Thursday, November 19, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Ongoing
I started this blog on December 16th, 2008 hoping to shed some light on Gloucester's charter school debate. 10 plus months later, I have gone from opposing a specific charter that would greatly affect my schools and my city, to wondering how anyone can have faith in the Massachusetts charter application process.
If this is your first time visiting this site, I encourage you to read some key posts to help you get up to speed with the current debacle that is Secretary Reville's February 5th e-mail. Do not be fooled by the Secretary's insistence that this e-mail was taken out of context. From where I sit in Gloucester with two children attending public school and one soon to be attending, the context is very clear--it is the city of Gloucester that the Secretary intended to throw under the bus.
1. Why the People of Gloucester Should Ask the State to Reject the GCA Charter Proposal
2. Open Letter to the People of Gloucester
3. Office Urged Nixing Charter
4. Oversight Hearing--June 8, 2009, Gloucester, MA
5. Reville's Bitter Pill E-mail
If you are reading this and have become incensed by this particular chain of events and how the process affects children in Massachusetts, take a minute to send a letter to your local newspaper, to the Globe, to Commissioner Chester, to Governor Patrick and to Secretary Reville himself.
The Boston Globe
Letters to the Editor
Boston Globe
P.O. Box 55819
Boston, MA
02205-5819
or
Boston Globe
Commissioner Mitchell Chester
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
350 Main Street
Malden, MA 02148
or
Commissioner Chester's E-mail Address
Governor Deval Patrick
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lt. Governor
Room 280
Boston, MA 02133
Governor Patrick's E-mail Address
Secretary Reville's E-mail Address
Letters matter. Our voices matter. Change matters.
Thank you for reading.
Sincerely,
Jane Cunningham
If this is your first time visiting this site, I encourage you to read some key posts to help you get up to speed with the current debacle that is Secretary Reville's February 5th e-mail. Do not be fooled by the Secretary's insistence that this e-mail was taken out of context. From where I sit in Gloucester with two children attending public school and one soon to be attending, the context is very clear--it is the city of Gloucester that the Secretary intended to throw under the bus.
1. Why the People of Gloucester Should Ask the State to Reject the GCA Charter Proposal
2. Open Letter to the People of Gloucester
3. Office Urged Nixing Charter
4. Oversight Hearing--June 8, 2009, Gloucester, MA
5. Reville's Bitter Pill E-mail
If you are reading this and have become incensed by this particular chain of events and how the process affects children in Massachusetts, take a minute to send a letter to your local newspaper, to the Globe, to Commissioner Chester, to Governor Patrick and to Secretary Reville himself.
The Boston Globe
Letters to the Editor
Boston Globe
P.O. Box 55819
Boston, MA
02205-5819
or
Boston Globe
Commissioner Mitchell Chester
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
350 Main Street
Malden, MA 02148
or
Commissioner Chester's E-mail Address
Governor Deval Patrick
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lt. Governor
Room 280
Boston, MA 02133
Governor Patrick's E-mail Address
Secretary Reville's E-mail Address
Letters matter. Our voices matter. Change matters.
Thank you for reading.
Sincerely,
Jane Cunningham
Kathy Clancy's Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe
Gloucester feels prod of political agenda
October 2, 2009
YOUR SEPT. 24 editorial (“A mistake, but nothing more - education chief should stay’’) confirms that Education Secretary Paul Reville was placating what he called “moderate allies’’ like “the Globe and the Boston Foundation’’ in pushing for a charter school in Gloucester. And it seems that action paid off with an editorial that lacks any attention to the long history of events and irregularities in the approval of the school. The Globe seems to subscribe to the same theory as Reville: The end justifies the means.
Furthermore, you praise Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester’s independence and credibility, yet the only documentation on this matter is a “do not recommend’’ report from the Department of Education’s own charter school office experts and Reville’s clear e-mail to Chester on Feb. 5th. The unfavorable recommendation said, “The founding group is not recommended to be chartered because overall they did not meet the criteria for the final charter application.’’ The report listed numerous weaknesses in the application and doubts about the school’s chances for success.
Chester claims that he had numerous discussions with his staff after the report, yet none are documented. It appears that the political agenda as stated in the Reville e-mail is the only motivation for approval, not the best interest of educating Gloucester’s children.
Our state and the city of Gloucester deserve much better.
Kathleen Clancy
Gloucester
Link to Kathy's Letter
And another letter:
Reville seems to have lost sense of the mission
October 2, 2009
YOUR SEPT. 24 editorial (“A mistake, but nothing more - education chief should stay’’) confirms that Education Secretary Paul Reville was placating what he called “moderate allies’’ like “the Globe and the Boston Foundation’’ in pushing for a charter school in Gloucester. And it seems that action paid off with an editorial that lacks any attention to the long history of events and irregularities in the approval of the school. The Globe seems to subscribe to the same theory as Reville: The end justifies the means.
Furthermore, you praise Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester’s independence and credibility, yet the only documentation on this matter is a “do not recommend’’ report from the Department of Education’s own charter school office experts and Reville’s clear e-mail to Chester on Feb. 5th. The unfavorable recommendation said, “The founding group is not recommended to be chartered because overall they did not meet the criteria for the final charter application.’’ The report listed numerous weaknesses in the application and doubts about the school’s chances for success.
Chester claims that he had numerous discussions with his staff after the report, yet none are documented. It appears that the political agenda as stated in the Reville e-mail is the only motivation for approval, not the best interest of educating Gloucester’s children.
Our state and the city of Gloucester deserve much better.
Kathleen Clancy
Gloucester
Link to Kathy's Letter
And another letter:
Reville seems to have lost sense of the mission
Charter School Tornado
A political swirl on charter schools
E-mail points to Patrick’s agenda in Gloucester pick
By James Vaznis
Globe Staff / September 22, 2009
The Patrick administration urged approval of a controversial Gloucester charter school earlier this year, over the fierce objections of city residents and the advice of state specialists, based not on its merits but because it would further the governor’s political agenda, according to a recently published e-mail.
In the e-mail, Education Secretary Paul Reville told the commissioner of elementary and secondary education that rejection of the Gloucester charter school proposal, along with the probable rejection of two other pending charter proposals, would send the wrong signal.
“Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we’ll get permanently labeled as hostile and that will cripple us with a number of key, moderate allies,’’ Reville wrote on Feb. 5. “It really is a matter of positioning ourselves so that we can be viable to implement the rest of our agenda. It’s a tough but necessary pill to swallow.’’
Finish reading story by clicking here.
E-mail points to Patrick’s agenda in Gloucester pick
By James Vaznis
Globe Staff / September 22, 2009
The Patrick administration urged approval of a controversial Gloucester charter school earlier this year, over the fierce objections of city residents and the advice of state specialists, based not on its merits but because it would further the governor’s political agenda, according to a recently published e-mail.
In the e-mail, Education Secretary Paul Reville told the commissioner of elementary and secondary education that rejection of the Gloucester charter school proposal, along with the probable rejection of two other pending charter proposals, would send the wrong signal.
“Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we’ll get permanently labeled as hostile and that will cripple us with a number of key, moderate allies,’’ Reville wrote on Feb. 5. “It really is a matter of positioning ourselves so that we can be viable to implement the rest of our agenda. It’s a tough but necessary pill to swallow.’’
Finish reading story by clicking here.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Paul Reville's Fumble
This story appeared Saturday in the Gloucester Daily Times.
Please read to the end of the story to view Mr. Reville's e-mail in its entirety. It's time to call the whole thing off--this charter school and its tainted application process.
Start over. Do it for the sake of a fledgling school. Do it for the sake of the Charter School Office and its credibility. Do it for the sake of schoolchildren in Gloucester. Do it for the sake of the future of charter schools in Massachusetts. Do it because it's the right thing to do.
Charter OK based on 'agenda'?
E-mail shows education chiefs' mindset on Gloucester school deal
By Patrick Anderson
Gov. Deval Patrick's office lobbied the state education commissioner to endorse the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School out of a fear that its rejection would alienate powerful allies and potentially derail the administration's school policy agenda, according to documents obtained by the Times.
Secretary of Education Paul Reville, Patrick's top aide on schools, asked Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester in an e-mail to support the Gloucester charter, which faced vehement local opposition, eight days before Chester gave it his thumbs-up Feb. 13.
Chester's endorsement of the school came against the advice of charter school experts in his own office, which had recommended that the Gloucester application "not be approved," along with the two other charter bids this year.
In his request to Chester, acquired by the Times through the state's public records law, Reville warned that rejecting all three charters would get the Patrick administration "permanently labeled as hostile" to charter schools, something that would "cripple us with a number of key, moderate allies like the (Boston) Globe and Boston Foundation,"
"My inclination is to think that you, I and the Governor all need to send at least one positive signal in this batch, and I gather that you think the best candidate is Gloucester," Reville wrote in the e-mail, sent Feb. 5 at 11:54 p.m.
Then he asked: "Can you see your way clear to supporting it?"
The other two charter applications, for schools in Waltham and Worcester, were not recommended by Chester and never voted on by the state's Board of Education.
Finish reading article here.
Please read to the end of the story to view Mr. Reville's e-mail in its entirety. It's time to call the whole thing off--this charter school and its tainted application process.
Start over. Do it for the sake of a fledgling school. Do it for the sake of the Charter School Office and its credibility. Do it for the sake of schoolchildren in Gloucester. Do it for the sake of the future of charter schools in Massachusetts. Do it because it's the right thing to do.
Charter OK based on 'agenda'?
E-mail shows education chiefs' mindset on Gloucester school deal
By Patrick Anderson
Gov. Deval Patrick's office lobbied the state education commissioner to endorse the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School out of a fear that its rejection would alienate powerful allies and potentially derail the administration's school policy agenda, according to documents obtained by the Times.
Secretary of Education Paul Reville, Patrick's top aide on schools, asked Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester in an e-mail to support the Gloucester charter, which faced vehement local opposition, eight days before Chester gave it his thumbs-up Feb. 13.
Chester's endorsement of the school came against the advice of charter school experts in his own office, which had recommended that the Gloucester application "not be approved," along with the two other charter bids this year.
In his request to Chester, acquired by the Times through the state's public records law, Reville warned that rejecting all three charters would get the Patrick administration "permanently labeled as hostile" to charter schools, something that would "cripple us with a number of key, moderate allies like the (Boston) Globe and Boston Foundation,"
"My inclination is to think that you, I and the Governor all need to send at least one positive signal in this batch, and I gather that you think the best candidate is Gloucester," Reville wrote in the e-mail, sent Feb. 5 at 11:54 p.m.
Then he asked: "Can you see your way clear to supporting it?"
The other two charter applications, for schools in Waltham and Worcester, were not recommended by Chester and never voted on by the state's Board of Education.
Finish reading article here.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Charter Schools See More Attrition
Fewer students are graduating, union study finds
By James Vaznis
Globe Staff / September 16, 2009
Fewer than half of the students who enrolled in Boston charter high schools as freshmen over the past five years made it through to graduation, usually departing for other schools, according to a new study that will be officially released tomorrow at a legislative hearing on charter school expansions.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association, which conducted the study, said the exodus reinforces its longtime assertion that charter schools systematically push out academically weak students in an effort to boost their college acceptance rates and MCAS scores.
“This is outrageous,’’ said Thomas Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, who had been briefed by the union this week on the findings. “You are not bringing kids to their full potential if you are cutting them loose.’’
Most charter school leaders did not dispute the numbers yesterday, but disagreed with the union’s conclusions about what they meant. Many students, charter leaders said, choose to leave to dodge high academic standards, returning to city-run schools where getting a diploma is often easier. Only in rare circumstances, they said, did a charter student quit school without subsequently earning a diploma.
Finish reading story by clicking here.
By James Vaznis
Globe Staff / September 16, 2009
Fewer than half of the students who enrolled in Boston charter high schools as freshmen over the past five years made it through to graduation, usually departing for other schools, according to a new study that will be officially released tomorrow at a legislative hearing on charter school expansions.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association, which conducted the study, said the exodus reinforces its longtime assertion that charter schools systematically push out academically weak students in an effort to boost their college acceptance rates and MCAS scores.
“This is outrageous,’’ said Thomas Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, who had been briefed by the union this week on the findings. “You are not bringing kids to their full potential if you are cutting them loose.’’
Most charter school leaders did not dispute the numbers yesterday, but disagreed with the union’s conclusions about what they meant. Many students, charter leaders said, choose to leave to dodge high academic standards, returning to city-run schools where getting a diploma is often easier. Only in rare circumstances, they said, did a charter student quit school without subsequently earning a diploma.
Finish reading story by clicking here.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Globe Opinion Page
The new educational divide
By David Segal
August 3, 2009
AS THE OBAMA administration touts its $5 billion “Race to the Top’’ fund and uses it to promote charter schools, it is time to acknowledge that we are encouraging a new split within our public school system. The old divides along lines of race and class persist, but are now overlaid with a different segregation: one tier overwhelmingly composed of relatively advantaged students whose parents are active participants in their education, and one whose students are relatively disadvantaged and lacking in such support from adults.
Critics of charter schools have long expressed concern that charters tilt toward students with certain advantages over their peers in traditional public schools. To matriculate at a charter school, a child typically needs to be entered into a lottery of all those students seeking admission. This requires having a parent or guardian who is highly involved in a child’s education - enough to know about the possibility of his or her child attending a charter, to conclude that to do so would benefit the child, to apply to enter the lottery and follow its proceedings. Charter parents must also frequently agree to substantial participation in the child’s schooling.
Children of parents who play this active role in their education will tend to perform better in school than children of less-involved parents. The effect of such parental involvement has been measured: Controlling for race, gender, and socio-economics, students with involved parents will tend to achieve at about the 75th percentile - well above average.
Surely, most parents want their children to excel in school, and beyond, and will work as well as they can toward those ends. But for any of a variety of reasons - health, language barriers, constraints from employment, or, sometimes, lack of concern - some children simply do not have stable adult guidance in their schooling. Parental engagement in education should be strongly encouraged, but having involved parents should never be a prerequisite for a child to gain access to the best opportunities. That would mean many kids - those who are already somewhat disadvantaged - would unfairly miss out.
Charter proponents have retorted that parents seek out charters for children who are languishing in traditional public schools, and that charters therefore serve, on average, underperforming students. But that’s not what the broadening body of evidence says in many jurisdictions.
Food for thought. Finish reading here.
By David Segal
August 3, 2009
AS THE OBAMA administration touts its $5 billion “Race to the Top’’ fund and uses it to promote charter schools, it is time to acknowledge that we are encouraging a new split within our public school system. The old divides along lines of race and class persist, but are now overlaid with a different segregation: one tier overwhelmingly composed of relatively advantaged students whose parents are active participants in their education, and one whose students are relatively disadvantaged and lacking in such support from adults.
Critics of charter schools have long expressed concern that charters tilt toward students with certain advantages over their peers in traditional public schools. To matriculate at a charter school, a child typically needs to be entered into a lottery of all those students seeking admission. This requires having a parent or guardian who is highly involved in a child’s education - enough to know about the possibility of his or her child attending a charter, to conclude that to do so would benefit the child, to apply to enter the lottery and follow its proceedings. Charter parents must also frequently agree to substantial participation in the child’s schooling.
Children of parents who play this active role in their education will tend to perform better in school than children of less-involved parents. The effect of such parental involvement has been measured: Controlling for race, gender, and socio-economics, students with involved parents will tend to achieve at about the 75th percentile - well above average.
Surely, most parents want their children to excel in school, and beyond, and will work as well as they can toward those ends. But for any of a variety of reasons - health, language barriers, constraints from employment, or, sometimes, lack of concern - some children simply do not have stable adult guidance in their schooling. Parental engagement in education should be strongly encouraged, but having involved parents should never be a prerequisite for a child to gain access to the best opportunities. That would mean many kids - those who are already somewhat disadvantaged - would unfairly miss out.
Charter proponents have retorted that parents seek out charters for children who are languishing in traditional public schools, and that charters therefore serve, on average, underperforming students. But that’s not what the broadening body of evidence says in many jurisdictions.
Food for thought. Finish reading here.
Charter Schools Lag in Serving the Neediest
Charter schools lag in serving the neediest
Disparity widens rift with districts
By James Vaznis
Globe Staff / August 12, 2009
Governor Deval Patrick has touted his proposed expansion of charter schools as a way to help students who face the greatest academic challenges, such as language barriers and disabilities. But a Globe analysis shows that charter schools in cities targeted by the proposal tend to enroll few special education students or English language learners.
That imbalance raises questions about how much expertise these schools can offer and about their efforts to recruit such students, whose academic needs are generally greater than those of other youngsters.
In Boston, which hosts a quarter of the state’s charter schools, English language learners represented less than 4 percent of students at all but one of the charter schools last year, although they make up nearly a fifth of the students in the school system. Collectively, the 16 Boston charter schools taught fewer than 100 students who lacked fluency in English; six schools enrolled none.
While Boston charter schools had a higher representation of special education students, more than half still lagged at least 6 percentage points below the school district’s average of 21 percent. In urban districts statewide, special education enrollment was 10 percent or lower at about a third of the charter schools.
The figures highlight a long, divisive debate about charter school success that has grown louder in recent weeks: Are many charter schools achieving dazzling MCAS scores because of innovative teaching or because they enroll fewer disadvantaged students?
Finish reading Boston Globe article here.
Disparity widens rift with districts
By James Vaznis
Globe Staff / August 12, 2009
Governor Deval Patrick has touted his proposed expansion of charter schools as a way to help students who face the greatest academic challenges, such as language barriers and disabilities. But a Globe analysis shows that charter schools in cities targeted by the proposal tend to enroll few special education students or English language learners.
That imbalance raises questions about how much expertise these schools can offer and about their efforts to recruit such students, whose academic needs are generally greater than those of other youngsters.
In Boston, which hosts a quarter of the state’s charter schools, English language learners represented less than 4 percent of students at all but one of the charter schools last year, although they make up nearly a fifth of the students in the school system. Collectively, the 16 Boston charter schools taught fewer than 100 students who lacked fluency in English; six schools enrolled none.
While Boston charter schools had a higher representation of special education students, more than half still lagged at least 6 percentage points below the school district’s average of 21 percent. In urban districts statewide, special education enrollment was 10 percent or lower at about a third of the charter schools.
The figures highlight a long, divisive debate about charter school success that has grown louder in recent weeks: Are many charter schools achieving dazzling MCAS scores because of innovative teaching or because they enroll fewer disadvantaged students?
Finish reading Boston Globe article here.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Thank you Pamela Campbell for in-depth analysis and coverage of this issue in the Cape Ann Beacon. Readers, please support this paper in whatever way that you can.
UPDATE: Governor intervenes in Gloucester charter; state education officials vow to stick by vote
By Pamela Campbell/Correspondent
Thu Aug 06, 2009, 06:04 PM EDT
Gloucester -
Stunning many citizens on both sides of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School debate, Gov. Deval Patrick has decided to intervene in the process that had been considered a done deal, asking the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to reopen the process for community discussion, and to take another vote.
Equally stunning, his request has been refused, with the same Department of Education leaders who have been accused of ignoring proper procedure and statute requirements throughout the charter process now citing procedure and statute to justify a refusal to reconsider the issues.
“Because it is essential that the community has utmost confidence in the transparency and integrity of the process, I am writing to ask you to reopen your process and reconsider your decision,” Patrick tells Maura Banta, Chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Mitchell Chester, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, in a letter sent July 27.
“The proposed charter for the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School has caused deep division within the Gloucester community at precisely the time when we need people to come together,” Patrick continues.
He cites as reasons for his action concerns about the process raised by Gloucester’s two state legislators, Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante and Sen. Bruce Tarr, in a July 6 letter to him, along with concerns voiced and written by other Gloucester citizens, complaining that the process has been flawed and that the community’s objections to the charter on its merits have gone unheard.
Specific flaws in the process were found to be valid by a legislative oversight committee that visited Gloucester in June. That legislative committee recommended to Chester and Banta that another hearing be held but stopped short of recommending that the February vote results be reconsidered.
Chester and Banta refused that recommendation as well, stating that the oversight hearing itself, in which speakers were cautioned not to address the charter on its merits but to keep comments limited to the process, would suffice in retrospect as the public hearing (in the presence of board members) on its merits.
That declaration places the February vote before the June public hearing, technically violating state statute.
Click here to finish reading.
UPDATE: Governor intervenes in Gloucester charter; state education officials vow to stick by vote
By Pamela Campbell/Correspondent
Thu Aug 06, 2009, 06:04 PM EDT
Gloucester -
Stunning many citizens on both sides of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School debate, Gov. Deval Patrick has decided to intervene in the process that had been considered a done deal, asking the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to reopen the process for community discussion, and to take another vote.
Equally stunning, his request has been refused, with the same Department of Education leaders who have been accused of ignoring proper procedure and statute requirements throughout the charter process now citing procedure and statute to justify a refusal to reconsider the issues.
“Because it is essential that the community has utmost confidence in the transparency and integrity of the process, I am writing to ask you to reopen your process and reconsider your decision,” Patrick tells Maura Banta, Chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Mitchell Chester, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, in a letter sent July 27.
“The proposed charter for the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School has caused deep division within the Gloucester community at precisely the time when we need people to come together,” Patrick continues.
He cites as reasons for his action concerns about the process raised by Gloucester’s two state legislators, Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante and Sen. Bruce Tarr, in a July 6 letter to him, along with concerns voiced and written by other Gloucester citizens, complaining that the process has been flawed and that the community’s objections to the charter on its merits have gone unheard.
Specific flaws in the process were found to be valid by a legislative oversight committee that visited Gloucester in June. That legislative committee recommended to Chester and Banta that another hearing be held but stopped short of recommending that the February vote results be reconsidered.
Chester and Banta refused that recommendation as well, stating that the oversight hearing itself, in which speakers were cautioned not to address the charter on its merits but to keep comments limited to the process, would suffice in retrospect as the public hearing (in the presence of board members) on its merits.
That declaration places the February vote before the June public hearing, technically violating state statute.
Click here to finish reading.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
More News
Patrick questions charter school OK
By James Vaznis
Controversy over a new charter school in Gloucester is emerging as a flashpoint in a statewide debate over a proposed expansion of charter schools that is now pitting the state’s education commissioner against the governor.
Governor Deval Patrick took the unusual step last week of sending a letter to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education asking its board to reconsider its approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School in February, after Gloucester officials and residents deluged him with complaints over the approval process.
In that letter, the governor expressed concern that the “deep division within the Gloucester community’’ was erupting at a time when people need to come together to support his efforts to expand charter schools and launch other efforts to overhaul education.
“For any of these innovations to launch successfully, it is important that the community members feel that their concerns have been heard,’’ he wrote.
But on Tuesday, Mitchell Chester, the state’s commissioner of elementary and secondary education, and Maura Banta, the board’s chairwoman, rejected the governor’s request for a revote, arguing that it would be illegal under state law.
Because the charter was granted, the only action the board could take would be to revoke the charter for cause, such as a material misrepresentation of facts, according to the letter, which was obtained by the Globe.
Chester and Banta did not respond to requests for interviews.
Finish reading Boston Globe article by clicking here.
Board: Gov. off base on charter
Education panel: Patrick's call would violate state statute
By Patrick Anderson
State education officials have refused Gov. Deval Patrick's call to reconsider the approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School, saying that such a move is illegal.
When Patrick's call for charter nullification was made public Tuesday, Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester and state Board of Education Chairwoman Maura Banta responded with a letter, acquired by the Times yesterday, arguing that his suggestion would violate statute and further inflame tensions over their controversial February vote.
They said legally, once approved by the board, the charter could not be reconsidered, only revoked for cause.
Chester and Banta said they would, as suggested by the governor, schedule another public hearing in Gloucester on the charter "as expeditiously as possible."
The fledgling, arts-focused independent public school in Gloucester, whose founders have been looking for a downtown site and executive director, has appeared this week to fall in the middle of a larger political battle over education policy in Massachusetts.
Finish reading Gloucester Daily Times article by clicking here.
By James Vaznis
Controversy over a new charter school in Gloucester is emerging as a flashpoint in a statewide debate over a proposed expansion of charter schools that is now pitting the state’s education commissioner against the governor.
Governor Deval Patrick took the unusual step last week of sending a letter to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education asking its board to reconsider its approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School in February, after Gloucester officials and residents deluged him with complaints over the approval process.
In that letter, the governor expressed concern that the “deep division within the Gloucester community’’ was erupting at a time when people need to come together to support his efforts to expand charter schools and launch other efforts to overhaul education.
“For any of these innovations to launch successfully, it is important that the community members feel that their concerns have been heard,’’ he wrote.
But on Tuesday, Mitchell Chester, the state’s commissioner of elementary and secondary education, and Maura Banta, the board’s chairwoman, rejected the governor’s request for a revote, arguing that it would be illegal under state law.
Because the charter was granted, the only action the board could take would be to revoke the charter for cause, such as a material misrepresentation of facts, according to the letter, which was obtained by the Globe.
Chester and Banta did not respond to requests for interviews.
Finish reading Boston Globe article by clicking here.
Board: Gov. off base on charter
Education panel: Patrick's call would violate state statute
By Patrick Anderson
State education officials have refused Gov. Deval Patrick's call to reconsider the approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School, saying that such a move is illegal.
When Patrick's call for charter nullification was made public Tuesday, Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester and state Board of Education Chairwoman Maura Banta responded with a letter, acquired by the Times yesterday, arguing that his suggestion would violate statute and further inflame tensions over their controversial February vote.
They said legally, once approved by the board, the charter could not be reconsidered, only revoked for cause.
Chester and Banta said they would, as suggested by the governor, schedule another public hearing in Gloucester on the charter "as expeditiously as possible."
The fledgling, arts-focused independent public school in Gloucester, whose founders have been looking for a downtown site and executive director, has appeared this week to fall in the middle of a larger political battle over education policy in Massachusetts.
Finish reading Gloucester Daily Times article by clicking here.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
News....
Gov. calls to nullify charter vote
By Patrick Anderson
Responding to months of community outrage here, Gov. Deval Patrick has asked the state Board of Education to nullify its approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School and begin deliberations on the charter again.
"The proposed charter for the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School has caused deep division within the Gloucester community at precisely the time when we need people to come together," Patrick wrote in a letter to state Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester and Board of Education Chairwoman Maura Banta, and received yesterday by the Times. "Because it is essential that the community has utmost confidence in the transparency and integrity of the process, I am writing to ask you to reopen and reconsider your decision."
As of yesterday, neither Chester nor Banta had responded to the letter. Jonathan Considine, a spokesman for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, would say only that "we are taking this matter very seriously" and "will respond in a few days."
The letter calls for a new Board of Education hearing in Gloucester on the merits of the charter school to replace the Nov. 11 meeting at Fuller School which no board member attended, a perceived slight and central bone of contention among locals who said it invalidated the process.
On top of his call for reconsideration, Patrick has also ordered Secretary of Education Paul Reville, his top lieutenant on school matters, to meet with stakeholders in the Gloucester charter debate to try to "get to a point of agreement that will be mutually beneficial to everyone," a spokesman for the Executive Office of Education said yesterday.
To finish reading click here.
By Patrick Anderson
Responding to months of community outrage here, Gov. Deval Patrick has asked the state Board of Education to nullify its approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School and begin deliberations on the charter again.
"The proposed charter for the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School has caused deep division within the Gloucester community at precisely the time when we need people to come together," Patrick wrote in a letter to state Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester and Board of Education Chairwoman Maura Banta, and received yesterday by the Times. "Because it is essential that the community has utmost confidence in the transparency and integrity of the process, I am writing to ask you to reopen and reconsider your decision."
As of yesterday, neither Chester nor Banta had responded to the letter. Jonathan Considine, a spokesman for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, would say only that "we are taking this matter very seriously" and "will respond in a few days."
The letter calls for a new Board of Education hearing in Gloucester on the merits of the charter school to replace the Nov. 11 meeting at Fuller School which no board member attended, a perceived slight and central bone of contention among locals who said it invalidated the process.
On top of his call for reconsideration, Patrick has also ordered Secretary of Education Paul Reville, his top lieutenant on school matters, to meet with stakeholders in the Gloucester charter debate to try to "get to a point of agreement that will be mutually beneficial to everyone," a spokesman for the Executive Office of Education said yesterday.
To finish reading click here.
Monday, June 15, 2009
In the news...
Due to too many frustrating Gloucester Daily Times editorials (frustrating not just because I disagree with them) that fail to represent the voices of the community I have been turning my attention to the Cape Ann Beacon.
From last Thursday's Beacon:
GLOUCESTER - The first such public hearing of its kind in the history of the Massachusetts Legislature took place at Gloucester City Hall Monday night, before a packed audience of parents, residents, and city officials concerned about the state’s approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School.
Responding to an unprecedented request that the legislature step in and review the process of an executive state board that has already acted, on the basis of that process, to approve a charter school for Gloucester, a panel of lawmakers co-chaired by Rep. Martha “Marty” Walz (D-Boston) and Sen. Robert O’Leary (D-Barnstable) convened in Gloucester to look into allegations that the process contained many irregularities that raise doubts about why and how it resulted in a decision to grant approval to the charter.
Three hours of testimony, including questions raised emphatically by Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante (D-Gloucester) and Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) as initiators of the investigation, deepened emotions on all sides. Many more questions were raised than answered, leaving the panel with a lot to digest as it considers what was said.
Though it was not clear what exactly the next step will be — since this is an unprecedented situation — Ferrante said she intends to meet with Walz by the end of this week, and to keep the pressure up for resolution of some kind as quickly as possible.
To finish reading the article click here.
From last Thursday's Beacon:
GLOUCESTER - The first such public hearing of its kind in the history of the Massachusetts Legislature took place at Gloucester City Hall Monday night, before a packed audience of parents, residents, and city officials concerned about the state’s approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School.
Responding to an unprecedented request that the legislature step in and review the process of an executive state board that has already acted, on the basis of that process, to approve a charter school for Gloucester, a panel of lawmakers co-chaired by Rep. Martha “Marty” Walz (D-Boston) and Sen. Robert O’Leary (D-Barnstable) convened in Gloucester to look into allegations that the process contained many irregularities that raise doubts about why and how it resulted in a decision to grant approval to the charter.
Three hours of testimony, including questions raised emphatically by Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante (D-Gloucester) and Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) as initiators of the investigation, deepened emotions on all sides. Many more questions were raised than answered, leaving the panel with a lot to digest as it considers what was said.
Though it was not clear what exactly the next step will be — since this is an unprecedented situation — Ferrante said she intends to meet with Walz by the end of this week, and to keep the pressure up for resolution of some kind as quickly as possible.
To finish reading the article click here.
Oversight Hearing, Gloucester, MA
The oversight hearing that took place on June 8th in Gloucester, held to investigate the application and approval process of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School, will air on Cape Ann TV tonight at 8:00 p.m. on channel 12.
Link to Cape Ann TV Schedule
The hearing can also be viewed on youtube in 10 minute increments. Take a close look at Clip 19, in particular, during which Commissioner Mitchell Chester addresses the audience at the end of the three hour hearing.
Oversight Hearing on youtube
Link to Cape Ann TV Schedule
The hearing can also be viewed on youtube in 10 minute increments. Take a close look at Clip 19, in particular, during which Commissioner Mitchell Chester addresses the audience at the end of the three hour hearing.
Oversight Hearing on youtube
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Office Urged Nixing Charter
Gloucester Daily Times story here.
It should be noted that the charter office consists of individuals who are hired by the state to rigorously and vigorously review charter applications. Members of the charter office attend public hearings, attend applicant interviews and review applications. The charter school office recommended not to recommend the GCA charter in late January or early February of 2009.
Before this recommendation was made the 3 1/2 hour public hearing had taken place on December 11, 2008 (2 members of the charter office attended along with the assistant commissioner--no voting Board of Education member attended our hearing), 151 letters opposing the school and 16 letters supporting the school had been received by the commissioner/charter office, a charter applicant interview had transpired and the January 27, 2009 Board of Education meeting had taken place during which the board voted to retroactively waive the requirement that a voting board member be present at our hearing.
In short, the charter office did not make a recommendation in a vacuum. Between January 30, 2009 and February 13, 2009 Commissioner Mitchell Chester chose to dismiss the charter office's recommendation. How can his recommendation to approve the GCA charter be explained?
Please attend the public hearing on Monday, June 8th--5 p.m. at City Hall--being held by state legislators to draw attention to possible procedural errors in the application and approval process for the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School.
It should be noted that the charter office consists of individuals who are hired by the state to rigorously and vigorously review charter applications. Members of the charter office attend public hearings, attend applicant interviews and review applications. The charter school office recommended not to recommend the GCA charter in late January or early February of 2009.
Before this recommendation was made the 3 1/2 hour public hearing had taken place on December 11, 2008 (2 members of the charter office attended along with the assistant commissioner--no voting Board of Education member attended our hearing), 151 letters opposing the school and 16 letters supporting the school had been received by the commissioner/charter office, a charter applicant interview had transpired and the January 27, 2009 Board of Education meeting had taken place during which the board voted to retroactively waive the requirement that a voting board member be present at our hearing.
In short, the charter office did not make a recommendation in a vacuum. Between January 30, 2009 and February 13, 2009 Commissioner Mitchell Chester chose to dismiss the charter office's recommendation. How can his recommendation to approve the GCA charter be explained?
Please attend the public hearing on Monday, June 8th--5 p.m. at City Hall--being held by state legislators to draw attention to possible procedural errors in the application and approval process for the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Welcome...
I posted a link at the Gloucester Daily Times. Welcome visitors.
The first link (blog archives) explains why I, and others, oppose the GCA Charter School.
The second link (archives) sums up the flawed charter school application process.
Why
Open Letter to the People of Gloucester
The first link (blog archives) explains why I, and others, oppose the GCA Charter School.
The second link (archives) sums up the flawed charter school application process.
Why
Open Letter to the People of Gloucester
The debate continues....
To the editor:
Mr. Baird, board member for the proposed charter school, says in his column (The Times, Monday, May 18) that he feels bullied by the overwhelming, passionate, and vocal commitment of public school parents, teachers, elected representatives, and other residents of Gloucester, who oppose the charter.
In response to our opposition, he has published a flood of derisory labels for this ever-expanding community, which evidently offends him with its expressed concern for the charter's impact.
Many people have come forward to protest the charter school plan and the shabby neglect of Gloucester residents during and following public hearings. They have come from so many quarters and so many backgrounds that Mr. Baird is in danger of running out of derogatory names in his efforts to criticize them all.
Thus, in his columns and letters he has called one parent a Democratic aparatchick, another a Bush-like Republican. The rest of us he calls "bullies," "attack dogs," "mad dogs,""barking dogs" (Mr. Baird is evidently no more fond of dogs than of his neighbors), "witch-baiters," "fear mongers," "foot-stampers," "cadre of defenders of the system,"and, oddly, "ministers of the system."
These parents have, according to Mr. Baird, undertaken a "despicable smear campaign." (That's right. "They", not Mr. Baird, are undertaking a "smear campaign"! Can we spell "projection"?)
Click here to finish reading Roger's letter.
Roger Garberg
Gloucester
To the editor:
Peter Van Ness, spokesperson for the GCA Charter School, has made the claim that the people who signed the first page of a petition making no mention of the financial impact of the charter school were harassed.
While Mr. Van Ness may have convinced some with his clever, yet questionable PR tactics, he hasn't convinced everyone.
Having been a contact person for 62 of the 151 people who wrote letters of opposition to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in December, I have been told directly by community members that they were not as informed as they could have been and simply distracted when they first signed the petition. Many have asked that their names be removed — without prompting from people opposing the school.
I have also witnessed firsthand the tenor of the opposition's campaign in the form of incredibly passionate letters written by the people of Gloucester. While I cannot speak for all of the actions of the people who oppose this school (many do not belong to a formal group), I know from the discussions, phone calls and e-mails of the people with whom I've worked closely that our interactions have been civil and intended to help people get correct information about a critically important issue.
To finish reading my letter click here.
Jane Cunningham
Gloucester
Mr. Baird, board member for the proposed charter school, says in his column (The Times, Monday, May 18) that he feels bullied by the overwhelming, passionate, and vocal commitment of public school parents, teachers, elected representatives, and other residents of Gloucester, who oppose the charter.
In response to our opposition, he has published a flood of derisory labels for this ever-expanding community, which evidently offends him with its expressed concern for the charter's impact.
Many people have come forward to protest the charter school plan and the shabby neglect of Gloucester residents during and following public hearings. They have come from so many quarters and so many backgrounds that Mr. Baird is in danger of running out of derogatory names in his efforts to criticize them all.
Thus, in his columns and letters he has called one parent a Democratic aparatchick, another a Bush-like Republican. The rest of us he calls "bullies," "attack dogs," "mad dogs,""barking dogs" (Mr. Baird is evidently no more fond of dogs than of his neighbors), "witch-baiters," "fear mongers," "foot-stampers," "cadre of defenders of the system,"and, oddly, "ministers of the system."
These parents have, according to Mr. Baird, undertaken a "despicable smear campaign." (That's right. "They", not Mr. Baird, are undertaking a "smear campaign"! Can we spell "projection"?)
Click here to finish reading Roger's letter.
Roger Garberg
Gloucester
To the editor:
Peter Van Ness, spokesperson for the GCA Charter School, has made the claim that the people who signed the first page of a petition making no mention of the financial impact of the charter school were harassed.
While Mr. Van Ness may have convinced some with his clever, yet questionable PR tactics, he hasn't convinced everyone.
Having been a contact person for 62 of the 151 people who wrote letters of opposition to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in December, I have been told directly by community members that they were not as informed as they could have been and simply distracted when they first signed the petition. Many have asked that their names be removed — without prompting from people opposing the school.
I have also witnessed firsthand the tenor of the opposition's campaign in the form of incredibly passionate letters written by the people of Gloucester. While I cannot speak for all of the actions of the people who oppose this school (many do not belong to a formal group), I know from the discussions, phone calls and e-mails of the people with whom I've worked closely that our interactions have been civil and intended to help people get correct information about a critically important issue.
To finish reading my letter click here.
Jane Cunningham
Gloucester
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Serious Entertainment!
Some of you might recognize the name Hugo Burnham; he's drummer for rock band Gang of Four. He also has an opinion about the GCA Charter School. Read on.
To the editor:
I must, unusually, take exception to some part of your editorial concerning the proposed charter school. (The Times, Monday, May 11)
The "get over it, he won" dynamic is uncalled for, and reminds me uncomfortably of the aftermath of the national elections of 1999 and 2003.
Peter Van Ness has consistently appeared to be anything but transparent, which, with his oft-noted arrogance in content and tone has caused much of the distrust and fear running through our community. How many times has he said how his charter will somehow teach us all — parents, teachers and school district alike — how to better educate the city's children? Yet not once has he been specific about the magic bullet loaded in his charter gun, other than field trips to the Heritage Center.
Wonderful. Will those be weekly or daily?
He goes on about the arts as if our schools have none, that our teachers and students are Philistines all. I take exception to that.
In the editorial, to say the superintendent told "... a prospective arts instructor there would be no tolerance ..." for a school district employee showing support for the proposed charter school, is hyperbole and incorrect, certainly as far as the direct quote in your own front page story. The superintendent said only that it would "... be troubling ..." to him, and that it would only be considered in breach of legality if such support was active whilst on the clock. What part of that is "no tolerance" harassment?
Van Ness' secret list of supporters demands true transparency, and the whole city deserves as much — not least because so many people are distrustful of its veracity so long after its inception. If he believes it to be truly indicative of adequate and firm support, then a new petition should be distributed, especially now that we all are more informed about the facts, despite much being still unclear; not least the facts about the economic impact to the district, and facts about the options for the charter school site, most likely in a downtown location ... so well known for terrific parking opportunities and enormous open space available for children to be outside running around and playing, something every parent acknowledges the absolute need for.
Click here to finish reading Hugo's letter.
Hugo Burnham
High Street, Gloucester
To the editor:
I must, unusually, take exception to some part of your editorial concerning the proposed charter school. (The Times, Monday, May 11)
The "get over it, he won" dynamic is uncalled for, and reminds me uncomfortably of the aftermath of the national elections of 1999 and 2003.
Peter Van Ness has consistently appeared to be anything but transparent, which, with his oft-noted arrogance in content and tone has caused much of the distrust and fear running through our community. How many times has he said how his charter will somehow teach us all — parents, teachers and school district alike — how to better educate the city's children? Yet not once has he been specific about the magic bullet loaded in his charter gun, other than field trips to the Heritage Center.
Wonderful. Will those be weekly or daily?
He goes on about the arts as if our schools have none, that our teachers and students are Philistines all. I take exception to that.
In the editorial, to say the superintendent told "... a prospective arts instructor there would be no tolerance ..." for a school district employee showing support for the proposed charter school, is hyperbole and incorrect, certainly as far as the direct quote in your own front page story. The superintendent said only that it would "... be troubling ..." to him, and that it would only be considered in breach of legality if such support was active whilst on the clock. What part of that is "no tolerance" harassment?
Van Ness' secret list of supporters demands true transparency, and the whole city deserves as much — not least because so many people are distrustful of its veracity so long after its inception. If he believes it to be truly indicative of adequate and firm support, then a new petition should be distributed, especially now that we all are more informed about the facts, despite much being still unclear; not least the facts about the economic impact to the district, and facts about the options for the charter school site, most likely in a downtown location ... so well known for terrific parking opportunities and enormous open space available for children to be outside running around and playing, something every parent acknowledges the absolute need for.
Click here to finish reading Hugo's letter.
Hugo Burnham
High Street, Gloucester
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Support Representative Ferrante's Amendment
Representative Ann-Margaret Ferrante will introduce an amendment to the House as early as today. If the amendment passes in the House and then the Senate, the charter school will be prevented from opening as the current population in Gloucester is below 30,000.
The amendment reads as follows:
Ms. Ferrante of Gloucester moves to amend the bill by adding at the end thereof the following section:
“SECTION____. Subsection (i) of section 89 of chapter 71 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2006 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- No new commonwealth charter school having been approved by the board, but not yet begun its initial year of classes, shall begin classes in any community with a population of less than 30,000 as tallied in the annual list of residents pursuant to section 4 of chapter 51, in its initial year of classes, unless it is a regional charter school.”
Please take a few minutes to show support for this amendment. E-mails and calls can be short and sweet. Identify yourself as a parent, grandparent, teacher, concerned citizen of Gloucester...... Mention the census numbers and the difficulties that our small city will face if we must finance the GCA Charter School.
Call and write:
Speaker DeLeo
Speaker of the House
617-722-2500
Chairman Murphy
House Ways and Means Chairperson
617-722-2990
Representative Ferrante
617-722-2425
Pass this on. Numbers matter. Thank you for all that you do.
Jane
The amendment reads as follows:
Ms. Ferrante of Gloucester moves to amend the bill by adding at the end thereof the following section:
“SECTION____. Subsection (i) of section 89 of chapter 71 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2006 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- No new commonwealth charter school having been approved by the board, but not yet begun its initial year of classes, shall begin classes in any community with a population of less than 30,000 as tallied in the annual list of residents pursuant to section 4 of chapter 51, in its initial year of classes, unless it is a regional charter school.”
Please take a few minutes to show support for this amendment. E-mails and calls can be short and sweet. Identify yourself as a parent, grandparent, teacher, concerned citizen of Gloucester...... Mention the census numbers and the difficulties that our small city will face if we must finance the GCA Charter School.
Call and write:
Speaker DeLeo
Speaker of the House
617-722-2500
Chairman Murphy
House Ways and Means Chairperson
617-722-2990
Representative Ferrante
617-722-2425
Pass this on. Numbers matter. Thank you for all that you do.
Jane
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Ray Lamont's frustrating editorials....
Do Ray Lamont's Gloucester Daily Times editorials represent the voices of our community? You decide.
April 2, 2009
Click here to read the editorial and responses to it.
This from Iceman:
The founders of Community Arts Charter School are not GPS's "colleagues." They are a very small group of people with no training or experience in education.
And no, the debate is not "over." When a tiny handful of people manages to make off with public money -- against overwhelming community opposition -- to fund their fantasy liberal arts college, then you can expect a debate. You think "overwhelming opposition" is hyperbole? Look at the DESE's own reporting about the run-up to the charter school vote.
Looks like the GDT argument is no longer the standard, business-model "healthy competition" garbage? They are now hoping for "an opportunity for more collaboration, rather than competition" between the schools? They'll contort themselves and invert their metaphors in any way in order to avoid framing the GPS as anything other than a cantankerous old union member one inch from retirement. Maybe they should actually enter one of our schools and report on what they actually see.
February 26, 2009
April 2, 2009
Click here to read the editorial and responses to it.
This from Iceman:
The founders of Community Arts Charter School are not GPS's "colleagues." They are a very small group of people with no training or experience in education.
And no, the debate is not "over." When a tiny handful of people manages to make off with public money -- against overwhelming community opposition -- to fund their fantasy liberal arts college, then you can expect a debate. You think "overwhelming opposition" is hyperbole? Look at the DESE's own reporting about the run-up to the charter school vote.
Looks like the GDT argument is no longer the standard, business-model "healthy competition" garbage? They are now hoping for "an opportunity for more collaboration, rather than competition" between the schools? They'll contort themselves and invert their metaphors in any way in order to avoid framing the GPS as anything other than a cantankerous old union member one inch from retirement. Maybe they should actually enter one of our schools and report on what they actually see.
February 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Ed Shoucair of The Gloucester Education Foundation
March 25, 2009
To the editor:
I am writing on the topic of the charter school in Gloucester.
I admire the supporters of this initiative and their sincere wish for an excellent education for children of Gloucester admitted to the new school. However, I ask that they reconsider the approach they are taking. I have read their materials, heard their leaders speak, and am aware that they feel sure they are doing a good thing for Gloucester by creating an alternative school.
In my mind, the call for a charter school has provided a valuable public service by adding to the discussion on how to improve Gloucester's schools. A number of the charter school programs, such as "responsive classrooms" and the addition of more art into the curriculum, are good ones. In many instances, these programs and other initiatives in the charter school proposal exist in one form or another in Gloucester's public schools. But there is no question that these successful programs should be expanded and made available to all the students in the District.
The major shortcoming I see in the charter school is that the zealous belief in the benefits of a charter school prevented many of its supporters from seeing the alternative school's benefits will be dwarfed by the damage it will do to the larger school community. I also believe that the growing awareness of this fact is the reason for the loss of a number of the charter school's original individual and organizational supporters.
From the beginning, the charter school's leadership has claimed that there will be no or minimal negative financial impact on the existing system of public education in Gloucester. This is false. The truth remains that after an initial transition period, more than $2 million per year will be taken from Gloucester's public schools serving more than 3,300 students to fund a school serving 240.
At the February hearing before the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the president of the charter school asked for approval for its proposal stating that there was "widespread grassroots support for the charter school." He gave evidence of this by saying the Gloucester Daily Times had written several editorials in favor of the charter school, and that "just the day before, the editor of the Times called and encouraged me to go before State Board and speak." Putting aside the impropriety of the editor's phone call, the Gloucester Daily Times editorial page is not evidence of widespread community support. Not on this issue. Letters and phone calls to the governor from those in Gloucester opposing the charter school ran nearly 10 to 1.
To finish reading Ed's letter click here.
ED SHOUCAIR
Washington Street, Gloucester
To the editor:
I am writing on the topic of the charter school in Gloucester.
I admire the supporters of this initiative and their sincere wish for an excellent education for children of Gloucester admitted to the new school. However, I ask that they reconsider the approach they are taking. I have read their materials, heard their leaders speak, and am aware that they feel sure they are doing a good thing for Gloucester by creating an alternative school.
In my mind, the call for a charter school has provided a valuable public service by adding to the discussion on how to improve Gloucester's schools. A number of the charter school programs, such as "responsive classrooms" and the addition of more art into the curriculum, are good ones. In many instances, these programs and other initiatives in the charter school proposal exist in one form or another in Gloucester's public schools. But there is no question that these successful programs should be expanded and made available to all the students in the District.
The major shortcoming I see in the charter school is that the zealous belief in the benefits of a charter school prevented many of its supporters from seeing the alternative school's benefits will be dwarfed by the damage it will do to the larger school community. I also believe that the growing awareness of this fact is the reason for the loss of a number of the charter school's original individual and organizational supporters.
From the beginning, the charter school's leadership has claimed that there will be no or minimal negative financial impact on the existing system of public education in Gloucester. This is false. The truth remains that after an initial transition period, more than $2 million per year will be taken from Gloucester's public schools serving more than 3,300 students to fund a school serving 240.
At the February hearing before the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the president of the charter school asked for approval for its proposal stating that there was "widespread grassroots support for the charter school." He gave evidence of this by saying the Gloucester Daily Times had written several editorials in favor of the charter school, and that "just the day before, the editor of the Times called and encouraged me to go before State Board and speak." Putting aside the impropriety of the editor's phone call, the Gloucester Daily Times editorial page is not evidence of widespread community support. Not on this issue. Letters and phone calls to the governor from those in Gloucester opposing the charter school ran nearly 10 to 1.
To finish reading Ed's letter click here.
ED SHOUCAIR
Washington Street, Gloucester
Friday, March 20, 2009
Frieda Grotjahn's visit to O'Maley
March 20, 2009
Because my oldest son, a fifth-grader, had been talking with his friends about O’Maley School, I made an appointment with Principal Michael Tracy to visit. I, along with two other parents from my son’s school, met with Dr. Tracy on a windy, cold Monday morning last December. I saw some trash around the rink, but with the wind I was not worried and did not pay particular attention to it as I was more concerned about what I would find inside of the institution looming grey and cold in front of us on this dark winter morning.
Dr. Tracy welcomed us into his office and we had a chance to ask a lot of questions about the curriculum, the contents and the appearance of the school, which he answered in a competent and friendly way. He spoke about the after-school program, which is funded by the Gloucester Education Foundation. Languages, robotics, flight simulator, CAD, video-film and more will be offered. He spoke about the new science lab, which will be funded through the collaboration on curriculum development with the MIT-Edgerton center and about the chance for middle school students to go to MIT for two weeks in summer. He explained that this collaboration was again made possible by the GEF and will provide sustainable improvements to science and technology education.
To finish reading Frieda's letter click here.
Frieda Grotjahn
Blake Court
Because my oldest son, a fifth-grader, had been talking with his friends about O’Maley School, I made an appointment with Principal Michael Tracy to visit. I, along with two other parents from my son’s school, met with Dr. Tracy on a windy, cold Monday morning last December. I saw some trash around the rink, but with the wind I was not worried and did not pay particular attention to it as I was more concerned about what I would find inside of the institution looming grey and cold in front of us on this dark winter morning.
Dr. Tracy welcomed us into his office and we had a chance to ask a lot of questions about the curriculum, the contents and the appearance of the school, which he answered in a competent and friendly way. He spoke about the after-school program, which is funded by the Gloucester Education Foundation. Languages, robotics, flight simulator, CAD, video-film and more will be offered. He spoke about the new science lab, which will be funded through the collaboration on curriculum development with the MIT-Edgerton center and about the chance for middle school students to go to MIT for two weeks in summer. He explained that this collaboration was again made possible by the GEF and will provide sustainable improvements to science and technology education.
To finish reading Frieda's letter click here.
Frieda Grotjahn
Blake Court
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Pamela Campbell: When the story hits a nerve
GLOUCESTER - It’s always a balancing act, trying to be objective in community journalism when the community you’re covering is the family heirloom. Gloucester is my home, my roots, my heritage, my point of view: in five years of living outside Chicago, it was my steadfast identity. That first winter out there, my 4-year-old son made snow angels while singing Daisy Nell songs at the top of his lungs, into the Illinois sky.
So I was thrilled to be able to reconnect with my hometown by contributing pieces to the Beacon. Slowly finishing a long-overdue degree in English, hoping to teach locally when I’m done, I figured, why not? And it has been such a wonderful way to delve into the community, learn new things, meet new people, and write.
When asked if I’d cover the Gloucester schools for the Beacon, I said, sure. I am a product of the Gloucester schools: Beeman for six years, Central Grammar for two. I also worked as a classroom aide in Debbie Goodwin’s first kindergarten class at Fuller in 2002-03, and was one of the last-hired staff to be cut when the ax fell that fateful “No Child”/federal funding year. It’s what sent me back to school for the ever-elusive degree.
But the charter school story has struck a very deep nerve, and it hurts.
To continue reading Pamela's column click here.
So I was thrilled to be able to reconnect with my hometown by contributing pieces to the Beacon. Slowly finishing a long-overdue degree in English, hoping to teach locally when I’m done, I figured, why not? And it has been such a wonderful way to delve into the community, learn new things, meet new people, and write.
When asked if I’d cover the Gloucester schools for the Beacon, I said, sure. I am a product of the Gloucester schools: Beeman for six years, Central Grammar for two. I also worked as a classroom aide in Debbie Goodwin’s first kindergarten class at Fuller in 2002-03, and was one of the last-hired staff to be cut when the ax fell that fateful “No Child”/federal funding year. It’s what sent me back to school for the ever-elusive degree.
But the charter school story has struck a very deep nerve, and it hurts.
To continue reading Pamela's column click here.
Ongoing letters to the editor of the Gloucester Daily Times
Peter Van Ness' insistence that he and his group (the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School) have enjoyed a broad coalition of support in their efforts to bring their charter school to fruition is puzzling.
The public record paints a contrary picture of his inflated "re-vision" of public enthusiasm. According to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 16 letters of support were received — of which seARTs, Montserrat College of Art in Beverly, Lesley University in Boston and Councilor Jackie Hardy all subsequently withdrew their endorsement. At the only public hearing, where members of the community were able to voice their concerns, the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School group could muster only 17 supporters (of which seven were founding board members) to speak in favor.
Conversely, 151 letters in opposition were received by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and, of the 94 people signed up to speak in opposition, half were denied the opportunity because of time constraints. Many people who intended to speak against the application did not bother to sign up because the opposition list was already so long.
To read the rest of Jason's letter click here.
JASON GROW
City Councilor, Ward 1
Gloucester
When people care enough to become involved in their community, we assume that they do so to improve the quality of life for all. We have many intelligent and informed community members and elected city officials who try hard to make decisions based on this assumption.
For me, the most disturbing aspect of the charter school situation is the involvement of members of our own community who do not seem to share this assumption. These community members apparently gave up trying to work within the confines of the local process and were willing to further diminish the core educational opportunities that the majority of children in Gloucester receive in order to satisfy their dissatisfaction with the status quo.
To read the rest of Simon's letter click here.
SIMON PADDOCK
Mount Pleasant Avenue, Gloucester
The public record paints a contrary picture of his inflated "re-vision" of public enthusiasm. According to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 16 letters of support were received — of which seARTs, Montserrat College of Art in Beverly, Lesley University in Boston and Councilor Jackie Hardy all subsequently withdrew their endorsement. At the only public hearing, where members of the community were able to voice their concerns, the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School group could muster only 17 supporters (of which seven were founding board members) to speak in favor.
Conversely, 151 letters in opposition were received by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and, of the 94 people signed up to speak in opposition, half were denied the opportunity because of time constraints. Many people who intended to speak against the application did not bother to sign up because the opposition list was already so long.
To read the rest of Jason's letter click here.
JASON GROW
City Councilor, Ward 1
Gloucester
When people care enough to become involved in their community, we assume that they do so to improve the quality of life for all. We have many intelligent and informed community members and elected city officials who try hard to make decisions based on this assumption.
For me, the most disturbing aspect of the charter school situation is the involvement of members of our own community who do not seem to share this assumption. These community members apparently gave up trying to work within the confines of the local process and were willing to further diminish the core educational opportunities that the majority of children in Gloucester receive in order to satisfy their dissatisfaction with the status quo.
To read the rest of Simon's letter click here.
SIMON PADDOCK
Mount Pleasant Avenue, Gloucester
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Open Letter to the People of Gloucester
Dear Friends,
On Tuesday the Board of Education narrowly decided 6-5 to grant the Gloucester Community Arts School a charter. Here is a summary of the past few months. I want people to know that our efforts were extensive and that they did not go unnoticed--though it feels like they did. It is unfortunate that the charter application process is as flawed and undemocratic as it is. The fact that 6 individuals who do not intimately know the needs of our town or send their children to our schools can decide whether or not we need this school in the face of huge community opposition is unconscionable. Please take a few minutes to stroll down memory lane with me and take note of what we have been up against and what we have accomplished.
1. The school district released projections of how the charter school would affect approximately 3200 students--while 240 would enjoy capped classes of 20. One or two school closings and more teacher and staff cuts resulting in larger class sizes were projected.
2. The GCA applicants claimed to have cost-saving measures for the district; they had created a budget based on information given to them by Christopher Farmer. When it came time to reveal this budget, they would not produce it. People who have been paying attention to money in the city know that there is no "magic" budget.
3. On December 11, 2008, the state held a 3 1/2 hour (the longest the state has seen) public hearing during which 17 people spoke in support of the charter school. 7 of those people were founding board members. 48 people spoke out against the charter and 46 people were unable to speak due to time constraints. NOT ONE voting Board of Education member attended the hearing. At the 1/27/09 Board of Education meeting the board voted to waive the requirement in 603 CMR 1.04(3)(b) with respect to attendance by a member of the board at the public hearing.
4. By January 5, 2009 151 people opposing the school had written letters to Mitchell Chester at the Board of Education. 16 people wrote letters in support of the school. These numbers are especially important to take note of. Applicants claimed--after the hearing--that a lot of supporters were afraid to speak at the hearing because of the hostile reaction by a large number of people in the community. Letters, however, are different because the state does not reveal names. If our community was as desperate for a choice as the applicants say, founding members should have been able to get hundreds of people to write letters. They got 16 people, most likely including themselves as demonstrated at the public hearing. This is disgraceful. Whether applicants needed community support or not, they should have sought it. This is the spirit of community. This is the spirit of reform. This is the spirit of "together we can." To see a summary of the letter content and public hearing as produced by the DESE go here:
Summary
5. Mid-January, AFTER the letter writing deadline had passed, The Boston Foundation released a study about the Boston Public School System. THOUSANDS of charter school proponents statewide cited this study--irrelevant to Gloucester--when asking the Governor, the Secretary of Education and Commissioner Chester to lift the charter cap and approve the charter schools set to open in 2010. The well-oiled machine that is the statewide charter school lobby group is large-scale. Paul S. Grogan of the Boston Foundation is a major pro charter player. Our opposition group, small in comparison, fought on. We wrote letters to the Governor, to Secretary Reville and to the Commissioner again--even though the period for public commentary about the proposed charter had closed.
6. On February 13, 2009 Mitchell Chester issued a statement of recommendation for the GCA charter school while choosing not to recommend two other charter proposals. Many citizens of Gloucester were astonished as the GCA proposal had been misleading and dishonest. Why was the Commissioner unable to see this? Residents started calling the Governor's office and the Commissioner's office. They called again. And again. And again. By Monday afternoon, 2/23/09, the aides working at the state constituent's office were saying, "I'll add your name to the list. Yes. It's a long list. We've been getting calls all day."
7. After the successful pro charter lobby in January, Deval Patrick stopped waffling about charters and discussing problems with funding and issued statements in support of charter schools. On Tuesday, both of the Governor's men on the Board of Education voted in favor of the GCA school: Secretary Reville who wasn't actually present and Dana Mohler-Faria, President of Bridgewater State and Patrick's special advisor to education and instrumental in leading the Commonwealth's readiness project, quietly voted "yes."
8. I was told on Monday evening that--after meetings and letters and phone calls--8 board members would most likely be voting yes and 3 members would be voting no. I felt sad and defeated. I chose not to attend Tuesday's Board of Education meeting.
9. Tuesday morning I learned about the final vote: 6-5. I was stunned. Two board members had changed their votes. 5 of 11 board members dismissed the Commissioner's recommendation to only consider the school's viability and voted no. They heard us--our collective voices. This is no small victory.
I'm sure that I've left out things. Please let me know what I've forgotten. Mainly, though, I want to say thank you for your efforts. Before I got involved with the process of opposing the charter, I was of the mind that most people don't have time or energy or motivation to act. It's difficult to get people to write letters. It's difficult to get people to care--especially with all the demands that are placed upon people every day. But you showed me. You showed me again and again how much you care about all of the children in our city.
The applicants may have their school (we'll see if the state writes a check), but they've lost credibility within their own community. They attained victory by riding on the backs of the statewide pro charter lobby, by participating in a seriously flawed application process that failed to produce a record of 400 petition signatures or more than 16 letters in support of the school--and by refusing to acknowledge our many voices; this is a hollow victory at best.
I am proud of all that we have accomplished in spite of serious deficits. I am proud of how hard we have fought for the district's children. And I am proud that I live in Gloucester with people willing to ask hard questions about class and inequity and a charter lottery system that favors involved and culturally and financially advantaged parents. I'm proud of the foundations that have been established to supplement our schools and make things better for all of Gloucester's students, especially those who most struggle to pass the MCAS. I'm proud of the teachers who are always innovative--who have been implementing the ideas in the GCA application for years. I'm proud of the teachers who are constantly trying to reach as many children as possible in as many creative ways as possible--though class sizes continue to grow. I'm proud of everyone who goes beyond what is expected of them. I'm proud of people who don't lose hope in the face of an enormous setback.
Thank you for all that you have done, all that you do and all that you will do for our community.
Sincerely and with great admiration and appreciation,
Jane Cunningham
On Tuesday the Board of Education narrowly decided 6-5 to grant the Gloucester Community Arts School a charter. Here is a summary of the past few months. I want people to know that our efforts were extensive and that they did not go unnoticed--though it feels like they did. It is unfortunate that the charter application process is as flawed and undemocratic as it is. The fact that 6 individuals who do not intimately know the needs of our town or send their children to our schools can decide whether or not we need this school in the face of huge community opposition is unconscionable. Please take a few minutes to stroll down memory lane with me and take note of what we have been up against and what we have accomplished.
1. The school district released projections of how the charter school would affect approximately 3200 students--while 240 would enjoy capped classes of 20. One or two school closings and more teacher and staff cuts resulting in larger class sizes were projected.
2. The GCA applicants claimed to have cost-saving measures for the district; they had created a budget based on information given to them by Christopher Farmer. When it came time to reveal this budget, they would not produce it. People who have been paying attention to money in the city know that there is no "magic" budget.
3. On December 11, 2008, the state held a 3 1/2 hour (the longest the state has seen) public hearing during which 17 people spoke in support of the charter school. 7 of those people were founding board members. 48 people spoke out against the charter and 46 people were unable to speak due to time constraints. NOT ONE voting Board of Education member attended the hearing. At the 1/27/09 Board of Education meeting the board voted to waive the requirement in 603 CMR 1.04(3)(b) with respect to attendance by a member of the board at the public hearing.
4. By January 5, 2009 151 people opposing the school had written letters to Mitchell Chester at the Board of Education. 16 people wrote letters in support of the school. These numbers are especially important to take note of. Applicants claimed--after the hearing--that a lot of supporters were afraid to speak at the hearing because of the hostile reaction by a large number of people in the community. Letters, however, are different because the state does not reveal names. If our community was as desperate for a choice as the applicants say, founding members should have been able to get hundreds of people to write letters. They got 16 people, most likely including themselves as demonstrated at the public hearing. This is disgraceful. Whether applicants needed community support or not, they should have sought it. This is the spirit of community. This is the spirit of reform. This is the spirit of "together we can." To see a summary of the letter content and public hearing as produced by the DESE go here:
Summary
5. Mid-January, AFTER the letter writing deadline had passed, The Boston Foundation released a study about the Boston Public School System. THOUSANDS of charter school proponents statewide cited this study--irrelevant to Gloucester--when asking the Governor, the Secretary of Education and Commissioner Chester to lift the charter cap and approve the charter schools set to open in 2010. The well-oiled machine that is the statewide charter school lobby group is large-scale. Paul S. Grogan of the Boston Foundation is a major pro charter player. Our opposition group, small in comparison, fought on. We wrote letters to the Governor, to Secretary Reville and to the Commissioner again--even though the period for public commentary about the proposed charter had closed.
6. On February 13, 2009 Mitchell Chester issued a statement of recommendation for the GCA charter school while choosing not to recommend two other charter proposals. Many citizens of Gloucester were astonished as the GCA proposal had been misleading and dishonest. Why was the Commissioner unable to see this? Residents started calling the Governor's office and the Commissioner's office. They called again. And again. And again. By Monday afternoon, 2/23/09, the aides working at the state constituent's office were saying, "I'll add your name to the list. Yes. It's a long list. We've been getting calls all day."
7. After the successful pro charter lobby in January, Deval Patrick stopped waffling about charters and discussing problems with funding and issued statements in support of charter schools. On Tuesday, both of the Governor's men on the Board of Education voted in favor of the GCA school: Secretary Reville who wasn't actually present and Dana Mohler-Faria, President of Bridgewater State and Patrick's special advisor to education and instrumental in leading the Commonwealth's readiness project, quietly voted "yes."
8. I was told on Monday evening that--after meetings and letters and phone calls--8 board members would most likely be voting yes and 3 members would be voting no. I felt sad and defeated. I chose not to attend Tuesday's Board of Education meeting.
9. Tuesday morning I learned about the final vote: 6-5. I was stunned. Two board members had changed their votes. 5 of 11 board members dismissed the Commissioner's recommendation to only consider the school's viability and voted no. They heard us--our collective voices. This is no small victory.
I'm sure that I've left out things. Please let me know what I've forgotten. Mainly, though, I want to say thank you for your efforts. Before I got involved with the process of opposing the charter, I was of the mind that most people don't have time or energy or motivation to act. It's difficult to get people to write letters. It's difficult to get people to care--especially with all the demands that are placed upon people every day. But you showed me. You showed me again and again how much you care about all of the children in our city.
The applicants may have their school (we'll see if the state writes a check), but they've lost credibility within their own community. They attained victory by riding on the backs of the statewide pro charter lobby, by participating in a seriously flawed application process that failed to produce a record of 400 petition signatures or more than 16 letters in support of the school--and by refusing to acknowledge our many voices; this is a hollow victory at best.
I am proud of all that we have accomplished in spite of serious deficits. I am proud of how hard we have fought for the district's children. And I am proud that I live in Gloucester with people willing to ask hard questions about class and inequity and a charter lottery system that favors involved and culturally and financially advantaged parents. I'm proud of the foundations that have been established to supplement our schools and make things better for all of Gloucester's students, especially those who most struggle to pass the MCAS. I'm proud of the teachers who are always innovative--who have been implementing the ideas in the GCA application for years. I'm proud of the teachers who are constantly trying to reach as many children as possible in as many creative ways as possible--though class sizes continue to grow. I'm proud of everyone who goes beyond what is expected of them. I'm proud of people who don't lose hope in the face of an enormous setback.
Thank you for all that you have done, all that you do and all that you will do for our community.
Sincerely and with great admiration and appreciation,
Jane Cunningham
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Call, write, call, write, call, write...
Please. In the next few days--and before Tuesday.
Call, write, call, write, call, write....
Today I've spoken with staff members from Governor Patrick's office, from Senator Tarr's office, from Representative Ann-Margaret Ferrante's office and from Commissioner Chester's office. All staff members encouraged calls and e-mails--though I recommend focusing efforts on the Governor's office and the Board of Education as Senator Tarr and Representative Ferrante are already taking action.
First I called Governor Deval Patrick. I have sent two e-mails in the past that have not been answered. His staff representative was able to look up my name and see the status of my e-mail. It is *being considered.* I got a kick out of this. He encouraged more calls from Gloucester and assured me that our messages would be passed on. Let's make his day/week and rock his world by calling, calling, calling. And writing, writing, writing.
Massachusetts State House
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lt. Governor
Room 360
Boston, MA 02133
Phone: 617.725.4005
888.870.7770 (in state)
Fax: 617.727.9725
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us
Next I called Commissioner Chester's office. JC is the spokesman for the Board. He suggested sending e-mails with testimony to this address:
E-mail: boe@doe.mass.edu
If you want to call or write:
Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street
Malden, MA 02148
Phone: 781-338-3102
Fax: 781-338-3770
Also, letters can be sent to individual Board members. Addresses at website:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/edboard.html
Next, I called State Senator Bruce Tarr to ask that he make noise about opposing a charter school in Gloucester. His staff representative told me about a letter that Senator Tarr wrote yesterday in which he again states his opposition to the school. Please call or write and let Senator Tarr know how you feel.
State House
Room 313-A
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us
And finally, I called Representative Ann-Margaret Ferrante.
617-722-2425
I spoke with her aide who encouraged calls to the Governor and to the Board.
A phone call only takes a few minutes and you'll get a live person (a pleasantly live person) on the other end of the phone line.
I appreciate all that you are doing.
Jane Cunningham
Call, write, call, write, call, write....
Today I've spoken with staff members from Governor Patrick's office, from Senator Tarr's office, from Representative Ann-Margaret Ferrante's office and from Commissioner Chester's office. All staff members encouraged calls and e-mails--though I recommend focusing efforts on the Governor's office and the Board of Education as Senator Tarr and Representative Ferrante are already taking action.
First I called Governor Deval Patrick. I have sent two e-mails in the past that have not been answered. His staff representative was able to look up my name and see the status of my e-mail. It is *being considered.* I got a kick out of this. He encouraged more calls from Gloucester and assured me that our messages would be passed on. Let's make his day/week and rock his world by calling, calling, calling. And writing, writing, writing.
Massachusetts State House
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lt. Governor
Room 360
Boston, MA 02133
Phone: 617.725.4005
888.870.7770 (in state)
Fax: 617.727.9725
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us
Next I called Commissioner Chester's office. JC is the spokesman for the Board. He suggested sending e-mails with testimony to this address:
E-mail: boe@doe.mass.edu
If you want to call or write:
Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street
Malden, MA 02148
Phone: 781-338-3102
Fax: 781-338-3770
Also, letters can be sent to individual Board members. Addresses at website:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/edboard.html
Next, I called State Senator Bruce Tarr to ask that he make noise about opposing a charter school in Gloucester. His staff representative told me about a letter that Senator Tarr wrote yesterday in which he again states his opposition to the school. Please call or write and let Senator Tarr know how you feel.
State House
Room 313-A
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us
And finally, I called Representative Ann-Margaret Ferrante.
617-722-2425
I spoke with her aide who encouraged calls to the Governor and to the Board.
A phone call only takes a few minutes and you'll get a live person (a pleasantly live person) on the other end of the phone line.
I appreciate all that you are doing.
Jane Cunningham
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"Don't take the legs out from under O'Maley..."
As I was flipping through this week's Cape Ann Beacon I found this:
O'Maley Outlook: Young writers come together
Voices Within the Ocean is a group of students interested in publishing. They meet on Mondays and Tuesdays at O'Maley Middle School with their advisors, Ms.Ziergiebel and Ms. Ware. The group publishes poetry, stories, photography, drawings and reviews of music, movies and books.
The Beacon dedicates an entire page to their writing.
More here.
This project has arts and community participation and collaboration written all over it. If you are reading this and know about noteworthy happenings in our public schools, please send an e-mail to janecunningham8@gmail.com.
Thank you.
Jane
O'Maley Outlook: Young writers come together
Voices Within the Ocean is a group of students interested in publishing. They meet on Mondays and Tuesdays at O'Maley Middle School with their advisors, Ms.Ziergiebel and Ms. Ware. The group publishes poetry, stories, photography, drawings and reviews of music, movies and books.
The Beacon dedicates an entire page to their writing.
More here.
This project has arts and community participation and collaboration written all over it. If you are reading this and know about noteworthy happenings in our public schools, please send an e-mail to janecunningham8@gmail.com.
Thank you.
Jane
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Actions...
The Boston Foundation recently released a study about the Boston Public School System. Charter school proponents are citing this study when asking Board of Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester, Governor Deval Patrick and Massachusetts Secretary of Education and voting Board of Education member Paul Reville to lift the statewide charter cap and to approve the three proposed charter schools to open 2010. The GCA charter application, in all of its misleading glory, is receiving renewed attention as a result of this study. This is unfortunate as the Gloucester Public School System is not the Boston Public School System. Our challenges, demographic and size are different from that of the BPS and it is illogical to use the findings of this study to push the GCA charter forward. Furthermore, the weaknesses (as argued in earlier blog posts) of the GCA charter application are as alive as ever. Gentle reminders:
1. Gloucester does not need this charter. The GCA charter application is about imitation, not innovation. Our district has been struggling with staff cuts, program cuts and growing class sizes since 2002. Our district will be devastated by more cuts, more school closures, larger class sizes should this charter pass. It is as important as ever to make noise about the weaknesses of the GCA charter application.
2. Gloucester's elected officials and hundreds of parents, teachers and students do not want this charter. Hundreds of people wrote letters to Mitchell Chester asking that the GCA application be rejected. Now that the period for public commentary about the proposed charter school has closed, there has been a statewide pro charter letter writing campaign. Of course people can write letters at any time about issues that are compelling to them, but the fact that the Boston Foundation study was released AFTER the Board of Education 1/5/09 letter writing deadline raises questions about the lobbying methods of charter proponents. Had Gloucester letter writers been able to respond to the Boston Foundation study, they would have pointed out the obvious problems with using this study, limited to Boston, to make the case for a charter school in Gloucester.
3. Please use the links and addresses to take a few minutes to write to one or more of the following. Please ask that the GCA charter proposal be considered independently of the recent Boston Foundation findings. Ask that the GCA charter application be appropriately analyzed, citing misinformation where necessary.
Governor Deval Patrick
Secretary of Education Paul Reville: paul_reville@gse.harvard.edu
Reville says that he is reading the letters sent to him.
Lt. Governor Tim Murray: jen@timmurray.org
Senator Bruce Tarr
Board of Education: boe@doe.mass.edu
Thank you for your efforts.
Best, Jane
1. Gloucester does not need this charter. The GCA charter application is about imitation, not innovation. Our district has been struggling with staff cuts, program cuts and growing class sizes since 2002. Our district will be devastated by more cuts, more school closures, larger class sizes should this charter pass. It is as important as ever to make noise about the weaknesses of the GCA charter application.
2. Gloucester's elected officials and hundreds of parents, teachers and students do not want this charter. Hundreds of people wrote letters to Mitchell Chester asking that the GCA application be rejected. Now that the period for public commentary about the proposed charter school has closed, there has been a statewide pro charter letter writing campaign. Of course people can write letters at any time about issues that are compelling to them, but the fact that the Boston Foundation study was released AFTER the Board of Education 1/5/09 letter writing deadline raises questions about the lobbying methods of charter proponents. Had Gloucester letter writers been able to respond to the Boston Foundation study, they would have pointed out the obvious problems with using this study, limited to Boston, to make the case for a charter school in Gloucester.
3. Please use the links and addresses to take a few minutes to write to one or more of the following. Please ask that the GCA charter proposal be considered independently of the recent Boston Foundation findings. Ask that the GCA charter application be appropriately analyzed, citing misinformation where necessary.
Governor Deval Patrick
Secretary of Education Paul Reville: paul_reville@gse.harvard.edu
Reville says that he is reading the letters sent to him.
Lt. Governor Tim Murray: jen@timmurray.org
Senator Bruce Tarr
Board of Education: boe@doe.mass.edu
Thank you for your efforts.
Best, Jane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
