Roll call votes

For reference:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/index.asp

roll call votes

Pop Icon dead

Not that I was ever much of a fan, in the true sense of the word - but I did find this article to be quite excellent. It will be interesting to see how the story unfolds in the coming days.

Charters - third way or third strike?

It seems quite strange that it would take until 2009 for our elected officials, and especially our appointed officials, to finally come to terms with fact that charter schools have never truly been held accountable. So we now have Arne Duncan's "third way"? Does this mean that traditional accountability wasn't enough, and that there needs to be a "third way" accountability. What got me going was this article and excerpt from Education Sector, which seems to lean right but always has interesting things to say;

"That's why Duncan's third way charter strategy could prove so pivotal to changing the politics of charter schools. By supporting the expansion of charter schooling with more federal dollars and rewarding states that are charter school leaders while at the same time forcing action on charter school quality, Duncan can take the charter concept to the next level.

Jonathan Schnur, a former Duncan aide who helped design the new policy, explains that Duncan, who closed three failing charters during his tenure as Chicago schools chief, wants to "drive real accountability" for all charters while pushing states to pave the way for more high-performing charters. Therefore, it's reasonable to ask how many charters were closed over the past three years."

Let's be clear here - the next level of charter schools should have happened 10 years ago. The original concept - the foundation of the charter school movement - was autonomy for accountability. This "axiom" failed on multiple accounts. First states and the charter authorizers in states failed to hold charter schools accountable. The deal was - you have 5 years to meet stated objectives, or you are closed. Either charters were granted with objective too low, or they are not being held accountable. And Second, the responsibility doesn't just fall in the laps of state officials. In reality, all charter school operators should be holding themselves accountable - the internal accountability that Elmore speaks of. If the charter school doesn't meet its goals, it should close or start over. But ask yourself - how many charter schools realized that they weren't working and voluntarily closed? Upon reflection, it is easy to see that charter schools were a good idea and definitely promoted innovation, but flexibility with no expectations is a recipe for variable quality at best, and chronic failure at its worst.

Perhaps the charter school founders really did know what was going to happen - I can picture the founders thinking "We'll ask for flexibility and autonomy and promise results, but once the SEA takes control of the process, there is no way they will be able to hold us accountable".

The reality is that there is no "third way" charter strategy - the real strategy is to hold all schools, the school boards, the communities, the district officials, and the state officials, accountable for the lives and education of the students of today. There is no political will to hold schools accountable - public schools or public charter schools. Accountability is relational - it is as much about sanctions as it is about collective responsibility.

Missing ingredient?

Interesting article by Dennis Shirley and Andy Hargreaves of Boston College, entitled "The Persistence of Presentism". Interestingly enough, in their study of 300 improving schools, they found that teachers tended to focus on what some might consider to be "quick fixes", even though they were more collegial and had more opportunities for collaboration within schools and as part of a network. Nice video that gives a quick synopsis of the article (with an advertisement at the end!).