New Charters: New Harvest Advised to Withdraw; Ivy Given Conditional OK
by Steve, November 3rd, 2007Portland Public Schools staff weighed in on two new charter school applications yesterday, and have five pages of questions for the applicants.
The founders of New Harvest Charter School (NHCS), much discussed over at the Urban Mamas “Activistas” blog and on this blog, got a major wakeup call from the PPS staff who reviewed their application.The New Harvest application “does not yet demonstrate the capacity to successfully start and operate the proposed charter school,” wrote the reviewers in their recommendation that NHCS founders withdraw their application.
District reviewers evaluate each section of the charter school application: General Information; Mission Statement and Purposes; Educational Program; Support for Learning; Accountability; and Financial, Business and Organizational Plan. New Harvest failed to get staff recommendations for General Information; Educational Program; Accountability; and Financial, Business and Organizational Plan.
Under General Information, New Harvest was dinged for letters of recommendation dating back to 1994, not identifying their design team, failure to clearly outline a daily schedule for grades 3-7, poor accounting of annual instructional hours, and nebulous claims about providing “40-120 minutes per day of P.E.” without showing how this could work with their schedule. Reviewers were split on whether the applicants showed sufficient demand in St. Johns for this school. Survey data were inconsistent and not clearly presented.
Under the Educational Program section, NHCS stated expectations but did “not provide sufficient concrete strategies for achieving them.” The reviewers were generally frustrated by vagaries about how the applicants would handle ESL and TAG students, how foreign language instruction and arts would be integrated, and how state, local and national standards would be applied. Reviewers “again expressed concerns about the school calendar and daily schedule,” and wondered “how New Harvest will ensure students’ progress toward eventual diploma graduation.”
Under Support for Learning, NHCS organizers promised to seek staff who “demonstrate a commitment to healthy lifestyle choices and sharing greater health awareness” and who “[A]re willing to take courageous, creative action in helping students achieve academic, emotional, social and physical success.” Nice feel-good sentiment, but the reviewers note “The application does not name or describe the standards for those criteria.”
It goes on and on like this. I’m not even halfway through the application review at this point. Later, in the Financial, Business and Organizational Plan, reviewers note “Financial and management experience and expertise appear to be minimal throughout the organization.”
The reviewers seem to be saying, in other words, you can’t just say “We’re going to have a groovy school,” wave your hands in the air, and get your charter approved. Which is a Good Thing. And it is a lesson for people who see something glittering and assume it’s gold (like the parent who thought NHCS would have a 16-1 teaching ratio, and that’s all she needed to know).
Ruth Adkins, Trudy Sargent and Bobbie Regan, the school board members on the Charter Schools committee, were obviously less than impressed with this report, according to Wacky Mommy, who attended on behalf of families concerned about neighborhood schools.
Further adding to their chagrin was the fact that the NHCS organizers almost missed the meeting entirely (due to what the organizers described as “technical difficulties”), showing up with ten minutes remaining. Oblivious to the excoriation their application had already received, they handed out a thick “addendum”, a move met with a reminder that ther application was due in its entirety on July 16.
If they choose not to withdraw, the NHCS organizers will have to face a serious grilling at a November 13 public hearing. It seems highly unlikely they would succeed.
The other charter application reviewed yesterday was for the Ivy Charter School, a proposed Montessori school two blocks from the closed Meek Elementary, half a mile from Rigler and one and a half miles from Scott, existing PPS neighborhood elementary schools. Ivy got a conditional staff recommendation for approval, subject to satisfactory responses to two pages of questions.
Is Ivy an intended conversion of the Montessori of Alameda 21st Century School? That’s the biggest question. That would be illegal under state law. Ivy shares at least one board member with that school, located a block from the proposed Ivy site.
If the school board eventually approves Ivy, this will be yet another example of a private or charter school (or both) swooping in to fill the void left by closed neighborhood schools. This would be yet another step down the road to the privatization of our public schools.
Update: Don’t forget to read Wacky Mommy’s own account of the meeting at her blog.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Steve,
Thanks very much for this update. When is the board supposed to review the applications of Portland (or Pioneer, not sure of name) Technology School and Portland Web Academy?
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
The other review meeting is November 7, with the hearing November 16.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Steve – this post is fantastic. Yet another reason why this blog is required reading for anyone interested in PPS politics and policy.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:04 am
All I can say is YAHOO concerning New Harvest. I thought all along that it was a done deal. Glad to know someone “up there” is using their thinking cap.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I hope you don’t mind if I chime in.
The Ivy School will not be a conversation of Montessori of Alameda, which is a private, tuition-based school for infants, toddlers, preschoolers and kindergarten-age children.
The Ivy School will be a free, public charter school serving grades 1 – 8. The Ivy School will be legally separate from Montessori of Alameda, governed by a board of directors, and subject to all laws listed in Oregon’s public charter school law (Chapter 338 of the Oregon Revised Statutes). The Ivy School has been given the status of a non-profit corporation by the State of Oregon (Tax ID#37404) and has been granted tax-exempt (501(c)(3)) status from the IRS as anon-profit corporation.
The vision of the Ivy School is to make Montessori education available and accessible to children who normally would not be able to afford a private Montessori education. By establishing Portland’s first public Montessori school, the Ivy School’s design team is offering an educational alternative to all children and families who live within the PPS boundaries.
(Just in case you were wondering, I have two daughters – a four year old who is not – and has never been – enrolled at Montessori of Alameda, and a three month old. Over the summer, I attended a public meeting which outlined the goals of the proposed Ivy School, and I was impressed enough by what I heard to begin volunteering as a member if the Ivy School design team.)
November 12th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Stephanie,
There will be conversation about this tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2007) at the BESC building, starting at 9:30 a.m. And yes, it will be a conversion. Send your kids to a neighborhood school, they’ll thank you for it later.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Stephanie,
I hae no trouble believing that the Ivy School and Montessori of Alameda will start out as two separate entities; the law requires it. But once the Ivy School is up and running, what is to stop them from modifying their charter to include kindergarten and preschool? which would then no longer need to be offered at Montessori of Alameda. Sounds like a setup for a conversion down the road to me.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Hello,
While I prefer to keep my name anonymous, I do want to divulge that I have been involved with the Ivy development team during the entire process of developing this school. Never once has anyone mentioned the possibility of merging Montessori of Alameda with the Ivy School. Never once has anyone mentioned the possibility of adding Kindergarten down the road to the Ivy School.
Now, there was much discussion up-front about whether to offer Kindergarten at the Ivy School, but, after hours and hours of deliberations about the pros and cons, the team decided not to offer K in order to stay true to the Montessori philosophy, which uses mixed-age classrooms and groups K students with pre-school students, then mixes grades 1-3, 4-6, and 7-8. Ever since that decision was made, no one has mentioned any possibility of including K down the road at the Ivy School.
Never once has anyone involved with Montessori of Alameda or the Ivy School mentioned removing pre-school from the private school. Why would the owners of Montessori of Alameda want to close their school? Why would they want to give up the infant-toddler and pre-school-K grades that they’ve served for so many years? To earn pennies at the charter school? Forgive my sarcasm, but I don’t think so. What rationale could there possibly be for this? I’ve never heard it mentioned by anyone involved in developing the Ivy School.
Many charter schools offer tuition-based pre-school programs in order to accomodate families with multiple children who like them under one roof and in order to generate a small amount of revenue to support the school. However, I have never heard the Ivy School developers mention this possibility. It is certainly not part of their plans at this point. None of these allegations are.
The private school, in part or in whole, will not be “converting” to a public charter school. Given that the two schools will serve completely different grade-levels, this would be impossible. Why is it so hard to accept that a team of good-willed citizens who believe in the value of Montessori education and in the public school system are passionate about creating a public Montessori school that will be accessible students who would like that option? The students that Ivy is targeting would not otherwise be able to afford a Montessori education. Why is that so hard to believe?
The speculation framed as facts and willingness to assume the worst about people you do not know is fairly disturbing.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
” are passionate about creating a public Montessori school that will be accessible students who would like that option” Then why didn’t you do that? Charter schools are not public schools in my definition.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
megs,
It’s not possible to start a district-run public school unless you are already instead a district and even then it’s very challenging. The only option for community members who wish to start a public school is to start a public school.
Your own opinion notwithstanding, charter schools are public schools. You may want to read Chapter 338 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. According to Oregon’s Legislature and laws, charters are public schools. Furthermore, they receive public funds (albeit only a fraction of what other public schools receive), their staff are members of PERS, their educational programs must align with state standards, their kids must take the same state assessments as other public school students, they are non-sectarian, and they have many other similarities to all public schools.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Anon,
Thanks for joining in the discussion and offering us an inside view. Apparently you are new to the blogosphere, and maybe even American politics. I say that because of this comment:
“The speculation framed as facts and willingness to assume the worst about people you do not know is fairly disturbing.”
As far as I can see, no one has “framed speculation as facts.” Yes, we have speculated. We have formed opinions. We have raised questions. As we get new information, we raise more questions. As far as “assuming the worst about people you do not know,” I think you exaggerate a bit, but even if you don’t, may I point out that reporters, cops, lawyers and politicians do it for a living, and it has been part of the political landscape of this country going back to the Founding Fathers. (Yes, folks, schools are part of the political landscape; for instance, the only reason we have charter schools in Oregon is that some politicians approved the idea.) Those of us that have been blogging here a while have often been on the receiving end of what you complain of; we are still here because we have toughened our hides and decided that it is worth the effort to keep sticking up for what we believe. The alternative would be to pack up our marbles and go home.
All that being said, now to respond to YOUR inquiries:
“Never once has anyone mentioned the possibility of adding Kindergarten down the road to the Ivy School.
Now, there was much discussion up-front about whether to offer Kindergarten at the Ivy School. . . .”
So, did anyone pass a motion that the subject would never be discussed again? Even if they did, I wouldn’t consider that a guarantee.
“Never once has anyone involved with Montessori of Alameda or the Ivy School mentioned removing pre-school from the private school. Why would the owners of Montessori of Alameda want to close their school? . . . To earn pennies at the charter school? . . . What rationale could there possibly be for this?”
This action wouldn’t involve “closing” the M of A school, it would just mean funding it from a different source, which would be the State General Fund. And that would be the “rationale.” Admissions at private schools do fluctuate with economic downturns; public funding would remove that problem.
“Why is it so hard to accept that a team of good-willed citizens who believe in the value of Montessori education and in the public school system are passionate about creating a public Montessori school that will be accessible to students who would like that option? The students that Ivy is targeting would not otherwise be able to afford a Montessori education. Why is that so hard to believe?”
It is because we DO believe it that we are concerned about the conversion issue. That is the underlying premise of this discussion: the conversion of a tuition-based program to a free, public program. You seem unaware that your question is actually your answer!
November 13th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Zarwen,
You’re right, I’m a novice blogger. I guess I prefer to know what I’m talking about before I open my mouth (or my keyboard). I’m not a novice in politics, however.
I disagree that my question is my answer. I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion. The people establishing the Ivy School are not going to convert all or part of Montessori of Alameda to a public school, or merge any part of one school with any part of the other.
Do you know that MOA is consistently full, with a waiting list? Do you know the annual tuition at MOA? For 5-day/week pre-school (and when it used to offer elementary grades, which it stopped doing in 2006) it’s $8,000/year (for a 10-month academic year). Do you know how much Ivy will receive per-pupil as a charter school? $4,760. A $3,240 PER STUDENT difference. How would that “fund MOA from a different source?” How would cutting the budget nearly in half make any sense at all, for anyone (especially those who own MOA)? MOA is an Limited Liability Corporation, which means that the owners run it themselves, make profit and keep it. Ivy will be a non-profit, which means that it will be governed by a volunteer board and the only people who receive any money from it will be paid staff, and no salary at Ivy would equal the profit that can be made from a private school. Who would benefit from any sort of merger or conversion? It doesn’t make any sense and, at any rate, it is not going to happen.
The reason I’m blogging here at all is that converting part or all of a tuition-based school to a charter is illegal. So, I’m seriously concerned about any allegations that Ivy is planning to do that. They are not. The two entities are separate legally and functionally. The law does not prohibit individual people involved with tuition-based schools to start or operate charter schools. That’s all that is happening here. Educators, parents and community members volunteering hundreds of hours over the course of nearly two years to design and establish a public Montessori school from which they (or theirs) may never personally benefit, for the good of the public. This is not illegal, unethical or otherwise hinky. Quite the opposite, in my view. I take issue with people who have their own political bias against charter schools making unfounded allegations and speculations.
Maybe you should read Ivy’s public charter school proposal. That would address many of your questions and concerns. It’s a public document, so PPS should be willing to share it with you if you ask.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I just posted my letter to the school board on my blog, re: my opposition to the opening of any new charter schools
November 13th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
So, Anon, why did MOA stop offering grade school classes last year, especially if they were making so much money?
November 13th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
http://susanohanian.org/show_a.....tml?id=457
Good article. I wouldn’t say I am biased against charters. I just think that they are one more way to dismantle our public education system, and that there is a very concerted effort headed in that direction. By buying into the charter business, you are helping to destroy our free “common” education system.
November 13th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Zarwen,
MOA stopped offering elementary grades at the end of the 2005-2006 school year because there weren’t enough families who could afford tuition for the entire elementary level (grades 1-6 or even 1-3), despite the tuition assistance MOA arranged and/or provided; i.e., not enough families to fill a mixed-age grade 1-3 classroom. MOA is not experiencing the same problem with its younger levels. Do you know MOA is adding onto its building in order to take in more infants, toddlers, and pre-schoolers? That’s where the demand is for MOA and that’s it’s current and continued focus. Let me clarify that the Ivy School will NOT co-locate with MOA. The building expansion is ONLY for MOA. Ivy will locate at a completely different facility, which may or may not be anywhere near MOA, depending on the facilities available at the time MOA is in the position to lease one.
I think it’s interesting that’s your only question or comment re: all I said in my previous post. Could it be I’m more persuasive than I believe I am? I do appreciate your passion for high-quality public education for all students. I share that passion.
November 13th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
If Alameda of Montessori had elementary grades until 2006, and now some of the same people are proposing an elementary grade Montessori charter school in the same neighborhood it seems pretty clear that they are converting a private school to a public school. Except for the portion of the private school that was most profitable, pre-school and Kindergarten, which will remain private.
A new charter school will harm the existing public schools by diverting public funding, student enrollment, and involved parents away from the existing neighborhood schools. That won’t help create high-quality public education for all students, no matter how passionate you are.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Anon2,
Thank you.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:35 am
of course neither will scurrying off to beaverton.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:47 am
You’re right! Why didn’t I see this all along?