Parentspotlight has been keeping an eye on trends in Catholic Schools and Charter Schools. (also see our related blog postings in Feb 2007 and April 2010).
The Times Magazine and Wall Street Journal articles both cite the Cristo Rey Network, a network of 24 schools in the US, as a model of success. One of which is in Newark, NJ. Christ the King Prep's website is http://www.ctkprep.org/.
What caught our attention about the Cristo Rey Network Model was the innovative Corporate Internship Program. Students go to school for 4 days per week and work for a business one day per week. The money the students earn goes to the school to help underwrite their tuition. This seems to mirror the college work-study approach. The internship program keeps their tuition low (averaging under $2,400 /year), according to the WSJ article.
Times article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929589,00.html
Wall Street Journal Article: http://www.ctkprep.org/newsandcalendar/inthemediapages/wsj20100521.html
Also see below for excerpts from an interesting July 9, 2010 article posted in the Clifton Journal. In the Clifton article, we noticed another mention of another proposal in Paterson for a Diocese to run a charter school. There are also a lot of statistics about declining enrollment at Catholic schools.
Sacred Heart school joins long list of closures
Friday, July 9, 2010
BY TONY GICAS
Clifton Journal
STAFF WRITER
CLIFTON – Sacred Heart is just one among a long line of parochial school closures caused by a steady decline of Catholic school enrollment around the nation.
The Paterson Diocese oversees Catholic schools in Morris, Sussex and Passaic counties but of the 55 elementary schools open in 1981, just 30 diocese facilities remain.
In addition, the diocese closed three other elementary schools this year. The diocese also closed Paterson Catholic Regional High School but proposed a partnership with the Paterson school system to open a public charter school there.
The below statistics, courtesy of Brian Gray, a spokesman for the National Catholic Education Association, depict the plummeting enrollments at parochial schools:
* America's Catholic schools reached its peak in the 1960s with about 5.2 million students. By 1980 that number had dropped to approximately 3.1 million and in 2008 the nationwide enrollment hit 2.19 million.
* There were 12,893 Catholic schools operating around the country during the 1960s apex but by 2008 the NCEA reported just 7,248 schools.
* In 1970, New Jersey had 609 Catholic schools servicing approximately 275,000 students, but in 2005 that number dwindled to 396 schools accommodating 129,000 students.
* In 2008, 162 Catholic schools nationwide either consolidated or closed. Only 31 new schools opened during the 2008-2009 school year. The closings confirm a national trend characterized by shrinking enrollments, higher teacher salaries and the migration of Catholics from the cities to the suburbs, school officials said.
* In September 2000, the Newark Archdiocese had 137 grade schools in Union, Essex, Hudson and Bergen counties. Now, it has just 97. The school population in neighboring Paterson jumped by 1,000 students last year, a 3.5 percent increase in the district that has about 28,000 students, the district reported.
* Four years ago, the Paterson Diocese recorded 50 elementary schools with a total enrollment of 13,753 students. In 2008, the Diocese saw the enrollment drop to 11,177 elementary students, a decrease of nearly 19 percent.
E-mail of Clifton Journal reporter: gicas@northjersey.com
Showing posts with label charter school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charter school. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Catholic-Run Charter Schools Arouse Church-State Concerns
Highlight from Chronicle of Philanthropy:
Catholic-Run Charter Schools Arouse Church-State Concerns
Church-state watchdog groups say they will closely monitor an Indianapolis project to create what could become the country's first public charter schools run by a Roman Catholic archdiocese, says the Associated Press.
Under a plan approved by the city April 5, St. Anthony's and St. Andrew & St. Rita Academy would become charters under new names and qualify for nearly $1-million in state money in the first year. The proposal was hailed by Mayor Greg Ballard and archdiocese officials as a way to keep the schools open and serving struggling neighborhoods despite a budget deficit.
The schools agreed to end religious education and remove crucifixes, statues of saints, and Bibles from classrooms and other areas. But in a letter to the mayor's office, the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State questioned whether the archdiocese would fully eliminate religious observances and items.
(Free registration is required to view this article on the New York Times site.)
Sunday, May 11, 2008
National Charter School Policy Forum
Recently the U.S. Department of Education Celebrated the National Charter Schools Week, May 5-9, 2008. Check out highlights from the National Charter School Policy Forum.
A National Charter School Policy Forum designed to advance the understanding of American charter schools and discuss ways to increase their numbers, quality, and accountability was held Monday, May 5 at the U.S. Department of Education in Washington, DC.
The day-long forum drew about 100 leaders in the nation’s charter school movement, who were invited by U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to share their thoughts about policies and practices and suggest how the Department and charter constituencies can support the next generation of charter schools. Monday’s event coincided with the first day of the 9th Annual National Charter Schools Week.
The agenda addressed the following topics and questions concerns:
The Intersection of Charter Schools and Philanthropy. How have major education philanthropies promoted the development of high-quality charter schools? How have the foundations promoted the scale-up of successful charter models? From the foundations’ perspectives, what are the indicators of a successful grantee? How have philanthropic efforts in the charter sector changed since the first charter schools were launched 15 years ago?
Increasing Charter School Capacity in Urban Areas. What policies and strategies have the potential to significantly increase the number of quality charter schools in big cities? What can mayors do to make their cities favorable environments for a strong charter sector? In states with charter school caps, what can be done to lift or modify them? How should authorizers fulfill a commitment to quality without over-regulating schools? What partnerships should urban schools develop?
Ensuring Charter School Quality over Mediocrity. What steps can policymakers, authorizers, and advocates take to define and promote high-quality charter schools and close bad charter schools? Is insufficient funding, especially for capital needs, constraining charter quality? What specific aspects of charter laws or policies restrain schools? What strategies are necessary to improve informed school choice by students and families?
During presentations from panelists and during question and answer sessions, key themes and challenges that emerged during the Policy Forum included the following:
The best way to attract more philanthropists and money to the charter school movement is to develop and then showcase terrific charter schools. Success breeds support.
Foundations lack a common set of measurements as to what constitutes a good charter school. While the foundations all focus on outcomes, they may focus on different outcomes. These inconsistencies can muddy efforts of the foundations and grantees alike to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of the charter schools.
Finding appropriate and affordable facilities for charter schools remains a key challenge for charter school developers. Tracking down adequate educational facilities is difficult and time-consuming.
Replicating good charter schools requires careful attention to many variables. As one forum participant explained, 20 people can replicate one charter school model and come back with “wildly different results.” The finances, the talent of the staff, the school leadership, the program, and the ambiance are among the many factors that together contribute to a charter school’s success.
Finding and keeping a high-quality staff, as well as the need to address special education issues in charter schools, are two more big challenges for the charter school community. Paul Pastorek, Superintendent of the Louisiana State Department of Education, spelled out the latter challenge in a keynote address. He talked to forum participants about the special needs of students in New Orleans schools since Hurricane Katrina.
During the past decade, the debate about charter schools has shifted its focus from innovation to quality. This change aligns the charter school movement more closely with the goals of the landmark No Child Left Behind legislation.
Information disseminated about charter schools needs to become more unified, disciplined, and sophisticated. The opponents of charter schools have done a better job at incorporating these qualities into its dissemination efforts than have charter school supporters.
Developing high-quality charter schools requires a longer time frame than many developers had anticipated. “We aren’t as far as we had expected,” one forum participant admitted. That being said, he continued, “We’re in this for the long haul. It’s not a sprint, but a marathon.”
The public policy environment must be changed in order to support the creation and replication of more high-quality charter schools and the closure of under-performing charters. In the current environment, some state and local laws, regulations, and practices hinder the growth of charter schools and enable some that are mediocre at best to continue operating.
A stronger infrastructure is needed to nourish existing charter schools. A more comprehensive system of support with everything from the finances to the facilities to the curriculum in charter schools can greatly improve their chances for long-term success.
The U.S. Department of Education plans to build on the Forum conversation to develop a policy paper to frame and guide future charter school discussion and activities. The paper is scheduled for release in the late summer.
You may subscribe to this charter school listserv message by visiting http://www.ed.gov/programs/charter/csplist.html.
A National Charter School Policy Forum designed to advance the understanding of American charter schools and discuss ways to increase their numbers, quality, and accountability was held Monday, May 5 at the U.S. Department of Education in Washington, DC.
The day-long forum drew about 100 leaders in the nation’s charter school movement, who were invited by U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to share their thoughts about policies and practices and suggest how the Department and charter constituencies can support the next generation of charter schools. Monday’s event coincided with the first day of the 9th Annual National Charter Schools Week.
The agenda addressed the following topics and questions concerns:
The Intersection of Charter Schools and Philanthropy. How have major education philanthropies promoted the development of high-quality charter schools? How have the foundations promoted the scale-up of successful charter models? From the foundations’ perspectives, what are the indicators of a successful grantee? How have philanthropic efforts in the charter sector changed since the first charter schools were launched 15 years ago?
Increasing Charter School Capacity in Urban Areas. What policies and strategies have the potential to significantly increase the number of quality charter schools in big cities? What can mayors do to make their cities favorable environments for a strong charter sector? In states with charter school caps, what can be done to lift or modify them? How should authorizers fulfill a commitment to quality without over-regulating schools? What partnerships should urban schools develop?
Ensuring Charter School Quality over Mediocrity. What steps can policymakers, authorizers, and advocates take to define and promote high-quality charter schools and close bad charter schools? Is insufficient funding, especially for capital needs, constraining charter quality? What specific aspects of charter laws or policies restrain schools? What strategies are necessary to improve informed school choice by students and families?
During presentations from panelists and during question and answer sessions, key themes and challenges that emerged during the Policy Forum included the following:
The best way to attract more philanthropists and money to the charter school movement is to develop and then showcase terrific charter schools. Success breeds support.
Foundations lack a common set of measurements as to what constitutes a good charter school. While the foundations all focus on outcomes, they may focus on different outcomes. These inconsistencies can muddy efforts of the foundations and grantees alike to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of the charter schools.
Finding appropriate and affordable facilities for charter schools remains a key challenge for charter school developers. Tracking down adequate educational facilities is difficult and time-consuming.
Replicating good charter schools requires careful attention to many variables. As one forum participant explained, 20 people can replicate one charter school model and come back with “wildly different results.” The finances, the talent of the staff, the school leadership, the program, and the ambiance are among the many factors that together contribute to a charter school’s success.
Finding and keeping a high-quality staff, as well as the need to address special education issues in charter schools, are two more big challenges for the charter school community. Paul Pastorek, Superintendent of the Louisiana State Department of Education, spelled out the latter challenge in a keynote address. He talked to forum participants about the special needs of students in New Orleans schools since Hurricane Katrina.
During the past decade, the debate about charter schools has shifted its focus from innovation to quality. This change aligns the charter school movement more closely with the goals of the landmark No Child Left Behind legislation.
Information disseminated about charter schools needs to become more unified, disciplined, and sophisticated. The opponents of charter schools have done a better job at incorporating these qualities into its dissemination efforts than have charter school supporters.
Developing high-quality charter schools requires a longer time frame than many developers had anticipated. “We aren’t as far as we had expected,” one forum participant admitted. That being said, he continued, “We’re in this for the long haul. It’s not a sprint, but a marathon.”
The public policy environment must be changed in order to support the creation and replication of more high-quality charter schools and the closure of under-performing charters. In the current environment, some state and local laws, regulations, and practices hinder the growth of charter schools and enable some that are mediocre at best to continue operating.
A stronger infrastructure is needed to nourish existing charter schools. A more comprehensive system of support with everything from the finances to the facilities to the curriculum in charter schools can greatly improve their chances for long-term success.
The U.S. Department of Education plans to build on the Forum conversation to develop a policy paper to frame and guide future charter school discussion and activities. The paper is scheduled for release in the late summer.
You may subscribe to this charter school listserv message by visiting http://www.ed.gov/programs/charter/csplist.html.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
USDOE Charter School Conference April 5-6 in Wash DC
Registration Open
www.sei2003.com/OII/CSPShowcase/index.htm
U.S. Department of Education
2007 National Charter Schools Program Showcase
One City at a Time:
Expanding High Quality Charter Schools
April 5-6, 2007
Fairmont Washington
Washington, D.C.
Welcome to the National Charter Schools Program Showcase to be held on April 5th- 6th, 2007, at The Fairmont Washington DC in Washington, DC. The theme of this year's Showcase is "One City at a Time: Expanding High Quality Charter Schools" and will bring together State and Federal educational professionals committed to expanding high quality charter schools and increasing the national understanding of the charter school model in their cities and states.
The purpose of this Showcase is to:
· Expand the national dialogue about how States can use chartering as an intervention in low performing schools.
· Identify successful State practices using chartering to comply with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
· Provide local and State leaders with current knowledge about successful charter school models and practices.
· Share up-to-date information about partnerships, initiatives, and technical assistance available to States seeking to leverage their resources and expand the number of high quality charter schools.
A varied and inclusive format has been developed to address these critical topics. Key Department of Education program offices will be presenting initiatives and resources. Special guests include eight of the nation’s most highly successful charter high schools that have closed the achievement gap.
Register now at www.sei2003.com/OII/CSPShowcase/index.htm For information on accommodations and the conference schedule please visit the Logistics and Agenda pages.
www.sei2003.com/OII/CSPShowcase/index.htm
U.S. Department of Education
2007 National Charter Schools Program Showcase
One City at a Time:
Expanding High Quality Charter Schools
April 5-6, 2007
Fairmont Washington
Washington, D.C.
Welcome to the National Charter Schools Program Showcase to be held on April 5th- 6th, 2007, at The Fairmont Washington DC in Washington, DC. The theme of this year's Showcase is "One City at a Time: Expanding High Quality Charter Schools" and will bring together State and Federal educational professionals committed to expanding high quality charter schools and increasing the national understanding of the charter school model in their cities and states.
The purpose of this Showcase is to:
· Expand the national dialogue about how States can use chartering as an intervention in low performing schools.
· Identify successful State practices using chartering to comply with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
· Provide local and State leaders with current knowledge about successful charter school models and practices.
· Share up-to-date information about partnerships, initiatives, and technical assistance available to States seeking to leverage their resources and expand the number of high quality charter schools.
A varied and inclusive format has been developed to address these critical topics. Key Department of Education program offices will be presenting initiatives and resources. Special guests include eight of the nation’s most highly successful charter high schools that have closed the achievement gap.
Register now at www.sei2003.com/OII/CSPShowcase/index.htm For information on accommodations and the conference schedule please visit the Logistics and Agenda pages.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
School Choice
School Choice:
summary source: Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Educational Statistics
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=6
Question:What percentage of students are enrolled in school choice programs?
Response:Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students in grades 1–12 attending a “chosen” public school (a public school other than their assigned public school) increased from 11 to 15 percent, while the percentage attending assigned public schools decreased from 80 to 74 percent. The percentages of students attending private schools also increased during this period (0.9 percentage points for private church-related schools and 0.8 percentage points for private not church-related schools); these increases, however, were smaller than the increase in the percentage of students attending chosen public schools. Public school choice programs allow students to enroll in another public school or district outside their attendance area without justification based on special needs. These programs can include within-district or out-of-district schools. Estimates presented are based on parents' responses and parents may or may not know whether such choice is available.
When asked whether they could send their child to a chosen public school, the parents of 51 percent of students reported having such a choice. Not all students’ parents, however, were equally likely to report that they had this choice. For instance, parents of students in grades 9–12 were more likely to report having choice over their child’s public school than parents of students in grades 1–5 (54 vs. 50 percent), as well as parents of students in the West compared with those in the Northeast and South (61 vs. 39 and 47 percent, respectively), were more likely to report having choice over their child’s public school.
Among students whose parents reported having public school choice, approximately 27 percent attended a chosen public school, while 65 percent attended their assigned school. In addition, students in grades 1–5 were more likely to attend a chosen public school than students in grades 9–12 (30 vs. 25 percent). Black students compared with White or Hispanic students (42 vs. 22 and 27 percent, respectively), as well as students in the South compared with students in the Midwest (30 vs. 22 percent), were more likely to attend chosen public schools.
Another way in which parents can choose schools is to move to a neighborhood so that their children can attend a particular school. In 2003, the parents of 24 percent of students reported that they moved to their current neighborhood so that their children could attend their current school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006–071), Indicator 36.
Percentage distribution of students in grades 1–12, by type of school: 1993 and 2003
Type of school
1993
2003
Public, assigned
79.9
73.9
Public, chosen
11.0
15.4
Private, church-related
7.5
8.4
Private, not church-related
1.6
2.4
NOTE: Includes homeschooled students enrolled in public or private schools for 9 or more hours per week. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006-071), Table 36-1a .
Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
2004, The Nation's Report Card: America's Charter Schools
2003, Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000
2003, Trends in the Use of School Choice: 1993 to 1999
2002, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the Data for Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary Schools
Tri-State Regional Information on School Choice:
The Interdistrict Public School Choice Program (School Choice Program) is a five-year pilot program designed to increase educational opportunities for New Jersey students and their families by providing students with the option of attending a public school outside their district of residence without cost to their parents. Under the School Choice Program, interested New Jersey school districts apply to become choice districts, that is, districts that designate specific open seats into which they will accept non-resident students at the expense of the state. Each year the New Jersey State Department of Education selects the choice districts from those districts that have submitted a competitive application.
href="http://www.state.nj.us/njded/choice/genfo.htm">http://www.state.nj.us/njded/choice/genfo.htm
http://schools.nyc.gov/Administration/NCLB/PSC/default.htm In accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), students who attend schools identified as Title I Schools in Need of Improvement (SINI) and Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) must be provided with the opportunity to request transfers to schools not in need of improvement.
http://schools.nyc.gov/Administration/NCLB/PSC/FAQs.htm Frequently Asked Questions on School Choice in NYC
School Choice in New York City After Three Years: An Evaluation of
the School Choice Scholarships Programhttp://www.heritage.org/research/education/parchoice.cfm http://www.nyschoolchoice.com/ This website provides information on the growing number of choices in schools for students in New York State http://www.edreform.com/ParentPower/school_choice/index.htm http://www.state.nj.us/njded/parents/title1.htm Intradistrict School ChoiceA Q & A on Options for NJ Children Enrolled in Title I Schools in Need of Improvement http://www.nysun.com/article/29057 N.Y. School Choice Is Under Attack in State Senate, The New York Sun, 3/14/06 http://www.nysun.com/article/47333 Bush, Bloomberg Plans for School Choice May Clash, The New York Sun, 1/25/07 http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/ny1ex.pdf An Evaluation of the New York City School Choice Scholarships Program: The First Year http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_sub.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=134 Progressive Policy Institute
summary source: Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Educational Statistics
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=6
Question:What percentage of students are enrolled in school choice programs?
Response:Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students in grades 1–12 attending a “chosen” public school (a public school other than their assigned public school) increased from 11 to 15 percent, while the percentage attending assigned public schools decreased from 80 to 74 percent. The percentages of students attending private schools also increased during this period (0.9 percentage points for private church-related schools and 0.8 percentage points for private not church-related schools); these increases, however, were smaller than the increase in the percentage of students attending chosen public schools. Public school choice programs allow students to enroll in another public school or district outside their attendance area without justification based on special needs. These programs can include within-district or out-of-district schools. Estimates presented are based on parents' responses and parents may or may not know whether such choice is available.
When asked whether they could send their child to a chosen public school, the parents of 51 percent of students reported having such a choice. Not all students’ parents, however, were equally likely to report that they had this choice. For instance, parents of students in grades 9–12 were more likely to report having choice over their child’s public school than parents of students in grades 1–5 (54 vs. 50 percent), as well as parents of students in the West compared with those in the Northeast and South (61 vs. 39 and 47 percent, respectively), were more likely to report having choice over their child’s public school.
Among students whose parents reported having public school choice, approximately 27 percent attended a chosen public school, while 65 percent attended their assigned school. In addition, students in grades 1–5 were more likely to attend a chosen public school than students in grades 9–12 (30 vs. 25 percent). Black students compared with White or Hispanic students (42 vs. 22 and 27 percent, respectively), as well as students in the South compared with students in the Midwest (30 vs. 22 percent), were more likely to attend chosen public schools.
Another way in which parents can choose schools is to move to a neighborhood so that their children can attend a particular school. In 2003, the parents of 24 percent of students reported that they moved to their current neighborhood so that their children could attend their current school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006–071), Indicator 36.
Percentage distribution of students in grades 1–12, by type of school: 1993 and 2003
Type of school
1993
2003
Public, assigned
79.9
73.9
Public, chosen
11.0
15.4
Private, church-related
7.5
8.4
Private, not church-related
1.6
2.4
NOTE: Includes homeschooled students enrolled in public or private schools for 9 or more hours per week. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006-071), Table 36-1a .
Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
2004, The Nation's Report Card: America's Charter Schools
2003, Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000
2003, Trends in the Use of School Choice: 1993 to 1999
2002, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the Data for Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary Schools
Tri-State Regional Information on School Choice:
The Interdistrict Public School Choice Program (School Choice Program) is a five-year pilot program designed to increase educational opportunities for New Jersey students and their families by providing students with the option of attending a public school outside their district of residence without cost to their parents. Under the School Choice Program, interested New Jersey school districts apply to become choice districts, that is, districts that designate specific open seats into which they will accept non-resident students at the expense of the state. Each year the New Jersey State Department of Education selects the choice districts from those districts that have submitted a competitive application.
href="http://www.state.nj.us/njded/choice/genfo.htm">http://www.state.nj.us/njded/choice/genfo.htm
http://schools.nyc.gov/Administration/NCLB/PSC/default.htm In accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), students who attend schools identified as Title I Schools in Need of Improvement (SINI) and Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) must be provided with the opportunity to request transfers to schools not in need of improvement.
http://schools.nyc.gov/Administration/NCLB/PSC/FAQs.htm Frequently Asked Questions on School Choice in NYC
- http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/nycfull.pdf
School Choice in New York City After Three Years: An Evaluation of
the School Choice Scholarships Program
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)