I want to thank everyone, sincerely, EVERYONE. As you all know by now, I lost. I learned a lot about people this time around, some good, some not so much. I made new friends, for all the good things that happened, I am truly grateful. I also learned a lot about people and change.
It is now time for me to move on. I will still speak out on issues of the day. Frank, Veronica, watch your backs.
Filed under Uncategorized
Well, here it is, practically Election Day. I never would have thought it, but, the race for U-46 School Board has been hard fought, and some people have turned somewhat negative late in the race. Negative facebook posts appearing, then disappearing, robo-calls Sunday evening. I assume the need for robo-calls signifies lack of a record to run on. I personally don’t think we need people telling us how to vote; I have faith in the U-46 electorate. Apparently those in favor of maintaining the status-quo feel threatened. I, on the other hand, do not fear change, I embrace it. It is time for the U-46 community, parents, teachers, community members, all stake-holders, to look at themselves and ask, is this the District we want, are we getting our money’s worth, do we want to spend our hard earned tax money on make-believe administrative positions? I hope you believe as I do, we can do better, we MUST do better.
While U-46 has a lot to be proud of, academy programs, national board certified teachers, SWAS and gifted programs, an excellent food service program, after school programs, etc. But yet, something is missing; COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT!!!!! Contrary to what the Board and the Administration say, involvement does not exist, or, it is minimal at best. They view silence by the U46 community as acquiescence, I view it as apathy. Examples abound; high school student busing a few years ago, attempts by CAC to work with area legislators on transportation funding issues, attempts by CAC to look at, and fix, school boundaries to relieve overcrowding, the Veteran’s Day issue, input into the school calendar change, all these initiatives were stopped, and stopped cold. As a matter of fact, during the recent debate on the calendar change, I actually had a sitting Board member message me privately, telling me that if I didn’t change my behavior, I would find it very hard to work with the current Board, if elected!!! Whatever happened to civil discourse? An honest exchange of ideas?
Then you have Board members voting on, and approving curricula without reading, or researching it, voting yes just because the author is a Nobel Laureate. What about the after school SAFE program? It is a much needed program, it is a worthwhile program, but, as a parent-funded program, has it ever audited? Was an independent audit ever done?
At a recent Board meeting, when the new calendar was approved, it was mentioned that only 1.4% of eligible respondents sent in comments or questions, or otherwise made their opinions known. I am proud to be part of that 1.4%. However, one could tell by the tone in some people’s voice, they viewed that as a victory, which must mean 98.6% of our U-46 community approve.
At the recent League of Women Voters Candidate Forum, a question was raised, allow me to paraphrase; given the rain tax issue in Elgin, is there a need, and should the Board of Education communicate with the Elgin City Council? The answer by one candidate floored me, the answer was, no, we have administrators who are in contact with, and should communicate with the city council. My opinion is that our elected school board should communicate with all levels of elected government on issues relevant to U-46; not leave it to unelected administrators.
It is time to put the rhetoric aside. What direction do we, as a community, want our school district to go? I am the candidate of the middle. I have the support of right of center groups, independents, and an endorsement from the Elgin Teachers Association. I believe I have the skill, knowledge and beliefs to help “center” this school district. Having served on an NCLB/Education Advisory Committee, a local Legislative Roundtable, CAC for approximately 7 years, looking at various District issues, including boundaries, I know what it takes to move forward. We need to focus on what we spend the taxpayer’s money on; will it make our children independent thinkers, or drones? It’s your voice, your vote, make it count. If you want a voice in U-46, I ask for your vote.
Filed under Uncategorized
Let’s delve into the “parent-trigger” debate again. The topic actually came up at the League of Women Voters’ Candidate Forum on March 28th. In my opinion, parent-trigger is another option for parent involvement. For all the talk about parent & community engagement, here is an option for parents that actually has teeth.
As with charter schools, I think a lot of people find parent-trigger a threat to the status quo. As a result, several myths have materialized on the subject. Here is a sampling of some of those myths.
Myth:
When a parent trigger is activated, parents take over and run their kids’ schools.
Fact:
When a majority of parents sign a petition to turn around a failing school, they present that petition, which includes a proposed turnaround plan, to the school district. The district then implements the plan chosen by the parents – in any plan, schools would be operated by education professionals, not parents. Thus, it is the district – not the parents – that turns around the school.
Myth:
Once a state passes a parent trigger law, parents in any school can use the parent trigger.
Fact:
Parents can only use a parent trigger when their kids are attending a consistently low-performing school – schools at which change is not occurring. This means that only about 5 to 20% of the schools in every district are potentially eligible for turnaround through a parent trigger.
Myth:
The purpose of parent trigger is to turn more schools into charter schools.
Fact:
When parents petition to turn around their school, they usually can choose from four turnaround options – school closure, school transformation, school turnaround, and restarting as a public charter school. Parent trigger focuses on creating meaningful opportunities for parents to change the way a school is run –charter schools are just one of multiple options.
Myth:
Parent trigger is the same thing as charter conversion.
Fact:
Parent trigger is different than charter conversion in that parent trigger requires signatures from only parents, whereas charter conversion typically requires signatures from both parents and teachers. Some states have charter conversion statutes, but do not have parent trigger statutes.
Myth:
Parent trigger doesn’t come from parents – it was developed by organizations interested in privatizing public education.
Fact:
Parent trigger was developed in California by parents, legislators, and a grassroots non-profit called Parent Revolution. StudentsFirst’s model legislation was developed by drawing from California’s law and lessons learned from parent experiences in California and elsewhere. The goal of parent trigger is to create a process that makes better public schools for neighborhood families to attend.
Parents can have, and can wield enormous power if used responsibly. I think it is safe to say, all parents want, is to have a voice and be heard. I do not find that to be unreasonable. Engaging the taxpaying community in meaningful discourse is not a bad thing. Hopefully everyone will learn something.
Charter schools, parent trigger, magnet schools, educational co-ops, homeschooling, these all came about because parents and the community felt disconnected from their children’s educational providers, at all levels. We can, indeed, must, change that.
Source: studentsfirst.org
Filed under Uncategorized
From Edweek, “More States Consider “Parent-Trigger” laws”
A very good read.
Filed under Uncategorized
I thought that after lasts nights BoE meeting, I would repost something I published earlier. I do have a few more comments to make however. While K12 may not be the ideal contractor for virtual curriculum, I am glad we, as a district are having a conversation about charters. In this day & age, a virtual charter school fits in very nicely with the technological world we live in; it also fits in nicely with parental choice. After all is said and done, doesn’t it really come down to choice? Why are entrenched educational bureaucracies so opposed to parental choice?
Somewhere along the line, a parents right to choose was either surrendered or usurped, I’m not sure which, a little of both no doubt. Since 1965, with the passage of ESEA, NCLB is the current mutation of ESEA, the federal government alone has spent somewhere between $500-700 billion on education in the U.S. That’s just the federal layout of taxpayer money. After spending all that money, educational advancement in the U.S. has moved incrementally at best, when compared to other industrialized democracies. However, there the comparisons must stop, we in the U.S. have a history, and a culture that respects freedom from government, and which values the choice of its citizens.
What follows is a repost of an earlier blog.
First, I think we need a definition of “charter School”, at least that way we have the same frame of reference. According the N.E.A., “charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each charter school’s charter.” (emphasis added)
A little background on charter schools might also be in order. There seems to be a lot of myths, or, misconceptions about charter schools out among the general population, even within education circles, and within community organizations and local political arenas, myths can still be found. So, let’s start with a charter school timeline.
1988 – University of Mass. Amherst Prof. Ray Budde originates the idea of “charter schools”, but A.F.T. President Albert Shanker coined the terms “charter school” and “school of choice”.
1991 – Minnesota becomes the first State to pass legislation formalizing a new system of “chartering” new schools. The bill was introduced by a group of Democratic State Senators and Representatives. The A.F.T. and President Shanker continued its support, however, other teacher unions began to oppose the concept.
1992 – California passes charter school legislation.
1992 – The City Academy becomes the first school to open, in St. Paul Minnesota.
1995 – State legislators across the country begin to question how charter schools can be opened in their respective states.
1996 – While the N.E.A. was never officially warm to the idea of charter schools, now the A.F.T. withdraws its support.
1997 – Republicans in Virginia begin an effort to expand the charter school option.
1997 – The Philadelphia Public School System is targeted for takeover due to funding levels compared to neighboring districts. The takeover legislation was crafted by democratic state legislators, who threatened to turn most, if not all of the Philadelphia school system over to a charter school company, Edison Learning.
2001 – The Ohio Federation of Teachers, along with several school administrator groups file suit to strike down Ohio’s charter school provisions. This is based on the assumption that charter schools are not “common schools” as defined by the Ohio Constitution, and therefore cannot receive public funds.
2003 – Democratic state representatives in Washington State cancel a vote on a bill that would expand Washington’s charter schools, claiming charter schools siphon off state funding .
2008 – Barack Obama elected president. He spent his early career as a champion for charter schools in Chicago.
2009 – Former head of CPS, Arne Duncan appointed Sec. of Education, a vocal supporter of charter schools.
2001 – Democratic lawmakers in Indiana walk out over legislation that would alter the way charter schools are funded and evaluated.
As you can see from the timeline, the charter school issue started out as a reasonably non-partisan affair. Initially, charter schools were championed by most democrats. However, as time went on, and as more republicans joined in support of charter school initiatives, the issue became politicized. With the A.F.T. withdrawing their support of charter schools, I think most democrats changed their opinion and decided to oppose charter schools because the big teacher unions were against them, and they didn’t want to dare alienate big labor, and lose big labor campaign contributions. I think if the issue had stayed non-partisan, we wouldn’t be having this conversation today. After all, the issue should be; how do we best educate our kids, not, how do I win my next election.
Now, on to some common charter school myths. I think a lot of people, teachers, administrators, community members, parents, BoE members, just misunderstand charter schools. As an example:
Myth 1. Charter schools are private schools. They are not, they fall under the same heading as public schools, because they are public schools.
Myth 2. Charter schools pick the “cream of the crop.” Unlike exclusive private schools, charter public schools do not recruit and select “the best” students. When enrollment requests exceed the number of seats, charter schools are required by law to hold a public lottery to determine who will attend. Because they are free and open to all, charter public schools do not engage in selective admissions policies.
California charter schools serve a large number of students traditionally considered to be low-achieving or otherwise “at-risk,” educating some of the state’s most underserved students, allowing them to achieve success where the conventional system failed to do so.
Myth 3. Charter schools do not provide special ed services. Like all public schools, charter schools understand their responsibility to serve all students, and charter schools are committed to serving students with exceptional needs. In fact, because charter schools are designed to have more flexibility than traditional public schools, they are uniquely situated to provide innovative, high-quality educational services to students with unique learning needs.
Myth 4. Charter schools take money away from conventional schools. False, because, when charter public schools are funded, there is no overall loss of public school money because charter schools are public schools.
Myth 5. Charter schools are not help accountable for performance. Again, false. Charter schools, unlike traditional public schools, are academically accountable on two counts. They are held accountable by their authorizer (usually the local school district) and, most importantly, by the families they serve. When a team of school developers submit their charter petition, they must define their academic goals In order to be authorized, their goals must be rigorous. In order to stay open, they must meet or exceed those goals. Families make the choice to enroll their children in charter schools, and families can remove them if they are dissatisfied with the school. A charter school that neglects its academic duties will soon find that its enrollment has dwindled, as well as its budget accordingly, and major changes may be necessary for the school to remain open.
Myth 6. Charter schools operate without oversight. Charter schools must operate within the provisions of state and federal law. They must abide by health, safety and civil rights laws, and cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex or national origin. Charter governance bodies are subject to various business regulations, such as ethical financial practices, and public body rules, such as open meeting laws. Charter schools also have oversight from their authorizers (usually the local school district, county office of education or State Board of Education). In fact, the very name charter refers to the “contract” that the school enters into with their authorizer. Authorizers review financial reports, have the authority to conduct audits, determine if the school is to be renewed at the end of the charter’s term (usually every five years) and can revoke a charter for certain reasons within charter law if the school is not meeting the terms of its charter.
Myth 7. Charter school students do not perform any better than there public school counterparts. A recent report shows that KIPP program students outperform their public school peers on reading and math tests. In places like Washington, D.C., charter school students – who now make up more than one-third of the city’s total public school enrollment and who mostly come from low-income backgrounds – are closing the educational gap vis-a-vis the national average on standardized tests and score significantly higher than their traditional public school counterparts on reading and math.
The National Bureau of Economic Research even found that the presence of charter schools as alternative competition also increased the performance of traditional public schools on statewide standardized tests.
As you can probably ascertain, I am in favor of charter schools. Not for charter schools sake, but, for the sake of trying to improve the educational system. In my opinion, people, community leaders, politicians, even parents have become “afraid to fail”. So, people opt to do nothing. Doing nothing is easier than failing, right? I disagree. WE must try, we have no other alternative. If we try something new, and it doesn’t work, then we learn from that and we move on.
In a strange way, I am actually encouraged and proud of our educational system. Sound odd? Here’s why I feel that way. Ever since A Nation At Risk was published, in 1982 I believe, people have been complaining about the U.S. educational system. However, after the end of World War II, and especially since the collapse of the Cold War, governments had more money at their disposal. Whose system do countries continue to emulate? Ours! These countries adopted democracy, a similar economy, a similar educational system, similar laws, etc, the list is endless. My point is, even though the U.S. is somewhere in the middle of the pack when ranking education, I propose that it’s not that we have gotten worse, other countries, with the use of freed up capital, were to able to catch up, and, yes, even pass us. Instead of lamenting our decline, we should applaud those that continue to look toward the U.S. as an example of what they too can become.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels, we must continually strive to improve to educational experience of our children. We are a nation of innovators, and we will innovate, and improve upon the best education system, the very system that others have emulated, and adapted to fit their needs. After all, which country is the country of choice the world over for higher education? There must be a reason they send their best and brightest, their future leaders here? We need to learn from ourselves, from our success.
I am including several pertinent links for you to peruse also.
http://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/CER_2009_AR_Charter_Schools.pdf
http://thegrio.com/2010/06/30/five-of-the-biggest-charter-school-myths-debunked/
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/pcsp-final/finalreport.pdf
Sources: The Center for Education Reform
The Gorman Learning Center
California Charter Schools Association
National Charter School Resource Center
The Rand Corp. Are Charter Schools Making a Difference? A Study of Student Outcomes in Eight States.
Mathematica Policy Research Charter Schools, Are They Effective?
The National Education Association
Filed under Uncategorized
I first ran for the Board of Education four years ago, in 2009. Four of the seven seats were up for election. I got the urge to run after being involved in the U-46 Citizens Advisory Council. It seemed like the next logical step in my desire to help improve U-46. I enjoyed running for office, more than I thought I would. Was I nervous? Indeed I was; very much so. When all was said and done, I didn’t do too badly. I lost by roughly 350 votes. I didn’t get the Daily Herald endorsement, but I felt they were very kind to my campaign; I viewed it as a backhanded endorsement.
Then came 2011, and another Board of Education election. This time, three of the seven seats were up. I felt now was the time, I actually have a real shot at winning. I garnered the Elgin Teachers Association endorsement along with the Daily Herald endorsement. Allow me to quote from the 3/13/11 Daily Herald endorsement article; “All six candidates running for this board have promise and a great deal of passion. But the two incumbents should be retained. Gary Percy, who has been very involved since 2004 in U-46 committees, ran for a board seat two years ago and lost. This time he deserves our endorsement and a seat.” When the ballots were counted, I fell short by 78 votes.
In the ensuing two years, my passion and commitment to U-46 has remained solid. If anything, as a result of the last election, it is stronger. So, after much soul-searching, and probably against the wishes of my wife, I decided to run again in 2013.
While I personally do not place a lot of weight on newspaper endorsements, I realize that some people may. Because of this, I feel I need to respond to the lack of the Daily Herald’s endorsement this time around. Allow me to quote from the 3/15/13 Daily Herald endorsement article; “We endorsed Gary Percy two years ago, but voters have rejected him twice at the polls and there are stronger alternatives this go-round.” I really must question the comment, “there are stronger alternatives this go-round.” If, according to the Daily Herald I deserved a seat two years ago, what has changed? I continue to remain current on the issues facing the District. If anything, after two more years of experience and involvement, I should be a better, stronger candidate.
I wasn’t aware of a limit on the number of times someone can or should run for office! If anything, I believe running for the Board of Education more than once shows the level of commitment, dedication, and desire I bring to this race.
I want everyone to know, that I fervently believe I am the strongest candidate in this race. I am in it to win. I intend to bring common-sense back to the U-46 Board. I am committed to you, the citizens of U-46. I am committed to the education of your children in U-46. I am committed to open, honest, two-way dialogue among ALL stakeholders.
I ask you, the citizens of U-46, to look at my record, my experience, and my dedication to this District over the last 8 years. Hopefully, you will agree with me; I can make a difference in U-46. Election Day is April 9th, I ask for your support. It is your voice. Make it heard. Make it count.
Filed under Uncategorized
