Ember Reichgott Junge funding link: the charter school - Lieberman connection
An email has been sent out on behalf of Junge that prominently features federal charter school support as a main reason for supporting Junge. MNCR has posted a section of the email. The highlight as I see it: (emphasis added)
NEED FOR DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR CHARTERS IN THE CONGRESS: A number of important decisions on the future of the federal charter school grant program and other legislation of importance to charters will be made in the next several years - along with the overall reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law. Ember wants to be a leading voice for charters in the Congress - a voice that’s sorely needed, especially among House Democrats.
The argument of this email is that there are not enough charter school supporting Democrats and that more are needed in Congress if important legislation is to pass.
The unspoken argument is that there is much greater support for charter schools among Republican members. Charter schools are often dependent on federal grant money for their start up costs.
If you support charter schools, this strategy of reaching across the aisle to create policy is perfectly acceptable. The above email originated from John Schroeder. Schroeder, along with Junge, is one of the nation’s most effective proponents of charter schools. Schroeder testified on the charter school federal grant program in 2000:
The ink was hardly dry on Minnesota’s pioneering charter school law when, in mid-1992, former U.S. Senator Dave Durenberger (R-MN) introduced what we then called the “Public School Redefinition Act,” creating a federal start-up grant program for charter schools. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CN) was the chief Democratic co-sponsor.
Junge often cited Lieberman’s “morality” as the reason she supported him. It is now clear that Junge’s support was fundamentally attached to Lieberman’s support of her policy legacy: charter schools.
Phoenix Woman, at Mercury Rising, points out the discrepancy between a new study showing charter schools underperforming public schools and a press release by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.
It says, in short, that charter schools, as a whole, are not better than the public schools they compete against and often drain resources from. In fact, their students are often in worse shape academically than their public school counterparts.
Innovation should always be promoted, but with strict quality controls and accountability. Without responsibility, charter schools will simply begin to turn into the traditional public schools they hope to improve upon. Remember the rationale behind charter schools:
Exempt from many statutory and regulatory requirements, charter schools receive increased flexibility in exchange for high accountability for improving student academic achievement.
Are charter schools making good on their promise?
August 25th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
That’s a pretty poor bashing of charter schools.
A lot of “problem students” wind up in the charter school system, which partially explains performance discrepancy. And most charter schools are quite new, and still establishing what works best, so their performance can reasonably expect to improve with ongoing success. And finally, charter schools make do with LESS money than the public schools they’re supposedly stealing resources from, due to the lack of local tax levy support.
Charter schools are a vital incubator for innovative techniques and alternative environments that cannot, and probably should not be experimented with in the mainstream schools.
August 25th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
This post doesn’t bash charter schools. It cites a study by the Department of Education on the system overall and outlines the charter school connection between Lieberman and Junge.
While I concur that many charter school strategies should not be used in the public school system at large, if the charter schools figure out a successful strategy shouldn’t it be imported back into the traditional public school system after its been validated?
You’re right - charter schools often pay out less per pupil. Since funding depends on attendance, that’s less money going into a public school. Doesn’t that mean we are burning the candle at both ends? Public schools get less money and charter schools spend less money on the students they have. I support making education more efficient but only if efficiency gets better results.
One aspect that is important to point out: charter schools that are affiliated with traditional public schools do better than non-affiliated charter schools. I think the data points in the direction of increased cooperation and sharing between charter schools and traditional schools.
August 28th, 2006 at 11:23 am
I am very encouraged by most of these comments. They are based on fact and have a sensibility to them that isn’t as prevalent as I would hope for people who are proactive in the political field.
I am a teacher. 15 yrs, in the public education system. I am not supposed to be a fan of the Charter Schools. Four years ago my school sent a group of us to an intensive workshop. The workshop was within a charter school that was formed on one mans research and experiences that began with a need within his own family. The program is S.M.A.R.T (stimulating maturity through readiness training) at the New Visions school in North Minneapolis.
The S.M.A.R.T program has been instilled in classrooms around the country. It has been a huge success in our school and we have now included another whole grade level to be trained and implement in the classroom.
I understand that there may be some experiences in the charter school sysem that fail and have many difficulties starting us a new system. But keep in mind as another commentator explained they take ALL students. Many of them with special needs behavioral and physical. The Charter School systems that I have visited and explored are pioneers trying new and inovative ideas to assist in creating positive, healthy functioning, good citizens.
I cannot express enough gratitude to Ember Reichgott Junge who was an inovator in education and awarded the Inovation in Government award given out by the Kennedy School of Government Harvard. Charter Schools now have a greater opportunity to find successful teaching and learning styles to meet needs of those who really need it most in part because of Ember Reichgott Junge. Ember has my vote for being my Congresswoman in CD5.
August 28th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
I have read the Dept of Ed report. Has anyone else? If you did, you would realize how limited the data on charter schools was–only 150 charter schools were studied (6764 other public schools were included). Only 61 of the studied charter schools were city schools. Comparisons between the two types of schools, even controlling for the types of students, do not permit an analysis of how the charter students would have performed if they had remained in traditional schools. Most important, the study cannot address how students performed in many areas of charter school specialization, such as music or foreign language.
Other studies continue to show greater parent and student satisfaction with the charter schools than with comparable traditional schools.
In any case, this is new report that has not yet undergone scrutiny from education and social science specialists.
To hang this on any political candidate is ridiculous. No one in the 5th CD race has nearly the record of support for public schools as Ember Reichgott Junge. She has far deeper demonstrated knowledge of public schools and federal education issues than the other candidates.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:57 am
[…] some amazing research on Ember Reichgott Junge’s run in the 5th CD. His latest?–Pretty concrete evidence that ERJ is pretty danged serious about charter […]