redefinED
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Content
    • Analysis
    • Commentary and Opinion
    • News
    • News Features
    • Voices for Education Choice
    • factcheckED
  • Topics
    • Achievement Gap
    • Charter Schools
    • Customization
    • Education Equity
    • Education Politics
    • Education Research
    • Education Savings Accounts
    • Education Spending
    • Faith-based Education
    • Florida Schools Roundup
    • Homeschooling
    • Microschools
    • Parent Empowerment
    • Private Schools
    • Special Education
    • Testing and Accountability
    • Virtual Education
    • Vouchers
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
  • Guest Bloggers
    • Ashley Berner
    • Jonathan Butcher
    • Jack Coons
    • Dan Lips
    • Chris Stewart
    • Patrick J. Wolf
  • Education Facts
    • Research and Reports
    • Gardiner Scholarship Basic Program Facts
    • Hope Scholarship Program Facts
    • Reading Scholarship Program Facts
    • FES Basic Facts
  • Search
redefinED
 
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Content
    • Analysis
    • Commentary and Opinion
    • News
    • News Features
    • Voices for Education Choice
    • factcheckED
  • Topics
    • Achievement Gap
    • Charter Schools
    • Customization
    • Education Equity
    • Education Politics
    • Education Research
    • Education Savings Accounts
    • Education Spending
    • Faith-based Education
    • Florida Schools Roundup
    • Homeschooling
    • Microschools
    • Parent Empowerment
    • Private Schools
    • Special Education
    • Testing and Accountability
    • Virtual Education
    • Vouchers
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
  • Guest Bloggers
    • Ashley Berner
    • Jonathan Butcher
    • Jack Coons
    • Dan Lips
    • Chris Stewart
    • Patrick J. Wolf
  • Education Facts
    • Research and Reports
    • Gardiner Scholarship Basic Program Facts
    • Hope Scholarship Program Facts
    • Reading Scholarship Program Facts
    • FES Basic Facts
  • Search

Parental Choice

Commentary and OpinionEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation Savings AccountsFeaturedParental ChoicePrivate School ScholarshipsSchool Choice

Commentary: More choices have helped Florida’s public schools

Special to redefinED March 30, 2021
Special to redefinED

Editor’s note: This opinion piece from Scott Kent, assistant director of strategic communications at Step Up For Students, appeared Sunday on the Citrus County Chronicle.

Ever since the seeds of education choice were planted in Florida more than 20 years ago, opponents have predicted that giving families more options in their children’s education would cripple public schools. While choice has blossomed, public schools have proved the naysayers wrong.

A recent column by the League of Women Voters is the latest to perpetuate the myth that parental choice threatens public education.

First, let’s dispel some misconceptions.

The constitutional case against vouchers is dubious at best. You won’t find in the Florida Constitution any language prohibiting school vouchers or requiring public schools to be the sole means of education. Although the Florida Supreme Court conveniently redefined “uniformity” to strike down the state’s first voucher program in 2006, the idea was invoked by opponents in two other cases, in 2017 and 2019, but failed to persuade courts to end the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship for low-income students or charter schools.

Education savings accounts funded directly from the state’s budget are nothing new in Florida. They’ve been around since 2014, when the Gardiner Scholarship for special-needs students was created. Gardiner’s ESA is the biggest of its kind in the nation, currently serving over 17,000 students — and it has received nearly universal, bipartisan support.

To continue reading, click here.

March 30, 2021 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
CustomizationEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation Savings AccountsFeaturedNewsNews FeaturesParental ChoicePrivate SchoolsSchool ChoiceSchool spotlight

National nonprofit ‘pressure-tests’ innovative education choice programs in Florida and beyond

Lisa Buie March 30, 2021
Lisa Buie

Verdi EcoSchool and EcoHigh’s place-based education philosophy envisions the immediate environment as the student’s most important classroom.

Like most great ideas, this one started on the ground, with a handful of eighth graders.

After spending middle school in a unique environment that has earned the reputation of being the Southeast’s first urban farm school, the teens were unwilling to trade the lush gardens of the Melbourne Eau Gallie Arts District for the vanilla hallways of a traditional high school.

They asked: Would Ayana and John Verdi, founders of Verdi EcoSchool, consider adding a high school to their K-8 treasure?

Ayana initially dismissed the idea, calling it “a whole new stratosphere of education” she was not prepared to explore.

But the students persisted. They won support from their parents and organized a presentation. Their enthusiasm, combined with the Verdis’ entrepreneurial spirit, ultimately influenced the couple’s decision to give it a try. School staff and students then organized a meeting to sell the project to the community.

“We talked about why continuing into high school with a passion-based learning approach that’s student-driven in a community that we use as our campus was vital for current and future families,” Ayana recalled.

Using the local community as a classroom creates an immersive curriculum that underscores Verdi EcoHigh’s place-based education philosophy.

Their pitch won over local leaders. In 2020, Verdi EcoHigh opened its doors to students in grades 9 through 12. But the key piece to making EcoHigh a reality came from the Drexel Fund, a national nonprofit foundation that provides financial support and mentoring to educational entrepreneurs seeking to launch and scale pioneering private schools focused on underserved communities.

The organization awarded Verdi EcoSchool a fellowship package worth $100,000.

“Ayana had an exciting K-8, but she wanted to open a high school for it,” said John Eriksen, Drexel co-founder and managing partner. “We look for interesting and diverse models of schools, and we couldn’t find anything like that anywhere in the country.”

Drexel’s mission to kickstart private schools accessible to all socio-economic groups makes focusing on states with robust education school choice policies like Florida’s a natural fit, Eriksen said.  About 60% of Drexel applications come from the Sunshine State.

Other schools the fund has assisted in Florida include Cristo Rey in Tampa and the three Academy Prep Centers for Education in the Tampa Bay area and Lakeland. A more recent project is SailFuture Academy, a St. Petersburg foster care agency that is opening a vocational high school this fall for lower-income and at-risk teens who have become disengaged in traditional high school settings.

“The Drexel Fund provided me with an incredible network of school leaders who could help to offer guidance and tangible resources as I worked to implement the EcoHigh vision,” Ayana said.

The fund picked up Ayana’s travel costs to visit trailblazing public, private and charter schools across the nation so she could learn best practices when launching EcoHigh. She also received a consultation with Darren Jackson, Drexel Fund board member and former CFO of Best Buy and Nordstrom.

Most import, Ayana said, the Drexel Fund offered the power of reinforcement through their recognition of her hard work to become a school of innovation.

About one-third of the students who attend the Verdis’ school use state choice scholarships.

“At the end of my fellowship year, I was given the opportunity to present my plan for a new place and project-based high school and received a grant to support the creation of EcoHigh and the potential for continued partnership with the Drexel Fund through replication support,” she said.

EcoHigh offers three tracks: sustainability studies, agricultural science, and agri-business. The program is place- and program-based, meaning that learning happens in many places and many ways. At this unique high school, one of the places learning takes place is the Brevard Zoo.

A partnership with the zoo allows high schoolers to spend three days a week there, where they learn, design and work on the campus. The other two days are spent at the main campus in the Eau Gallie Arts District, where the students learn in nature and work on community improvement projects.

Tuition at the 77-student school is $9,350 annually. The school accepts the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship and the Family Empowerment Scholarship, for which about one-third of the students qualify.

Ayana said she hopes to continue to grow the school, which offers full-time and part-time education as well as enrichment opportunities for homeschool students. The Drexel Fund has pledged to be there for her when the time comes to expand, as it stands with all innovative school leaders who have a desire to help underserved students.

“They bring us the innovation and diversity,” he said. “We help them pressure-test their ideas.”

Eriksen said some ideas, which involve micro-schools or pods, “we can’t touch right now in Florida” because the state relies heavily on a traditional school education model. If the Florida Legislature chooses to expand education savings accounts or make other tweaks to existing law, those changes could make Florida, already hospitable to choice, an even more fertile ground for innovation.

“If Florida went for a more personalized model,” Erickson said, “the amount of investment would be incredible.”

March 30, 2021 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Charter SchoolsCommentary and OpinionDemographic ResearchEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation ResearchFeaturedParental ChoicePrivate School ScholarshipsPrivate SchoolsSchool Choice

Wall Street Journal offers helpful hint to New York parents

Matthew Ladner March 29, 2021
Matthew Ladner

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal focused on the work of researchers at the University of Arkansas’ School Choice Demonstration Project that measured school choice environments in the states and Washington, D.C. The Education Freedom Index considered offerings for private school choice such as vouchers and tax credit scholarships, homeschooling, public school choice and charter schools.

The original Education Freedom Index, written by Jay Greene in 2001 and published by the Manhattan Institute, captured broad elements of public-school choice, private choice and home-schooling, and found a positive statistical relationship between choice and state academic performance.

I had the opportunity to work with Greene and his associates Patrick J. Wolf and James D. Paul on the updated index. Once again, a positive association was found between education freedom and outcomes after controlling for other factors.

Journal editors were curious about how these regression coefficients might translate into student outcomes. They wrote:

How could this translate in the real world? Study author Jay Greene says to consider a student about to enter kindergarten in New York, which ranks 35th in the Education Freedom Index.

If his family chose to move to Florida—which ranks 7th—for the child’s K-8 education, the child would climb 10 points on the NAEP (e.g., to the 60th from 50th percentile in achievement) by the time he reached eighth grade compared to if he had stayed in New York.  If the family moved to Arizona, the child would see an 18-point improvement. That’s using the researchers’ most conservative model.

Is this possible?

Outside evidence points in this direction (discussed below) but also the need for caution. Many factors influence academic achievement, both within school and outside of school. Scholars have, for instance, begun to quantify the level of education enrichment spending going on in America. Wealthy families were spending more than $9,000 per child per year in 2006.

We were not able to control for this or for other potential factors in the analysis. New York is the home to far more well-to-do families than either Arizona or Florida, and it is impossible to estimate the role this and other outside factors play in achievement.

We also don’t understand the lags involved between policy changes and outcomes changes. Arizona ranked first in the 2001 index and first again in 2021. Indiana ranked second in 2021, but Indiana’s choice programs are much younger than Arizona’s. Choice in Arizona debuted during the first Clinton administration; it came much later in Indiana.

Divining the drivers of academic achievement is more like a mystery with clues than a science lab with test-tubes. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s warning should always be borne in mind: “It is quite possible to live with uncertainty, with the possibility, even the likelihood that one is wrong. But beware of certainty where none exists. Ideological certainty easily degenerates into an insistence upon ignorance.”

In that spirit, I will note there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in any regression analysis.

With that said, both Arizona and Florida made large amounts of academic progress during the period between the two Education Freedom Index studies, New York not so much despite spending far, far more per pupil than either. Arizona’s choice system may have (uniquely?) reached a point of being primarily driven by school districts.

Arizona has the nation’s largest charter school sector at 20% of students, but district open enrollment transfers outnumber charter students nearly two to one in a study of enrollment patterns in the Phoenix area – 31% for open enrollment to 16% for charter schools. Arizona may have achieved, after decades and multiple policies, a sort of escape velocity relative to other states.

The chart below shows the trend in test scores of low-income students in grades 3-8 versus socioeconomic status between 2007 and 2018.

The reader should note that this period starts after Florida’s sizeable improvement in NAEP scores between the late 1990s and 2007 but covers the period of Arizona’s NAEP surge (2009-2015 with mixed results after 2015). If this chart had been available for 1998 to 2009, Arizona and Florida’s positions likely would be reversed. New York’s NAEP scores, meanwhile, show a broad pattern of stagnation and decline after 2003.

The horizontal axis measures the relative socio-economic status of low-income students in each state (most disadvantaged in Mississippi on the far left, most advantaged in New Hampshire on the far right). The vertical axis measures the trend in academic achievement for low-income students in percentages of a grade level gain or decline per year.

The average poor student in Arizona (1) gained .15 grade levels per year during this period, the nation’s highest. Low-income students in Florida (2) gained .04 per year grade levels per year, in New York (3) zero.

See: https://media.tenor.com/images/82136cbb2661bfbc7f079bb3cab40b97/tenor.gif

In New York, high demand charter schools seeking to create more seats for students must battle a mayor determined to make life tough for them. Even in Arizona, the pace at which high demand district schools expand or replicate has been glacial (although that may be changing), and charter schools face practical obstacles like paying for facilities out of operating budgets while receiving fewer public dollars per pupil.

Arizona parents practice frontier justice style accountability with charter schools, closing them down without pity if they don’t desire them. Districts, however, keep many low-demand schools open, with school boards fearful of community backlash accompanying a closure.

A similar political dynamic keeps districts from expanding or replicating high demand schools; the low-demand schools in the district feel threatened by it, keeping it off the table for consideration in most districts. The problem, as always, lies with politics. The status quo is deeply flawed and inequitable, but powerful groups benefit from inertia and resist change.

No state has yet captured anything close to the full potential benefits of choice. The struggle continues.

In the meantime, New York families should take the Wall Street Journal’s hint and move to Arizona or Florida. Super high-cost schools that do too little to teach kids suit certain interests just fine, but they are a terrible deal for you as a taxpayer and parent.

March 29, 2021 1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Commentary and OpinionEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation PoliticsFeaturedParent EmpowermentParental ChoiceSchool Choice

The big lie about school choice

Special to redefinED March 29, 2021
Special to redefinED

Soft-spoken and reserved, Rosa Parks did not want a big to-do about her proposed charter school; she simply wanted to help the children in her neighborhood.

Editor’s note: This commentary from Step Up For Students’ director of policy and public affairs Ron Matus appeared Friday on Real Clear Education.

If school choice is a right-wing plot to destroy public education – and we’re hearing that a lot as lawmakers across America consider choice bills this spring – somebody forgot to tell the late Rosa Parks. In the 1990s, Parks tried to start a charter school.

Four decades after her transcendent act of courage on that Montgomery bus, Parks saw black students in Detroit falling through the cracks. In an effort that won kudos from President Bill Clinton, she proposed the Rosa and Raymond Parks Academy for Self-Development. It would be a charter school under community control, dedicated to teaching “dignity with pride, courage with perseverance and power with discipline.”

The rich history of education choice is filled with stories like these involving individuals associated with the Left who pushed for greater schooling options, driven by a need for equity, opportunity, diversity, justice.

Those stories have been all but canceled, as politicians on the Left try to identify school choice with the Right and befoul it with demagogic myths that school choice is racist, that it’s a profiteers’ con, or that it’s crushing public schools. In these tragically polarized times, one big lie – that school choice sprouted from conservative ground – fuels them all.

In the early 1980s, Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a champion for educational pluralism, warned against this kind of partisan warfare. Tribal politics were beginning to warp what had been, just a decade earlier, a progressive policy aim. If choice “prevails only as a conservative cause,” Moynihan said, “it will have been a great failure of American liberalism not to have seen the essentially liberal nature of this pluralist proposition.”

This spring, Republican lawmakers in 30 states are leading the charge to create or expand educational choice. Parents of all political stripes owe them a debt of gratitude. History will look kindly on those who stood up for the rights of parents, no matter their social standing or political leaning, to control the educational destinies of their children.

Republican support obscures an inconvenient truth for those on the Left: school choice has deep roots across the political spectrum.

It’s easy to unearth those roots, from the centuries of black struggle for educational opportunity to the thinking of liberal academics who advocated vouchers in the 1960s and 1970s to the thousands of alternative schools and home-school enclaves that lean libertarian and left and bristle at anything that smacks of coercion and uniformity.

Thankfully, millions of parents see through the smokescreens. And over the past year, the pandemic has turned out to be the best de-fogger. Frustration with school closures has led more parents than ever to see the value of options.

I hope this growing appreciation for choice spurs a reshaping of the narrative. If some on the Left are experiencing cognitive dissonance as they warm to the merits of a supposedly right-wing policy, they should rest easy. Their embrace of vouchers and charter schools, and education savings accounts puts them in good company.

They’re with Wyatt Tee Walker, “Martin Luther King’s field general,” who went on to start a charter school in Harlem, and Martin Luther King III, who headlined a school choice rally in 2016 that drew 10,000 people. They’re with legendary labor leader Cesar Chavez, who championed a Chicano “freedom school” and predicted a flourishing of nontraditional schools that reflected America’s diversity. They’re with Senator Moynihan, who, in the 1970s, promoted a private school-tuition=tax credit bill that drew 50 cosponsors – 26 Republicans and 24 Democrats.

I realize my limitations as a messenger here. So let me recommend a primer from an actual expert: James Forman Jr. The Yale law professor and Pulitzer Prize winner authored a 2005 paper with a title that says it all: “The Secret History of School Choice: How Progressives Got There First.”

Ultimately, the Rosa and Raymond Parks Academy for Self-Development didn’t happen. But it’s clear that Parks, herself the product of a private school education, saw value in having alternatives to district schools – not because she wanted to destroy them, but because she wanted more options for the kids who desperately need them.

Forget the big lie. If you stand for choice, you stand with Rosa Parks.

March 29, 2021 1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Commentary and OpinionEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation LegislationEducation PoliticsEducation Savings AccountsFeaturedParental ChoiceSchool ChoiceUnionism

Once held hostage by teaches’ unions, W Va just passed nation’s broadest school choice law

Special to redefinED March 26, 2021
Special to redefinED

As of March 23, legislators in 29 states have introduced bills to create or expand educational choice this year.

Editor’s note: This commentary by Jayme Metzgar, a homeschool parent who is founder and president of Romania Reborn, appeared Thursday on The Federalist, where she is a senior contributor.

In February 2018, public school teachers brought West Virginia to its knees. Seeking pay raises and better health plans, unions had declared a “work stoppage” in all 55 counties, shuttering every public school in the state.

The “stoppage” — which was in fact an unlawful strike — dragged on for nine school days, costing children nearly two weeks of instruction. Under pressure, the Republican legislature rushed through a pay raise to pacify the unions.

The victorious teachers of West Virginia quickly became the darlings of the socialist left. Jacobin magazine, which had extensively covered the strike, ran a victory-lap interview entitled “What the Teachers Won.” News coverage touched off copycat strikes, beginning in Arizona and spreading to other states. The “Red for Ed” movement was born, uniting unions, socialists, and other far-left radicals in dreams of an American labor renaissance.

Flush with victory, West Virginia teachers’ unions got bolder. The next year, they went on strike again, taking aim at broader education policy. The Republican Senate had passed a bill granting teachers their second pay raise in two years, but they tied it to something for parents: school choice.

It wasn’t much—open enrollment, education savings accounts for special-needs students, and permission for three charter schools statewide. But West Virginia was one of the last remaining states without school choice, and “Red for Ed” wasn’t letting that go without a fight.

The 2019 strike lasted only two days. The West Virginia House of Delegates quickly caved, scuttling school choice and passing a “clean” pay raise for teachers.

But 18 Republicans in the state Senate stood firm. No school choice, no second pay raise, they said. Their stand forced the governor’s hand. A special session in June resulted in the passage of modest school choice measures. Open enrollment survived; so did the three charter schools. ESAs did not.

For Republicans, it seemed a small win in exchange for two costly, bruising strikes. Unions were confident that the vast majority of West Virginians were on their side.

“Educators across the state are livid at these developments and dead-set against school privatization,” wrote the Trotskyist World Socialist Web Site. “In this, they are joined by virtually all of the state’s workers and youth … 88% of West Virginians support their public schools and oppose charters.”

Leftists vowed a reckoning in the 2020 election for those 18 villainous Senate Republicans.

That was then; this is now. Last week, with very little noise or fanfare, the West Virginia legislature passed the most expansive education savings account program in America. While ESAs in most states are only open to a small percentage of children, the new West Virginia Hope Scholarship will be available to 90% of schoolchildren in the state. Every child currently enrolled in public school is eligible, plus those newly aging in.

“It’s a game-changer,” says Garrett Ballengee of the Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy, a conservative think tank and proponent of the bill. “If you add up every single ESA utilizer in the rest of the country, there are only about 20,000 of them. The Hope Scholarship will automatically open it up to ten times that many children in West Virginia alone.”

Applicants for the Hope Scholarship will receive 100% of their state education dollars — $4,600 annually — in lieu of public schooling. (County and federal funds will remain in the system.) The scholarship is usable for private school tuition, homeschool curriculum, or other education expenses. Gov. Jim Justice, a vocal opponent of ESAs as recently as 2019, has signaled he’s likely to sign.

For a state that couldn’t pass a far more modest measure just two years ago, it’s a breathtaking turnaround. What changed?

State Sen. Patricia Rucker, the Republican chair of the Senate Education Committee and chief architect of the ESA effort, has a few theories about what made the difference. First, she believes the majority of West Virginians never opposed school choice in the first place; they were simply afraid to say so.

“During the strikes, I saved a folder of all the people who wrote to me in support of the education reform. I kept all of their emails,” Rucker told me in an interview. “The vast majority of them said something like, ‘Please don’t use my name. Don’t tell anyone I wrote to you.’ They were so scared and intimidated by the teachers’ unions.”

In 2019, I wrote about the climate of union intimidation that was silencing the state’s parents and teachers. When Justice commissioned a “listening tour” to gauge public opinion, the West Virginia Department of Education co-opted the effort and manipulated its findings. This led to the much-repeated assertion that 88% of West Virginians opposed charter schools. But when the 2020 elections came around, voters finally spoke for themselves.

“I knocked on thousands of doors during my 2020 reelection campaign,” Rucker said. “Out of all those people, I only spoke to about five educators who were opposed to our education reform — that’s it. Most of the people who spoke to me about education were in favor of choice. Even the vast majority of educators I spoke to said, ‘I didn’t have any problems with charter schools. I think it would be good for us to have that opportunity.’”

The proof was in the poll returns. Despite fierce opposition from unions and their moneyed interests, all but two of those 18 education reformers returned to the Senate in 2020, and several more were added to their number. It was an affirmation that educational choice can be a winning political issue, even in states with a strong union presence. Contrary to their tightly controlled narrative, teachers’ unions hadn’t been speaking for the people. They had been shouting the people down.

The COVID-19 lockdowns undoubtedly played a major role in further widening the rift between teachers’ unions and the people. As parents suddenly faced a public school system that refused to open its doors, it became harder to understand why that system should retain exclusive control over tax dollars meant to educate children.

Public opinion polls confirm a major surge last year in support for measures to fund students directly. Remarkably, although these bills are almost exclusively advanced by Republican lawmakers, public support for school choice appears to be evenly distributed across the political spectrum. Last week, one Democrat lawmaker in Kentucky reluctantly crossed the aisle to vote against union interests on school choice, citing overwhelming support from his constituents.

“In light of COVID, people are beginning to see that different children thrive in different environments,” Ballengee said. “Some kids have done really well in virtual schooling, some have done really well in hybrid, and for some these have been an absolute disaster. It’s brought home what we’ve been saying for so long: Kids need different environments.”

Rucker believes the unions’ unyielding stance against school reopening has eroded their support among teachers as well as parents. “The media has really overplayed the unions’ voice about school reopening, as opposed to average teachers’ voices,” she said. “The vast majority of teachers I’ve heard from wanted to go back to school. They recognized that they weren’t reaching their kids through these virtual options. I would venture to say that there is a lot less union membership among West Virginia teachers these days. You can sense it.”

One indicator of this lack of union energy: after the riotous education showdowns of 2018 and 2019, the Hope Scholarship bill sailed through the West Virginia legislature with hardly a whimper of protest.

“This year when we pushed real reform, much more substantial than two years ago. It’s been very quiet,” Rucker said. “The unions don’t like the bill, but our phones aren’t ringing. We aren’t getting emails. It’s nothing like last time.”

The West Virginia United Caucus, a far-left teachers’ coalition, was active throughout the strikes and well into 2020, pushing hard against school reopening and advancing a left-leaning slate of educators to head the state’s largest teachers’ union. They haven’t published a tweet since Election Day.

“West Virginia now has the broadest-based ESA in the entire United States,” Rucker says. “It’s not the most money, but it’s the most inclusive – and in most areas, it’s enough to send a child to private school. This really is a game-changer for students and families. We’re focused on funding kids now, not institutions. We’re funding each student to get the best possible education they can get.”

Rucker is gratified by West Virginia’s 180-degree turnaround: an erstwhile union stronghold suddenly leading the way toward educational freedom. Legislatures in 29 states have considered education choice bills this year. It remains to be seen whether Republican lawmakers elsewhere will be emboldened by the Mountain State’s success.

March 26, 2021 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Commentary and OpinionCoronavirus / COVID-19CustomizationEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceFeaturedParental ChoiceSchool Choice

Commentary: We must ensure communities can keep the innovations that kids need

Special to redefinED March 26, 2021
Special to redefinED

Editor’s note: This opinion piece from Steven Hodas, senior strategic lead for citiesRISE, and Travis Pillow, editorial director at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, suggests it would be a mistake to ignore the hundreds of community-based innovations in teaching, learning, childcare and health and wellness that have sprung up nationwide during the pandemic even as schools return to “normal.”

For nearly a year, schools’ unpredictability has created stress and suffering for kids and families, especially in Black and brown communities where jobs and lives are also most at risk from the virus. 

We’ve seen record learning loss, disengagement, depression, and signs of great stress in families.

But just as many schools struggle to serve their families, creative grass-roots responses have risen to fill institutional gaps. Policymakers are understandably eager to return to normal as soon as possible. But it would be a mistake to pave over the hundreds of community-based innovations in teaching, learning, childcare, and health and wellness that have sprung up around the country.

The media has highlighted stories of privileged families spending thousands to create personalized learning “pods.” Less well-known is the growth of public pods, also known as learning centers or hubs, set up by community-based organizations, self–organized mutual aid groups, and freelance volunteers. 

Pods share an ethos of mutualism with community-based tutoring, homework help, and counseling and mentoring programs. They enable community members to better help one another.  And they provide an unprecedented natural laboratory for districts to work with families to codesign the services they need.

While much of this work is happening at organizations outside the traditional fabric of public education, a growing number of school systems have taken notice and begun to shift how they work. We are now collaborating with six of them. 

The existential threat of enrollment loss, the unique flexibility of unrestricted federal relief funding, and a painful year of reflection on the subjugation of Black and brown families have led school districts to collaborate in power-sharing partnerships with families, volunteer groups, and community-based organizations.

Already, we are seeing the potential for more flexible, innovative roles for district staff, new talent pipelines into and alongside certificated teaching, revamped pathways between the K–12, higher education, and workforce sectors, and a leveraging of districts’ substantial financial resources to support organizations in their communities. 

Indianapolis was one of the first communities where partnerships between the school system and local nonprofits spawned new supports for students learning remotely. The Mind Trust understood that churches and neighborhood groups had deep wells of trust in communities and worked with them to stand up small learning environments before school started last fall.

Leaders at The Mind Trust and Indianapolis Public Schools are now planning for these hubs to become a durable feature of student support, one that persists long after district buildings have reopened.

In North Carolina, Edgecombe County Public Schools opened learning hubs that provide in-person learning and social opportunities to students in the district who have chosen to continue learning remotely. The district is working with principals to design a “spoke-and-hub” approach to schooling that offers more community-based learning projects and uses flexible scheduling to make schooling more compatible with students’ jobs or internships.  

Many leaders with whom we speak hope that the structures and services they are building now will persist and fundamentally redefine how they show up for their communities.

Though many kids will do better in regular in-person school, some are thriving with new kinds of adult support and the freedom to pursue ideas that light them up. Long after the COVID-19 pandemic is over, learning pods and arrangements that let schools resume online learning whenever necessary—knowing students can still receive in-person support if they need it—can hedge against possible future disease outbreaks and climate-caused shutdowns. 

This is an exciting moment, but experience tells us that the old familiar ways will likely reassert themselves once schools feel out of mortal danger. Innovations will be discarded or wither away, depriving families, communities, and schools themselves of benefits being proven on the ground right now. 

The innovations are at risk simply because the old arrangements—kids attending in-person school in large groups, teachers providing all instruction, community assets sidelined—are familiar and serve the interests of the best-organized interest groups. Parents who will want a return to full-time in-person instruction after the pandemic are in the majority. Teachers unions will also want a complete return to the status quo to protect their collective bargaining agreements.

Even well-intentioned relief efforts backed by new federal COVID funding could turn out to be palliatives that relieve strain on the status quo of schooling rather than catalysts to maintain a more diverse array of public support for learning. 

For example, some plans for a “national tutoring corps” would require that tutoring be delivered in school buildings during school hours(link is external), often by district employees. This would crowd out grassroots homework-help programs that meet families where they are, at far lower cost and with far more community, parent, and student agency.

To avert the inevitable rush to put things back just as they were before the pandemic, governments and foundations should be building evidence about which innovations—online instructional programs, tutoring programs, pods, and other student support environments—are effective, for which kids and under which conditions. 

The window of opportunity to learn from these new arrangements and produce durable changes will likely close in a matter of months.  

People must get organized. Families that have come to rely on COVID-era innovations need to start urging school boards and municipal governments to continue them. Nonprofit groups that sponsor innovations must organize now to press state legislators to eliminate strings on public funds and other regulations (seat time and class size requirements, closed-shop arrangements that prevent community-based workers from becoming teachers).

Rather than using this unprecedented funding to double down on the very systems and practices that have failed our communities for decades, state and local advocacy groups should ensure that states and school districts invest stimulus funds in lasting changes that will preserve new educational arrangements that worked for families during the crisis and hold open the space of community-based agency and innovation.

Now is the time not only to invest in helping students recover from the pandemic, but to build an anti-fragile education system that is less brittle, less monolithic, more family-centric and more capable of meeting students’ individual needs—now and in the future.

March 26, 2021 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Education and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation LegislationEducation Savings AccountsFeaturedNewsParent EmpowermentParental ChoiceSchool Choice

Education savings account bill takes first step in Missouri Senate

redefinED staff March 25, 2021
redefinED staff

Republican Rep. Phil Chrisofanlli is sponsoring a bill that would allow families more control over education spending.

A bill that would establish an education savings account program in Missouri had its first hearing Tuesday in a Senate committee.

HB 349 would establish the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Program, allowing taxpayers to claim a tax credit of up to 50% of their tax liability for contributions to educational assistance programs. The funds would be placed in education savings accounts that families could use for tuition, textbooks, tutoring and other education services.

Bill sponsor Rep. Phil Christofanelli said the legislation provides a remedy for the state’s education system.

“I think it is agreed across all ideologies and political beliefs that at times Missouri falls behind in its attempts to provide these students with an education that allows them to realize their full potential,” Christofanelli said. “This bill seeks to fill that void.”

Among those speaking in favor of the bill was a representative from the American Federation for Children as well as a former teacher and parent who said the bill would provide more choice for parents and bolster the performance of Missouri students.

“Adopting a one-size-fits-all policy from the state level has not been the best solution,” Sarah Hartinger said. “While this debate over school choice continues every year, Missouri students and education results suffer. As an educator and a mother, this breaks my heart, and we must do better.”

Among those who argued against the bill was Keith Rabenberg, who spoke on behalf of the Missouri School Boards Association. Rabenberg suggested that reports that Missouri schools are failing are “isolated incidents” and that public school districts “are doing a good job, and oftentimes do an excellent job.”

Education savings accounts have been debated in both Missouri chambers over the years. The same act stalled in the Senate in 2019.

March 25, 2021 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
CustomizationEducation and Public PolicyEducation ChoiceEducation Savings AccountsFeaturedGardiner ScholarshipHomeschoolingNewsParental ChoiceSchool Choice

Education savings accounts offer creative solutions for students with learning differences

Lisa Buie March 25, 2021
Lisa Buie

Chrissy Weisenberger of Palm Bay made creative use of her education savings account, converting a swimming pool into a ball pit for her two sensory-challenged daughters. Sometimes, the whole family joins in.

Chrissy Weisenberger is one busy mom.

With five children, including 3-year-old twin boys and two daughters who are both on the autism spectrum, homeschooling the whole brood made the most sense for the family. It allows her to design each child’s learning plan to best fit his or her educational needs.

“It’s very Frankensteined,” joked Weisenberger, who lives in Palm Bay, Florida, a city southeast of Orlando known for its sports and nature parks.

By that, she means like many homeschool parents, she has strategically used a little of this and a little of that, a grassroots method of creating the perfect learning environment for her family.

Her two daughters, Keira, 8, and Tessa, 6, are on the autism spectrum and participate in the Gardiner Scholarship Program for students with unique abilities. The scholarships allow parents to customize their child’s education by using flexible spending accounts called education savings accounts.

While traditional vouchers pay for private school tuition, the savings accounts are more flexible. The Florida Department of Education transfers a portion of a child’s funds from the state education formula to a state-approved nonprofit organization, such as Step Up For Students, which puts these funds into an account for each child. Parents then apply to this nonprofit for permission to use their child’s ESA funds to buy state-authorized educational services and products.

The girls need help to stay focused on learning, so in addition to purchasing educational materials such as books and workbooks, Weisenberger has used her daughters’ education savings accounts to buy specialized equipment such as swings, which calm kids with autism, and a mini trampoline that helps with balance and gross motor skills.

She bought two chewable necklaces for Keira, who otherwise would chew on her hair during class. She bought the girls laptops to access virtual lessons in math and reading, which she says were a godsend during the pandemic when co-op meetings with other homeschool families were canceled. And she bought them a kit that taught them how to build a volcano.

Most Gardiner families typically make purchases through MyScholarShop, Step Up For Students’ online catalog of pre-approved educational products. The platform includes curriculum materials, digital devices, and education software. Families may be able to purchase items or services not on the pre-approved list by submitting a pre-authorization request that includes supporting documentation and an explanation of how the purchase will meet the individual educational needs of the student. 

An internal committee, which includes a special needs educator, conducts a review to determine if the item or service is allowable under the program’s expenditure categories and spending caps, and a notification is sent to the parent. The item or service may then be submitted on a reimbursement request that must match the corresponding pre-authorization.  

Step Up For Students employs numerous measures to protect against fraud and theft. For example, if a service provider’s reimbursement request is submitted from an IP address and the platform sees that the parental approval came from the same IP address, the anti-fraud staff is alerted to investigate.

Weisenberger followed this process to purchase one item not on the pre-approved list: a $25 inflatable kiddie pool.

While a swimming pool would not qualify as a reimbursable expense under the program’s rules, Weisenberger’s proposed use made it eligible. Inspired by a Pinterest post, she converted the rectangular pool, which she ordered from Amazon, into a ball pit that she filled with almost 3,000 plastic balls. Her girls use the reconfigured pool to help them with balance.

But Weisenberger’s creativity extends further. She’s devised a way to use the pool to help her kids with math.

Using three buckets, she teaches place value by having them put the appropriate number of balls in each. For example, the number 436 would be represented by putting four balls in the hundreds place bucket, three balls in the tens place and six balls in the one place buckets.

The inventive mom has found yet another way to utilize the purchase. She pours the balls over Keira as a way to soothe her sensory-challenged daughter.

Weisenberger, who learned about Gardiner from a speech therapist two years ago, said she is very pleased with the program. While she suspects two of her other children may qualify for a scholarship, the funding she presently receives satisfies the family’s learning needs.

“I don’t want to take it away from somebody else who needs it,” she said.

March 25, 2021 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 160
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS

© 2021 redefinED. All Rights Reserved.


Back To Top