Merry Christmas!! We at the Coalition wish you all a Happy Christmas!

December 12/23/16

Merry Christmas!! We at the Coalition wish you all a Happy Christmas!

We appreciate your faithful following of this Newsletter.  We love to bring you the good news when it happens and the TRUTH ON THE “BAD STUFF” that does happen.

We, at the Coalition of Idaho Charter Schools, will be busy through the Holiday Season, getting ready for the Idaho Legislators who will return to Boise for the 2017 Legislative Session. The Legislative Session starts on January 9, 2017. There are some new Legislators that you will need to get to know, so we will introduce them to you in our Newsletter. As well, because Education is always the #1 issue at the Idaho Legislature, we will introduce to you the Senate and House Education Committee members. We will also provide the email addresses so you can contact them.

As usual in the Idaho Legislature, all Charter Schools have an uphill battle to get Legislators attention. There remains a significant cohort of Legislators who do not like or support Charter/Virtual schools. In fact, these Legislators, backed by teachers unions, work hard to make Charters/Virtual schools go away!  Because 2017 is the first year that a cohort of Charter Schools will be up for Renewal, you should pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION, as the Charter School Commission staff has indicted that they intend to “Close” some schools—perhaps up to 10% . You do not want your school to ‘GO AWAY’!!!

Surveys Find Charter School Parents More Satisfied Than District-School Parents

DECEMBER 20, 2016
BY DANIEL HUIZINGA

Photo: AP

Politicians and policy experts have argued for two decades about the merits of charter schools, with many studies showing the alternative public schools perform as well or better than traditional tax-funded schools. But what do parents think?

Two large-scale surveys recently provided a closer look. Charter-school parents are, on the whole, much more likely to be satisfied with key aspects of their school’s teaching, academic expectations, and safety.

The 2016 Education Next survey collected data from a random sample of 1,571 respondents who had school-age children living in their household and separated them into categories of charter-school parents, private-school parents and district-school parents. According to the authors, this is the first nationally representative survey to report satisfaction scores from parents in these three categories.

Parents responded on a five-point scale from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” and the results were astonishing. “Among five key characteristics — teacher quality, discipline, expectations for achievement, safety, and instruction in character and values — charter-school parents are, on average, 13 percentage points more satisfied with their schools than are parents of children in district schools,” concluded Harvard professors Paul E. Peterson and Martin West and Harvard postdoctoral fellow Samuel Barrows.

The only category that had a higher percentage of district-school parents reporting “very satisfied” was “school location,” which is unsurprising considering that families often must travel further distances to find a charter school with available openings.

In addition, for many categories of behavioral problems, district-school parents were more likely to report serious problems of students missing class, destroying property, fighting or using drugs than charter-school parents.

School communication for charter schools also tended to be better. “As compared to parents of children in district schools, charter parents are 15 percentage points more likely to say they have communicated with the school about volunteering, and 7 percentage points more likely to report having spoken to school officials about their child’s accomplishments,” the EdNext study found.

It’s important to note that these studies only measure parents’ perceptions and did not measure the actual teacher quality or behavioral issues at these schools. However, the authors note that parents’ opinions of their schools are a crucial variable in the debate over the effectiveness of charter schools. If parents in cities around the country are consistently choosing charter schools and are more satisfied with their performance, the charters must be doing something right.

Peterson, along with Harvard post-doctoral fellow Albert Cheng, also analyzed a 2012 U.S. Department of Education survey of more than 17,000 families and confirmed similar findings as the EdNext survey. Though the Department of Education survey did not explicitly create a category for charter-school parents in the final report, Peterson and Cheng were able to use the original dataset to identify which parents had children in charter schools.

“Compared to parents at assigned-district schools, charter-school parents are 6 percentage points more likely to say they are ‘very satisfied’ with teachers at the school, 13 percentage points more likely to be ‘very satisfied’ with academic standards, and 10 percentage points more likely to be ‘very satisfied’ with both school discipline and communication with families,” Peterson and Cheng found.

The Department of Education survey also allowed the authors to break down survey respondents into specific demographic categories. They found that charter-school parents, on average, reported lower family incomes and were less likely to have earned a college degree. The percentage of minorities was also higher in charter schools than in assigned-district schools.

Even looking at these specific demographic indicators, the charter-school satisfaction scores still hold. “Averaging across all five assessment indicators, the percentage of low-income parents saying they are ‘very satisfied’ is 9 percentage points higher at charters than at assigned-district schools,” the authors concluded.

Charter schools are playing an important role in improving educational outcomes — especially for low-income, minority students in urban areas — and parents are noticing. We should, too.

Daniel Huizinga is a columnist for Opportunity Lives covering business and politics. Follow him on Twitter @HuizingaDaniel.

The Coalition of Idaho Charter Schools wishes you all a very joyous holiday session.

Post Falls 2016 Opportunity to Testify Before Legislative Committee re Funding Equity for Mobile Students

My name is Jane Wittmeyer and I am with the Coalition of Idaho Charter School Families.

I recently met many of you at an IDVA Picture Day and spoke to the larger group of parents regarding taking action on seeking equity in school funding for virtual students and mobile students.

I want to let you know about an opportunity to have your voice heard on the matter of equal funding for virtual school students. There is an opportunity for you to testify before a State Committee that is working on a new funding formula for your students.

The Public School Funding Formula Committee will meet on October 17, 2016 beginning at 11:00 A.M at North Idaho College Workforce Training Center, Room 108 in Post Falls, ID. Public testimony will be heard from 5-7 P.M.

If you attend in person you can speak before the Legislators on the Committee.

If you are not able to attend, you could email your Statement to:

Senator Winder, Co-chair                    cwinder@senate.idaho.gov

Senator Mortimer                                dmortimer@senate.idaho.gov

Senator Bayer                                    cbayer@senate.idaho.gov

Senator Thayn                                    sthayn@senate.idaho.gov                           

Senator Ward-Engelking                     jwardenglking@senate.idaho.gov

Representative Horman, Co-chair       WendyHorman@house.idaho.gov

Speaker Bedke                                   sbedke@house.idaho.gov

Representative VanOrden                   jvanorden@house.idaho.gov              

Representative Dixon                         sdixon@house.idaho.gov         

Representative McCrostie                   jmccrostie@house.idaho.gov   

Sherri Ybarra, Superintendent             infosuperintendent@sde.idaho.gov     

Dr. Linda Clark, Board of Education   board@osbe.idaho.gov

This is a rare opportunity for parents and families to let the Legislators know that you support equal funding for virtual and charter school students. (The current formula discriminates against virtual school students and mobile students.)

I hope you will take this opportunity to let the decision makers know that there is support for equity for virtual school students.

See below for a draft you can use.

Draft Statement for your use.

Statement before the Public School Funding Formula Committee

October 2016                    Post Falls, Idaho

My name is _____________ and I have student(s) in a virtual school. I am here today to request this Committee to address the issue of student mobility in Idaho.  As you know, Idaho’s salary formula is based upon average daily attendance which reflects the number of students in class during a set period at the beginning of each school year. This is an old model and needs to be changed to reflect student mobility.

Students don’t stay in one school like they used to. Many students move from one school to another for different reasons during the year. Idaho needs to adopt a new funding formula that accurately reflects actual enrollment.

Clearly, Idaho funds a vastly different school system in 2016. From classroom technology to dual-credit courses to virtual charter schools, the demands on state K-12 dollars have changed.

The old funding formula shows its age in many ways.

I agree, with Rep. Wendy Horman’s recent statement: No one has trouble identifying shortcomings in the current system…. myriad line items fall short of funding needs…Charter school advocates want money to accommodate students who transfer midyear — and they’d like help in 2016, not later.

Thank you for the opportunity to come before the Committee today.

September 30, 2016

September 30, 2016

There is a lot happening in Idaho Education News.

Of interest to Virtual and Charter School families and students is the Public School Funding Formula Committee. This Legislative Committee will meet once more this summer/fall and will use the testimony taken to construct a new way to finance public school funding.

This is important to all Virtual Schools as they receive much less per student under the current formula. All Virtual School families should email the Committee members and the Legislators and ask them to fund virtual school students equally.

You are urged to Attend the next COMMITTEE meeting or send a message to the following individuals urging for equal funding for Virtual students:

nEXT MEETING: October 17

Post falls, idaho

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Room 108

Post Falls, ID

NOTICE OF MEETING

Senator Winder, Co-chair                    cwinder@senate.idaho.gov

Senator Mortimer                                dmortimer@senate.idaho.gov

Senator Bayer                                     cbayer@senate.idaho.gov

Senator Thayn                                    sthayn@senate.idaho.gov                           

Senator Ward-Engelking                     jwardenglking@senate.idaho.gov

Representative Horman, Co-chair       WendyHorman@house.idaho.gov

Speaker Bedke                                   sbedke@house.idaho.gov

Representative VanOrden                   jvanorden@house.idaho.gov              

Representative Dixon                         sdixon@house.idaho.gov         

Representative McCrostie                   jmccrostie@house.idaho.gov   

Sherri Ybarra, Superintendent             infosuperintendent@sde.idaho.gov     

Dr. Linda Clark, Board of Education   board@osbe.idaho.gov

OVERHAULING THE WAY IDAHO FUNDS SCHOOLS COULD COST $131 MILLION

Devin Bodkin 09/28/2016

Share

POCATELLO — Lawmakers got their first look at the potential costs to change the way Idaho schools receive state funding — and cost estimates reached $131 million.

“This is a particularly complex and potentially expensive endeavor,” said state budget policy analyst Paul Headlee.

Idaho’s 10-member funding formula committee met Tuesday at Idaho State University to discuss cost projections and data and gather public input. The lawmakers are looking at rewriting Idaho’s complex formula for carving up more than $1.5 billion in K-12 funding.

The daytime portion of the meeting focused on three potential changes driving up overhaul costs:

·         Switching to an enrollment-based funding model, instead of a model based on average daily attendance.

·         Beefing up health coverage for district employees.

·         Allocating more funds for non-certified staff members.

Tuesday evening, committee members heard from a handful of East Idaho teachers and administrators.

MOVING AWAY FROM AN ATTENDANCE-BASED MODEL

The current funding formula shows its age in many ways, and rewriting it has been on the state’s radar ever since it showed up in 2013 as a recommendation from Gov. Butch Otter’s Task Force for Improving Education.

On Tuesday, Headlee and State Department of Education Deputy Superintendent of Public School Finance Tim Hill walked committee members through the pros and cons of handing out funding based on enrollment. A switch could drive up budgets by $57 million to $71 million, Hill said.

The current attendance-based model places a financial burden on districts. Average daily attendance is roughly 95 percent of actual enrollment, Hill said. However, districts still prepare for and incur costs as if 100 percent of students were attending.

An enrollment model would be more stable, but more costly.

What’s more, Hill added, an enrollment model might not be fair to schools with high attendance rates.

“If you have two schools with 100 students apiece, and the school with a lower rate of attendance gets as much money as the one with a higher rate of attendance, some might say that’s unfair,” Hill said.

On the other hand, an enrollment-based model require less staff time for  collecting, reporting and compiling data. The model would also align with mastery-based education — another recommendation from Otter’s education task force and the crux of the effort to revamp the funding model.

Under mastery-based learning, students move through the school system based on their command of subject matter, not seat time in a particular class.

MORE STATE FUNDS FOR HEALTH COVERAGE

East Idaho superintendents consistently rank rising health care premiums as a leading contributor to financial woes and teacher turnover. Blue Cross of Idaho, the state’s largest insurer of teachers and their family members, increased its rates 16.6 percent in 2015, according to a recent report by the Idaho Statesman’s Audrey Dutton.

Districts are often forced to supplement employee health care costs, but the rise has grown too steep. In many districts, employees covered by district-sponsored health care usually end up paying out-of-pocket premiums for family members.

Headlee presented a breakdown of how eight other states handle district health insurance.

In Washington, lawmakers allocate a set amount to districts directly within its funding formula, which is pegged at roughly the same cost budgeted for its state employees.

A similar model in Idaho could cost up to $17 million, Headlee said.

MORE FUNDING FOR NON-CERTIFIED STAFF AND WHAT’S NEXT

Districts must now pay an average of 61 cents for every dollar the state provides for non-certified staff, Headlee said.

Closing this gap would come at another hefty cost: $43.4 million.

With costs mounting, Headlee acknowledged that rewriting the formula will take time.

“These are things that will likely be phased in over several years,” he said.

A committee member also acknowledged the looming task at hand.  “We can see that we’ve got our work cut out for us,” said the committee co-chairman Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise.

The committee will also gather input and feedback at another field meeting in Post Falls, scheduled for 11 a.m. on Oct. 17 at the North Idaho College Workforce Training Center, Room 108. The agenda hasn’t been set yet, but a public comment session is scheduled for 5 to 7 p.m.

SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY FORUMS KICK OFF THIS WEEK

SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY FORUMS KICK OFF THIS WEEK

Clark Corbin 09/06/2016

Idaho education officials are seeking help in looking beyond test scores to determine how to successfully measure quality schools.

How should educators accurately measure student engagement?

How can you track teacher quality?

The State Board of Education will seek answers to those questions, and others, as it kicks off a series of public forums designed to help devise a new system of public school accountability.

After a Wednesday forum in Boise, another forum takes place Thursday in Nampa. Hearings will continue into late October, across the state.

The forums are an important way for educators, taxpayers and parents to learn about — and to provide suggestions for — a new accountability system.

“This is our opportunity to make it an Idaho-based system,” State Board of Education spokesman Blake Youde said.

During each forum, board officials will provide an overview of the proposed new model. They will accept public comments and written testimony, which the board will review before taking further action.

Idaho has been without a statewide accountability system since 2014, when it repealed its controversial five-star rating system.

The new system comes in conjunction with the Every Student Succeeds Act, the federal education law passed last year.

Last month, the State Board granted preliminary approval to a proposed accountability system that breaks schools down into three levels: kindergarten through eighth grade schools, high schools and alternative schools.

The system is also expected to incorporate a “data dashboard” that presents several academic and school quality indicators for each school.

Those indicators will include student testing proficiency rates, graduation rates, students’ readiness to advance to the next step in their academic careers, grade point average benchmarks, teacher quality indicators and more.

Despite the initial approval, several aspects of the dashboard are still being developed — including the teacher quality index and the index measuring student readiness. The model will be tested during the 2016-17 school year.

Youde hopes the public will be able to offer suggestions during the upcoming forums.

“Some of the important things to us, especially, are the school quality indicators, because those are not measured by your traditional ISAT (standardized test results) or anything like that,” he said. “They are going to take more effort to really develop something we think is measurable.”

Following the public comment period and public forums, the State Board will vote again on the model in November. If the board approves it, the model will go to the Legislature’s education committees, in the form of an administrative rule.

If approved, the model would launch in 2017-18.

Public forum schedule (all events run from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., local time):

·         Wednesday: Boise School District, 8169 W. Victory Road.

·         Thursday: Ridgevue High School, college lecture hall, 118800 Madison Road, Nampa.

·         Sept. 13: College of Southern Idaho, Shields Academic Building, Room 118, Twin Falls.

·         Sept. 21: Eastern Idaho Technical College, Heath Care Education Building, Room 6164, 1600 S. 25th East, Idaho Falls.

·         Sept. 22: Idaho State University, Pond Student Union, Middle/South Fork rooms, Pocatello.

·         Oct. 18: Coeur d’Alene School District, Midtown Meeting Room, 1505 N. Fifth St., Coeur d’Alene.

·         Oct. 20: Lewis-Clark State College, Sacajawea Hall, Room 115, 500 Eighth Ave., Lewiston.

August 8, 2016

There is more and more discussion around the country about closing charter schools –and it is here in Idaho as well.  There are several charters that face that situation in Idaho. Below is an article that you, as parents, and Charter supporters should take time to read!  If you have any comments after reading it, please put it on social media for us to see!

Talk to Parents Before Closing a Charter School

By Guest Blogger on August 2, 2016 9:00 AM

Education Week's blogs > Rick Hess Straight Up

Note: Our guest-blogger this week will be Max Eden, a senior fellow of education policy at the Manhattan Institute. 

One of the few points of universal agreement in education policy is that bad charter schools should be shuttered. But what exactly is a bad charter school?

Schools with meager enrollment that can't make financial ends meet? Yes.

A school that finds itself on, or even near, the wrong side of the law? Absolutely.  

A school with low standardized test scores yet high parent demand? Maybe. Maybe not.

This last question was the subject of a fascinating debate earlier this year at the Fordham Institute's "Flypaper" blog between Fordham's president Michael Petrilli and University of Arkansas professor (and former Manhattan Institute senior fellow) Jay P. Greene.

Greene argued that the predictive power of high-stakes testing is much weaker than many assume and that parents and students know more than distant regulators give them credit for. Relying solely on test scores would thus lead to some "horrible mistakes." What's more, because regulators often rely on levels rather than gains, a solely test-score-centric system might deter charters from serving the most at-risk kids, or force charters to offer test-driven instruction to students who might need more comprehensive support.

Petrilli argued that the power of standardized testing may be weaker than some assume, but that testing is still more powerful than Greene made it out to be. Authorizers shouldn't rely on test scores alone, but they are a very important piece to the puzzle. Petrilli concluded that at the end of the day, "We can either use reading and math gains as imperfect indicators of effectiveness while working to build better measures—buttressed by school visits and the like—or we can succumb to 'analysis paralysis' and do nothing."

Fortunately, we don't need to be paralyzed. Last week, the American Legislative Exchange Council introduced some model legislation that promises to help the charter sector move forward carefully and responsibly.

The idea behind the Student and Family Fair Notice and Impact Statement Act is simple and compelling: a charter authorizer should engage in a deep and meaningful conversation with students and parents before shuttering a school.

In brief, the proposal would require: 

·         Timely notice to parents for an intended closure or significant restructuring.

·         A survey of students, teachers, and parents to gain a more holistic sense of how and why they value their schools.

·         An analysis of the likely effects of a charter closure on its students.

·         A public forum to present the Impact Statement and offer the community one more chance to make their voice heard.

The proposal would not prevent an authorizer from shuttering a low performing charter school; but it would require more due diligence before such a decision is made.   

There's a whole lot to like here.  

It takes a big step toward a balanced resolution to the earlier debate. Greene argued that there's a whole lot that students and parents know that authorizers don't, and Petrilli argued that there's also a whole lot that authorizers know that students and parents don't.

Both are right. This proposal would give both authorizers and parents a fuller picture by requiring a robust engagement process.

The idea would also guarantee that students and parents at least have their voices heard. We know that parents don't particularly value test scores when choosing a school; things like school safety, a socially welcoming environment, a motivating sense of mission matter a great deal, too. When the Nevada Charter School Authority weighed closing an academically low-performing online charter school, one father testified that if his son were "in the average school he was in before, he'd be on the street. ... This is what these online schools provide—the comfort to know their kids are not going to become hoodlums, or do drugs."

His testimony, and the testimony of others like him, caused the Nevada Authority to postpone its decision to close the school. Parents should always have the forum to tell an authorizer what a school means to them.

Some charter advocates might say that "anecdotes aren't enough" to keep low-performing charters open. Hear, hear!

The Impact Statement would take us past anecdotes to data.

Authorizers would have a much more comprehensive sense of why parents may value a school despite its low test scores. It would also help authorizers make a data-driven case directly to parents that their kids would be better served in another school.

There are, however, some reasonable objections to the proposal as its currently drafted. There's no doubt that the Impact Act would impose a burden on an authorizer, and legislators should take great care that the red tape is effectively targeted and tailored.

Here are three areas where the proposal could use some work:

First, when it comes to talking to parents, teachers, and students the work seems well worth the burden. But there are some other requirements, such as assessing impact on the public school to which a student would be assigned, which seem like second-order concerns that may end up distracting from deep stakeholder engagement.

Second, the process is initiated when an authorizer considers "termination, revocation, non-renewal, or significant restructuring as a condition of continued operation." It may be better to have a differentiated process for when an authorizer is considering restructuring rather than shuttering. As written, this proposal may inhibit efforts to reform low-performing charters by making that process just as onerous as closing down a school.

Finally, for a school with stable demand but low test scores, a robust engagement process seems sensible; after all, there's probably a lot that authorizers would need to hear from parents. But for schools where the immediate trouble is financial or legal, a less intensive process might be more in order; in those cases there might be more that parents need to hear from authorizers.

These are details that should be subject to further scrutiny and debate.

But in a movement dedicated to parent choice, the principle that authorizers ought to engage parents and students before making a final decision to close a charter school should command broad assent and spark a productive conversation in state legislatures across the country.

--Max Eden