The Center for American Progress recently released a report showing that students of color are shortchanged in comparison to their white peers in terms of the amount of federal funding that each student receives.  Schools enrolling 90% or more non-white students spend $733 less per pupil per year than schools enrolling 90% or more white students.  On a per student basis, each white student receives about $334 more in district spending than each black student.

Racially-isolated schools such as those described in the report are associated with a higher share of students with special needs, more students who are at risk of failing, and the increased financial burdens related to educating students with other challenging educational obstacles. One would expect that racially-isolated schools such as these would receive the greatest share of federal funding rather than a disproportionately small one.

However, the federal government actually sends more money for teacher salaries to wealthier districts employing teachers who are more experienced and more likely to possess credentials like National Board Certification. This policy is mirrored in North Carolina, where the state sends more money to districts that have more experienced and highly skilled teachers than to districts with more inexperienced teachers. Both North Carolina and the Department of Education need to significantly alter the way they allot scarce education funding dollars to ensure that the money is actually reaching the students who need it most.

The North Carolina Public Schools Charter Advisory Council has recommended 25 charter schools to the State Board of Education for consideration at its August meeting.  The Charter Advisory Council received 63 applications to open charter schools and then selected 30 applicants from that pool for interviews last week.  The Charter Advisory Council then recommended 25 of these 30 interviewees to the State Board of Education for approval.

Many of the recommended applicants will face questions on review before the State Board that were not resolved before the Charter Advisory Council, particularly around the procurement of facilities, transportation plans, and more specifics about instruction.  The State Board must consider the impact on local districts of a rapid expansion in the number of charter schools:  If all 25 recommendations are accepted, that number could increase by more than 33% within the next year when coupled with the 9 fast-track charter applications that the State Board recently approved.

This expansion could also cause a significant strain on already limited charter school oversight and accountability in the absence of additional staffing, as there are currently only 6 staff members overseeing all of the charter schools in the state (4 of whom are consultants).

After hours of deliberation last night, the Wake County School Board voted to revise the county’s controversial student choice plan.  The revisions include tying addresses to specific schools as well as promoting student achievement, proximity, and stability.  The previous plan placed student achievement low in the order of priority for student assignment, but the revisions will presumably make student achievement more of a focus.

Critics of the former policy include families who received no school assignment under the first rounds of the choice plan, real estate agents concerned about the uncertainty generated by having no base assignments to identifiable schools, and newcomers to the system who are automatically placed at the bottom of the priority list.  There are many other concerns about the choice plan including increased transportation costs resulting from the complex web of bus routes needed to sustain the choice plan, increased concentration of poverty in poorer schools, and difficulties on the part of families trying to understand how the choice plan actually works.

Aside from the practical problems emanating from the choice plan that are addressed, these revisions recognize the importance of avoiding high concentrations of low achieving students.  The research is clear that these schools harm students and are simply too costly for districts to maintain.

After the vote, John Tedesco, a board member who voted against the revisions, acknowledged the inherent hypocrisy of criticizing the current board for making big changes in student assignment given the actions of the previous board in a quote to the News and Observer:  “I would caution you as my fellow colleagues not to follow the same path,” Tedesco said. “I’ll put it out there – learn from my own mistakes.”

The only thing better than learning from one’s own mistakes is correcting them – that is precisely what these revisions do.

The 150+ pages of special provisions contained in the Senate’s budget bill meander well outside the bounds of budgetary policy and into the arena of pure educational policy, including over 30 pages of text cut and pasted from an omnibus education bill that was already passed by the Senate.  That bill (Senate Bill 795 – The Excellent Public Schools Act) is modeled on the seriously-flawed policies currently employed in Florida that are currently resulting in plummeting test scores.

The education-related special provisions contained in the Senate’s budget would have significant policy impacts:

Student Retention – Puts third graders who do not pass their end-of-grade reading tests in jeopardy of retention solely on the basis of a test score.

  • In the first year Florida implemented this retention policy, 13.2% of third graders were retained.
  • This year, only 56% of Florida’s 3rd graders demonstrated proficiency on the end-of-year writing assessment, meaning that almost half of all 3rd graders are now in serious jeopardy of being retained.  Only 27% of 4th graders demonstrated proficiency on the writing assessment.
  • Almost half of North Carolina 3rd graders would also be in jeopardy of retention next year under this law.

 “Grades” for Schools – Assigns letter grades to schools but provides no additional resources to schools with poor grades.

  • In Florida, state education administrators project that this year, the number of ‘A’ schools will drop from 1,636 to 1,086.
  • The number of ‘F’ schools will more than triple from 38 to over 130.
    • To avoid chaos and growing outrage from parents, the state is lowering state standards to make it easier to demonstrate proficiency and will not allow schools to fall more than one letter grade in its grading system.

Doing Away with Career Status – Makes attracting highly qualified teachers more difficult by doing away with career status for teachers and putting all new teachers—and even some experienced teachers—on one-year contracts.

  • Given that teachers earn about 20% less than other members of the workforce with similar education and work experience, policies such as career status for teachers are needed to recruit the best and brightest to the profession that has the greatest impact on student achievement.                                                         

Rather than burying this bill amidst a sea of special provisions, the far-reaching educational impact of these suspect policies should be scrutinized by both houses of the General Assembly and the public at large to determine how and if they should be implemented.

The Education & Law Project joined the UNC Center for Civil Rights and other partners in calling on the Department of Education to ensure that proposed Race to the Top District (RTT-D) guidelines for distributing grants prioritize the development and maintenance of high quality, racially and socioeconomically diverse public schools.

The comments point out that the RTT-D guidelines entirely omit consideration of racial and socio-economic diversity in schools, despite overwhelmingly one-sided research outcomes on the topic and previous recognition by the Department of Education itself that integration is a funding priority.

The Department’s RTT-D proposal emphasizes individual-focused education and improving high-needs schools without the necessary parallel of promoting diversity on a school or system-wide level.   This limited approach encourages districts to concentrate students in racially identifiable low-achieving schools and programs to procure funding for remediation.  Instead, the Department should incentivize districts to maintain a system-wide commitment to integration and broad-based student achievement at the district, school, and classroom level.

Additionally, RTT-D contains a requirement excluding districts that serve less than 2,500 students from applying individually for grants , putting many of North Carolina’s highest need rural districts at a significant competitive disadvantage. While these smaller districts can apply jointly as a consortium, the onerous administrative requirement of inter-county coordination could delay or deprive resources from the state’s neediest students.