requirements. In exchange for increased flexibility, charter schools are held accountable for improving student academic achievement. The objective is to replace rules-based governance with performance-based accountability, thereby stimulating the creativity and commitment of teachers, parents, and citizens.
States–and specifically their State educational Agencies (SEAs)– are eligible to compete for grants if they have a charter school law in place. If an eligible SEA does not participate, charter schools from the State may apply directly to the U.S. Department of Education. Grantees receive up to 3 years of assistance, of which the charter school may use not more than 18 months for planning and program design and not more than 2 years for the initial implementation of a charter school.
In awarding grants, the Department must give preference to States that have multiple chartering agencies (or an appeals process for prospective charter schools that initially fail to be approved by a single agency), that ensure accountability of public charter schools for reaching clear and measurable objectives, and that give public charter schools a high degree of autonomy over their budgets and expenditures.
In addition, States may reserve up to 10 percent of their grant for dissemination sub-grants to spread lessons learned form high-quality charter schools with a demonstrated history of success to other public schools, including other public charter schools, about how to create and sustain high-quality, accountable schools.
———–http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/06/06122006a.html
Louisiana Awarded $23.9 Million No Child Left Behind Grant to Help Create More Charter SchoolsGrants to help hurricane-ravaged areas recover with more school options
FOR RELEASE:June 12, 2006 Contact: Samara YudofDavid Thomas(202) 401-1576
The U.S. Department of Education has awarded Louisiana a $23.9 million three-year No Child Left Behind grant to help plan, design, and create new charter schools and increase the school choices that parents have to provide their children, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced today.
Today’s grant is in addition to the $20.9 million No Child Left Behind Charter Schools Program grant Louisiana received in September to help reopen charter schools damaged by the hurricanes, create 10 new charter schools, and expand existing charter schools to accommodate displaced students. The U.S. Department of Education also has made more than $1.6 billion in funds in hurricane recovery aid available to reopen schools in the Gulf Coast region and to help educate students across the country who were displaced or impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Louisiana is one of nine states receiving funding through the department’s Charter Schools Program (CSP), designed to increase national understanding of the charter school model and to expand the number of charter schools available to the nation’s students. In addition to providing for the start-up and operation of charter schools, these funds are also used to evaluate charter school effectiveness. The program also aids in the dissemination of information and successful practices.
“Charter schools are empowering parents with new options in public education and as additional educational strategies they’re helping to raise achievement in all our public schools,” Spellings said. “That’s why we’re doing everything we can to support existing ones and help build new ones.”
The other states receiving grants are Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, South Carolina, and New Mexico.
Charter schools are growing annually between 10-12 percent. The department’s program is the most prevalent source of start-up funding for charter schools, with nearly two-thirds having received CSP funds during their start-up phase. The CSP has received more than $1.7 billion from Congress since first being appropriated in 1995 and the department provides some $250 million a year to help sustain and expand charter schools across the nation.
Louisiana will use its grant funds to expand local and national understanding of the charter school model using all five of Louisiana’s chartering methods, including the takeover and conversion of failed public schools into independent charters. Louisiana further aims to grant more than 30 charters by the end of 2009.
In addition, Louisiana will seek to raise public awareness of all its charter schools and to deliver technical assistance and subgrant funds to charter developers that are interested in: creating high quality charter schools that will address the unique needs of students – especially in hurricane-stricken areas; focusing on high academic standards; improving student academic achievement; reaching at-risk and disadvantaged pupils; and committing to operate strong, responsive, and fiscally sound charter schools.
Charter schools are independent public schools designed and operated by parents, educators, community leaders, education entrepreneurs and others with a contract, or charter, from a public agency, such as a local or state education agency or an institution of higher education. Charter schools are operated free-of-charge to parents and are open to all students.
These schools provide parents enhanced educational choices within the public school system. Exempt from many statutory and regulatory requirements, charter schools receive increased flexibility in exchange for increased accountability for improving academic achievement. The first U.S. public charter school opened in 1992. Today, more than 3,600 charter schools serve more than a million students in 40 states and Washington, D.C.
More information about the Charter School Program is available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/charter/index.html.
###
Cindy Duckett and all of the anti-public education assholes are just loving this shit. Let them have their fun at the taxpayers expense, a sensible moderate State BOE is coming into office in January. Heartlander………see what I mean?
Sorry, I’m out of this one. My kids are gone from this state, and aren’t coming back. I’ve tried to present some ideas, but Kansas isn’t a place that can absorb them. You have an overwhelming risk-averse mentality here.
Charter schools are an experimental kind of public education. Kansans don’t do experiments. They have a late-adopter mentality. That’s understandable. R&D costs a lot of money. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Kansas is a poor state, so it seems more sensible to let others figure out what works and what doesn’t, and then implement what does work elsewhere.
The downside is a society of this nature can’t develop problem-solving or analytical acuity, because instead of grappling with not-yet-tested ideas and trying to create effective tangible products, the society merely replicates what other societies have already done.
In analogy, it’s like the difference between a frontline drug maker and a generics manufacturer. The first does all the creative, risk-taking R&D. Most new compounds go nowhere, a few prove worthwhile. The manufacturer gets patents and makes humongous profits on the few worthwhile drugs. The patents expire, and the generic company gets to pick which 20-year-old drugs are still marketable, and it manufactures them as cheap commodities. Of course, other generic makers can make the same products, as can the original makers who can also sell their products cheaply at this time. The companies that solely sell generics, i.e. other companies’ inventions long afterwards, can never be as profitable as the inventing companies. But they can find a satisfactory niche.
For old drugs that are nearly as medically effective as new patented drugs, but cost a fraction as much, this constitutes a reasonable balance, because many more people can be treated for the same amount of money expended.
On the other hand, to apply this concept of “slow followership” in education has problems. People who are experimental risk-takers who succeed in their exploits generally do not feel obliged to share their fruits with the risk-averse. If they are forced to do so, then they have fewer resources to continue experimenting. Progress slows, and may ultimately cease.
In this, I don’t mean that successful charter pioneers or other public-education innovators aren’t willing to share their models with risk-averse school systems, but rather, I mean in the ultimate outcome, where kids who have learned in innovative environments become innovative adults, while their counterparts educated in non-innovative environments do not, a productivity divide occurs that has serious consequences.
During and after WWII, aviation technologies invented elsewhere were brought to Wichita. So long as the technologies had national-defense value, the nation was willing to subsidize civil aviation manufacturing here, because the manufacturing resources could quickly be converted to defense uses.
That value has largely evaporated. Wichita primarily builds civil aircraft that are sold to airliners, entrepreneurs, hobby fliers, and corporations. America’s 21st-century air-and-space defense uses different technologies. Wichita civil aircraft cannot only be manufactured more cheaply overseas, but the largest markets for them over then next 50 years are projected to be overseas. So production is migrating overseas.
The question becomes, “What does Wichita have to sell to the outside world, and acquire outside-world dollars in this new century?” This is a crucial question, because the city cannot survive without these transactions. This is where innovation becomes very important, but if your educational system doesn’t support innovation, if it doesn’t inculcate an innovative mindset in students, not all students, but some critical mass, then you’re stymied.
Apophis, here’s a suggestion for you. Rent a helium tank. Before class, fill up five balloons. Now, dissolve 30 grams of lye (still available as drain cleaner) or ACS-grade sodium hydroxide) in 600 ml H20 in a 2-liter pop bottle. Put the bottle into an ice-water bath. Take a half-square-foot of aluminum foil, cut it into 1-inch by 6 inch strips and twist-crumple them. Quickly stuff them into the bottle. Then stretch a balloon mouth over the bottle mouth. You’ll generate H2 gas and heat. This will be enough to fill a party balloon.
The ice-water bath will prevent the bottle from melting. Tie the balloon. Do this again to fill a second balloon with H2 gas.
Anchor the He and H2 balloons to a horizontal pole with string or ribbon. The first four from left to right will have He. Pick five students to don goggles and hold a long Scripto lighter. Have the first four students flame the He balloons. The balloons burst, and that’s it. Then have a “smart-ass” student flame the fifth balloon, filled with H2. That will get the class’s attention. Then have a student flame the fifth balloon filled with He. Then ask for a volunteer to flame the sixth balloon filled with H2 (which he or she doesn’t know what is in it). Then you can discuss chemistry.
Another good one is to put 15 grams of sucrose into a 50-ml beaker and then pour 15 ml concentrated (12 N) sulfuric acid into it and stand back.
Here’s another good one. With the class present, take a three-foot long piece of 3/16 inch glass tubing. Heat it a foot from one end with a propane torch, grab the end and twist to seal. Do same with the other end.
Now take a second piece, and seal only one end. Apply a vaccuum pump at the other end to evacuate the air from the tube. Now heat it a foot from the end, and twist to seal.
Now, darken the room. Apply a Tesla coil electrode to the first air-filled tube ( a distance of about an inch will create a spark.) Now do the same with the evacuated tube. Hmm. What’s going on? (The glass will not explode. It’s very safe. You need a darkened room to see the phenomenon.)
Final cool experiment for tonight. Have three teams use mortars and pestles to fine-grind 40 grams of charcoal, and 20 grams of potassium nitrate in separate batches. Give each team 20 grams of sulfur powder.
Have them hold a long-necked lighter to 10 grams of each. Make sure the windows are open for the sulfur, or have them do it under a hood.
Now have them thoroughly mix the remaining charcoal powder, potassium nitrate powder and sulfur powder with a small spatula. Have them put about a half-teaspoon of the mixture into a petri dish and ignite the mixture. What’s going on?
Of course, before doing these things with students, you’ll want to try them yourself. Have fun!
Correction. The fifth He-filled balloon is the sixth balloon and the second H2-filled balloon is the seventh ballon.
I think the fact that if the checks were for $2000, there would have been more rules they would have had to follow. As such, by limiting them to $1995, they bypassed the safeties. That in itself is fishy enough to constitute a reality check by the BOE.
IMHO, this is just more board antics and partisan games.The board members have a right to know about the money the processes and the recipients. Anybody want to bet that the info was intentionally withheld due to personality conflicts and infighting?BTW, maybe we ought to check today’s news and see if it was discussed at the board meeting.
If the application process isn’t ‘fishy,’ then why won’t Corkins let the KSBE see the applications from the folks who were awarded those grants?
One person who had not submitted an application received a check issued to her personally. When she asked if she could use the money for her district Charter School she was told no, the check was for her personal use. She returned the check to the department stating she did not feel it was an appropriate payment.
Is it any wonder Corkins doesn’t want to open up the records?
hiI don,t claim to have political science degree, but have been trying to find out about “good” education for “gifted” d.d. for a few yrs now.the more I learn about politics the less I like politicans.I loved the drug co. comparisonand dead on with the aircraft (wichita) analysis .what do we have to sell?Where I fit into this charter school is ,the more I start looking at the free thinking schools and community,s in the west that I grew up in and then asking and learning about what is available for my d.d. as she rapidly advances through school is I,m afraid that in a few yrs. she will run out rope and be stuck because her teachers just are not allowed to “experiment” a little.politicans and money should be housed in two seperate buildings and not allowed to converse with each other.I,m late paying my water bill and they will shut off my water if I don,t pay it today.I am sick , I called them they don,t care,pay it or else.if I do not pay ALL my other bills same thing .meaning .. why is it when there politics and education involved there are always problems finding the money or figuring out where it went or why they gave it away but when it is a business or my taxes or my utilities they seem to figure it out to the day and hr. and to the dollar and cent and there are instant problems for me if I do,nt do what I,m told?loved the experiment , just make sure none of Macveigh,s kids are around or the last one.call O.K. elementary schools library and ask why her shelves were 1/2 empty last yr? bet she could use that 1,995$. ???? Rick
Following is an article about one of the recipients of the charter school grant funding. This piece has much better coverage than anything we have seen in the WE thus far — including the explanation of the two out-of-state recipients.
CKD
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct/01/topekan_campaigns_charter_schools/?print
Topekan campaigns for charter schoolsWoman mobilizes family to apply for state grants
By Scott Rothschild
Sunday, October 1, 2006
Topeka — If Betty Horton has anything to say about it, Kansas will have many more charter schools in the coming years.
Horton, an education consultant from Topeka, has rounded up family, friends and colleagues to try to start charter schools across the state, and she said she is expecting warfare.
“When you talk about charter schools being developed by African Americans and community people, the school district can get ugly and can do some horrific things,” Horton said.
Horton, her husband, her sister and brother-in-law recently applied for and received grants of $1,995 each from the Kansas Department of Education to provide technical assistance to organizations wanting to start charter schools in the public school system.
In addition, Horton got a handful of other colleagues to get the grants, which originated from federal money, according to the education department.
Horton’s resume includes stints as director of Topeka magnet schools and an assistant research professor at Kansas University. She is now president and chief executive of a new group called the Kansas Assn. of Charter Schools.
Charter schools generally focus on specific populations of students, such as students who are having trouble succeeding in a traditional public school. There are 26 charter schools in Kansas.
Grants questioned
State Board of Education member Sue Gamble, a Republican from Shawnee, has questioned the awarding of the grants, saying those receiving the grants seem to have no connection to school districts.
In Kansas, a charter school cannot get started without approval of the local school board.
Horton said that law needs to be changed. School districts often reject charter petitions, she said, because they feel threatened that the charter school may perform better than the traditional public schools.
Horton said that is what happened to her in 2000 when she and others tried to start a charter school in Topeka.
“All of the African Americans involved in making the petition for the charter school, all of us were fired or called into the administrative offices and were told if you are seen consorting with the enemy that you would be fired, or something bad would happen to your job,” she said.
Topeka school district spokesman Ron Harbaugh denied Horton’s accusation.
“On those charges, it did not happen and is not true,” he said.
And Horton alleged that currently school districts are intimidating teachers where she and her colleagues work with folks to start charters, such as the Wichita school district.
Diane Gjerstad, a spokeswoman for the Wichita district, said there was no intimidation going on, and that she was unaware of who, if anyone, Horton was talking to in Wichita about starting a charter school.
“We have been approached over time by a couple of different groups, but once they get into the minutiae of what it takes to run a school, it becomes a more daunting task than they realized when they first entered into it,” Gjerstad said.
She said Wichita has a long history of responding to community needs for schools with specific themes and has more than 24 magnet schools.
Charter school fights
Earlier this year, Horton, Education Commissioner Bob Corkins and a six-member majority on the State Board of Education pushed for legislation that would allow charter petitioners rejected by local school boards to appeal to the State Board of Education. That legislation was rejected. Many lawmakers and educators say it is key for the petitioning organization and the school board to work together if a charter school is going to succeed.
Gamble also questioned why some of those receiving grants were from out of state, noting that one couple — Horton’s sister, Alice Wyatt, and her husband, Hal Wyatt — listed an address in Georgia.
But Horton said her team is well qualified and includes veteran teachers, principals, a psychologist and community center director. Horton said her sister is an educator and consultant who has relocated to Kansas and soon will be followed by her husband, who has worked with inner city youths.
“Everyone that I asked to apply (for a grant) was selected very carefully. No one walked in off the street,” Horton said.
Horton said her group has worked tirelessly for no pay to assist people wanting to start charter schools. It is her mission in life, she said, to develop schools to help high-risk students succeed.
“In developing charter schools, thousands of dollars have to be racked up in telephone calls. We have spent close to $68,000 from our own pocket,” she said. She said she has worked with groups in Topeka, Kansas City, Kan., Wichita, Olathe and Garden City wanting to start charter schools.
Gamble said that the research on charter schools shows their effectiveness is spotty at best and that Horton and her group are planning a campaign of trying to intimidate local school boards.
“It has absolutely nothing to do with well-thought-out, good policy, and in the end, the people who will pay for this are the children,” Gamble said.
Horton, however, said she will continue to fight for charter schools for the benefit of children. “We, however, cannot be stopped by the politics of oppression. We are formidable in our resolve to have charter schools developed by the community for community boys and girls that no one else has helped,” she said.
RED STATE RABBLE:
Fred Phelps and the School BoardThat’s what people outside Kansas think of when they think of Kansas at all.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who calls the Kansas State Board of Education an embarrassment, wants to change all that. Sebelius told the Topeka Capital-Journal she will push in her second term for a constitutional amendment to shift the board’s powers to the governor’s office.
“I think we have a real institutional, structural problem in the state,” Sebelius told The Topeka Capital-Journal editorial board. “The elected school board that we have in place doesn’t function in this day and age. There’s very little accountability.”
I feel really bad for Mrs. Horton and co. I don’t think any reasonable, compassionate, JUST person can disagree with a new proposal to create district-unencumbered charter schools for African-American kids, run by African-American adults.
Let’s get real. Most Kansas African-Americans aren’t doing well in conventional white-prescripted public education. Most white public educators refuse to accept responsibility for this. It’s convenient to spout old mantras about the problem’s origin being bad out-of-school environments, and then say, “We do OUR best, but it’s not OUR fault.”
Let’s agree that out-of-school environments create large obstacles. Let’s agree that given obsolete Industrial Age school paradigms, schools are doing their best within these paradigms. Sort of analogous to a 20-pound ball-and-chain attached to one leg (bad out-of-school environments) and a 20-pound ball-and-chain attached the other leg (obsolete operational paradigms), and then telling teachers to run 100 meters in 15 seconds. That’s an impossibility.
Are the problems insurmountable? Can the shackles be removed? I don’t know. But I do know this, you can’t find out without performing risk-taking experiments. One of the key aspects of Mrs. Horton et al.’s proposal is, “Let us African-Americans take control of our children’s education, so we can perform our own experiments, and find out what we can do. We can’t really fail our children, because they are already failing. If they succeed, then we’ll learn something, and maybe you white folks can learn something from us.”
I believe that the obstruction here is white arrogance and prejudice. Let’s consider history for enlightenment. In the antebellum South, laws were passed outlawing the teaching of reading and writing to slaves. Why? Because the whites observed that blacks WANTED TO LEARN TO READ AND WRITE, AND WERE SUCCEEDING. The whites feared the dissemination of written communication among slaves, and coordinated insurgency. Does this indicate that blacks can’t acquire literacy skills? No. Just the opposite.
Now consider, the Exodusters were southern blacks who had more get-up-and-go than their kinfolk who stayed in the post-Reconstruction Jim Crow South. Kansas absorbed black TALENT and energy. But it held blacks back. (See Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. )
In 2002, I performed an analysis of 2000 Census education data. The data were eye-opening. Blacks aged 24+ in almost all Southern MSAs of 300,000+ or more total population, in former slavery, former KKK-homeground states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arkansas, had not just higher, but substantially higher bachelor’s degree attainment rates than their counterparts in Wichita. Has the USD 259 BOE travelled to these places to find out “How are you achieving 14%-22% black college-degree-attainment rates when we have only an 8% rate?” (Atlanta MSA had a 22% rate. Just marginally lower than Wichita’s 24.8% WHITE bachelor’s attainment rate.)
Go ahead and contact your BOE representative and ask him or her if the BOE has sent a delegation to Little Rock, Huntsville, Jackson, or Atlanta to study the matter.
Mrs. Horton’s proposal would likely cost Kansans little. The feds are putting up money for charter schools. The Gates Foundation would JUMP on the opportunity to provide major funding for a black-led educational experiments for black students.
Suppose the experiments uniformly fail to raise African-American students’ learning. Experiments often fail. But suppose one or more succeed. In either case, lessons can be learned.
Thirty years ago, there wasn’t a black quarterback in the NFL and there were only a few in NCAA IA. The position required “too much thinking for blacks”. There were zero African-American NFL or NCAA IA black coaches. Turn on TV this weekend. The world has changed.
Golf is a “cerebral” sport. Who is the best player in the game today?
Two cents worth alleges that USD 259 spokeswoman Diane Gjerstad said, with respect to charter schools,
“We have been approached over time by a couple of different groups, but once they get into the minutiae of what it takes to run a school, it becomes a more daunting task than they realized when they first entered into it.”
It is an indisputable FACT that some retired WSU faculty wanted to create a gifted math-and-science charter school here two years ago. They were expert educators. They weren’t “daunted by minutiae.” Their proposal to create a school was FLATLY TORPEDOED by a vote of the BOE, acting upon the recommendation of the Superintendent to reject the proposal.
Ms. Gjerstad wasn’t necessarily prevaricating. First, she may have been misquoted. Secondly, if not misquoted, and if not prevaricating, she may have been telling a disingenuous half-truth. Fourthly, she may have made a corrective admission about the proposed math-and-science academy, and stated that its proposers were not “daunted”. But as quoted, she has been given the appearance, perhaps accurately, perhaps not, of either playing a game of deception or being someone who is ignorant. As quoted, she allegedly said “a couple times”. A couple times means TWO times.
Perhaps she might have said, “We have been approached a couple times, and in one case the district felt threatened by having math-and-science higher-ed experts try to invade our 6th-12th grade territory in proposing a new charter school. As experienced public higher educators, they weren’t daunted by minutia, and we knew that, but we stood our ground and protected our turf, ‘cuz even though we didn’t know advanced math or science, or how America’s economy depends on them, we did know how to run circles around them in hinterland political machinations. Those mathematicians and scientists are really dumb, you know, about hinterland political realities. And we can just as readily fend off African-Americans who want to run their own schools too. They can present rational arguments til the cows come home, but unless hundreds of them study the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement’s tactics, and surround the central office carrying signs and take their kids home for a month, and draw in the national media to Wichita, and force the governor to tell us, ‘You’re embarrassing this state, let these people develop their own charter schools’, we don’t have to give in to them.”
I believe that Kansas can afford to take a risk in allowing some African-American groups to create their own schools. If anybody disagrees, I welcome debate. Put your arguments on the table. I would just ask you to not contrive fallacious pretrexts whose purpose is to conceal your prejudices against African-Americans.
Omission, I meant to say, “Thirdly, maybe she [ Ms. Gjerstad] wasn’t fully informed about the charter proposals, and made her statement based on incomplete information.”
heartlander,
I have no idea who you are … but I REALLLY like your style!! That may be the case because I happen to agree with every point and every word you wrote in an essay that is so significantly accurate that it should be “required reading” for anyone on this blog who wants to comment on education topics with any degree of credibility.
I’m guessing that, perhaps, you have read John Taylor Gatto, or about Thaddeus Lott or Howard Fuller??? Maybe E. D. Hirsch, too??
Thank you SO much for this fabulous commentary!!
CKD
I’m just tired. I’m tired of public educators’ feudal territoriality mindset. The BOE and Superintendent’s rejection of the math and science charter school was DUMB. It would have been a public asset for Wichita. The people who wanted to run it were very experienced local public educators. Their ideas could have been infused into other schools besides their own. Good teachers love to share their knowledge. Once their fire was started, they would have gladly given ignited kindling to their regular-school counterparts.
It is true that they came from HIGHER EDUCATION, but that wasn’t a flaw, it was entirely sound. Why? Because in this century, K-12 education’s mission must be to put more students into college. (Not all students, but many more students than currently.) K-12 MUST also prepare these college-bound students for the rigors of college-level courses. If it doesn’t then public money must be wasted for high school remediation in our public universities, and middle-class and working-class families must pay out of pocket for remedial coursework. The state will find that it cannot afford to provide public university education to all who want it. University education will have to be rationed, excluding many deserving students. All too many families will run out of money before their kids can earn bachelor’s degrees.
K-12 gets more money per pupil than our Regents universities. But, K-12 education is shifting the cost of 11th-12th grade education to the universities. Our Regents universities were PUBLIC EDUCATION institutions. So, the primary/secondary segment of public education is undermining the tertiary segment, and with it, Kansas’s economy. This is extremely counterproductive.
The math-and-science school proponents were trying to create a much-needed 6-12 BRIDGE to higher education, specifically in preparing adolescents for mathematics, science, medical and engineering studies as young adults.
Did this make sense? I believe so. But other people didn’t. So what kind of economy did they project Wichita to have in 30 years? Or WANT Wichita to have in 30 years? “I don’t know, I haven’t really thought about it,” isn’t an answer. Schools’ only justifiable purpose is to prepare children to be productive adults in the future.
In the 1960’s when North Carolina leaders envisioned the creation of a science research center, which became the Research Triangle, anchored by Duke, U North Carolina and North Carolina State Universities, they created an extraordinary experiment. How to go from a low-wage old tobacco and textile economy to high tech?
They forged ahead. When you plant a new orchard, you don’t get immediate fruit. In this case, it took a decade to reach first harvest, and another decade to start getting bumper crops. In the 1990’s the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill MSA had 40 PERCENT population growth. Wichita MSA growth, excluding the artificial addition of new counties to the MSA in 2000, was under 10 percent.
North Carolinians did something else. In 1979, the invented the nation’s first 11th-12th-grade residential math and science academy. Several states, including Kansas’s neighbors Oklahoma and Missouri have followed suit. Texas’s own 1986 experimental replication has been so successful that that state is creating four more math and science academies.
Kansas may open one, probably no earlier than 2009. But the Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics (OSSM) opened in 1991.
Does OSSM grab every highly talented student in the state? Actually, no. Oklahoma kids have excellent stay-at-home alternatives, including 20-AP-course magnet schools in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Actually, 70% of Oklahoma public high schools offer AP courses, compared to 30% of Kansas public high schools.
Oklahoma, like North Carolina, strongly supports National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. Kansas does not.North Carolina has 9800 National Board Certified teachers. Oklahoma has 1289. In 2005-2006, 213 Oklahoma teachers were certified. In Kansas, only 204 teachers have been certified since program begain in 1994. Only 29 Kansas teachers were certified last year.
I have been accused of being anti-public-education by some people on WEBlog. Wrong. I am against stupid public-education political game-playing, squelching kids’ potentials, labeling mediocrity as “excellence”, deeply-ingrained change-resistance, laziness, and an inferiority complex that says, “Well we really can’t do very much here.” USD 259 has a nearly half-BILLION dollar budget. You can do A LOT with a half-billion dollars, if you know how to use it wisely.
Oklahoma has what it calls a “Brain Gain” mission. Does this mean they want to collect rocket scientists? No, it means they want to cultivate locally-owned 21st century enterprises, and attract corporate headquarter relocations that generate local profits by selling goods and services to the outside world, and through this create long-term prosperity. Oklahomans willingly take outsiders’ offers to provide blue-collar jobs as well, but they realize that these payroll dollars piped in from distant headquarters, that are then locally redistributed through retail, healthcare, entertainment, etc. are INSUFFICIENT on their own. This is not rocket science. It is enlightened economic policy and smart planning for the future.
If you want to attract corporate headquarter relos, you have to understand what kinds of educational programs these corporations’ CEOs want for their own and their managerial corps’ children. If you don’t do this, if you think, “We just need modest-level education here,” then you can watch those hourly-wage jobs you think you can get, go to Asia and Mexico.
If you want to develop home-grown products to sell to the outside world, you have create education pathways that mesh with this goal.
If you judge, “THAT’S TOO MUCH WORK FOR US,” then what do you think the end result is going to be for the community? Somebody rewarding the community for your decision to take the easy-effort path? I don’t think so.
PS, CKD, kudos on your work getting scholarships for deserving minority students.
Thank you, heartlander! We’re a small organization simply trying to level the playing field for all. Each student we can serve makes the time and the effort more than worthwhile.
Cindy
Home schooling provides a better education, is worse for your child