Expert schmexpert.

Admittedly, my window of political perspective is pretty limited. But even a political lightweight like myself can enjoy the old-fashioned brouhaha that is developing over charter schools.
School choice is a deeply held and ravenously defended movement in education.
Its supporters say that charter schools can fix the achievement gap, teach the unteachable, serve the under-served and, generally, save students from a post-Industrial education model that has changed little in the last century.
Critics say charters siphon much-needed state aid from traditional districts already crippled by inadequate state funding and that their lack of oversight and accountability makes them invisible to the public.
As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. But the real problem arises when the so-called experts can't separate themselves from the politics.
Take, for instance, a MN2020 report released this summer. The report documented that more than 75 percent of all charters lacked certain financial controls and that their audits contained irregularities. Inevitably, charter opponents hailed the report as definitive proof that the movement had failed. Charter supporters, meanwhile, blasted the report for its bias and pointed out that nearly all schools, charter or otherwise, have qualified audits.
Even months after its release, I can personally vouch for the fact that bitterness about the report remains on both sides.
But even more problematic is the story developing at Stanford University.
The nutshell: Brilliant economic professor authors groundbreaking study on New York charter schools. She shows, through meticulously gathered data, that charters have the potential to all but close the achievement gap. The report was released - and charter supporters proudly donned their finest feather yet.
But one problem: The report wasn't peer reviewed; and when it was (surprise, surprise) the reviewer found the study was overstated, under-quantified and, generally, untrustworthy.
Back to square one.
The charter school debate is one of the most important taking place right now in the world of education. And this kind of biased reporting only re-hinges the debate on the same old partisan frameworks.
Shame. Shame. The public needs better from its so-called experts.

A sidenote:
Minnesota was the first state in the country to legalize charter schools when it did so in 1991. Since then, regulations and guidelines for charters have evolved, but the Center for Education Reform ranks this state's charter law as the second best in the nation.

Who doesn't love a trust fund?

During the 2008 legislative session, lawmakers made a change to the way proceeds from school trust lands would be spent on schools. And now, that change is ready to pay dividends.
In previous years, money from the trust lands - which are located in northern Minnesota and generate profits on timber sales, mineral leases, taconite royalties and campground fees - were subtracted from the state's K-12 budget. Thus, school districts were not seeing any additional revenue from the land.
But last year, lawmakers decided to use those proceeds as a source of new revenue to schools. So, beginning in fiscal year 2010, districts will receive $36 per student.
Jerry Kolander, business manager for Mankato Area Public Schools, said the district has already included that extra revenue (approximately $250,000) into the budget - so it won't help in staving off possible spring reductions. But, he said, a little extra money is "always welcome."
Of course, the state legislature could always decide to change the law again in the next session. With whispers already coming out of St. Paul about another state budget deficit and another round of unallotments, such a scenario is not unlikely.

The school trust lands were created in 1858 when the federal government put two parcels of land for each township into a public school trust. For a more detailed look at the governance and history of the lands, see this legislative report. And here's an article from the International Falls Daily Journal where superintendents discuss the impacts of the trust revenue.

Facing the (referendum) music

The drumbeat begins anew.
In the last two years, about 150 Minnesota school districts have attempted operating referendums, and for many different reasons. Sometimes due to financial mismanagement, sometimes deflating enrollment, sometimes unexpected maintenance projects or technology upgrades.
But now, with state aid for schools frozen for at least the next two years (and likely the next four) and delayed aid payments a certainty, some school districts are already forecasting significant budget challenges.
In Mankato schools, where the sting is still evident from the latest $3 million reduction, officials have predicted that future cuts are all but certain.
In Waseca, school officials took to the county fair this week to gauge community support for a referendum desperately needed to maintain programs in the face of declining enrollment.
And the Blue Earth Area School District just hired a consultant to help plan fall referendum.
These schools will not be the last and, in many communities, taxpayers will have the painful decision of taking from their own thinning wallets to keep schools out of debt.

Charter school governance: Mayors or Quarterbacks?

After the Minnesota legislature passed a round of charter school reforms during the latest session, it appears a different kind of charter-school sponsorship is cropping up elsewhere. According to these news accounts in the NY Daily News and the Providence Journal, there seems to be a growing interest in mayoral academies, where civic and community leaders govern a school.

Such a concept would represent a significant philosophical shift from charter schools in this area, which are largely founded on teacher governance. A model based on mayoral or municipal governance would have some clear benefits, not the least of which would be expanded opportunities for collaboration.

But one drawback to mayoral academies might come quickly to mind for residents of the Mankato area. Being a youngster in the Free Press office, I had never heard the strange and mysterious tale of Stan Christ - the former Mankato mayor who fled critics and controversy by cover of moonlight - until yesterday when fellow FreeP staffers relived the tangled tale.

With apologies to the dependable John Brady, perhaps Minnesota should consider Brett Favre-sponsored charter schools. He's one person we know won't go away.

A hello and more wage freezes ...

In the interest of sparing folks a speech about this being an inaugural blog post (I'm sure my lack of blog experience will be readily apparent without an announcement), I offer this story I read today on MinnPost.

Wage freezes are, indeed, sweeping the state. In this area, teachers in Waseca have already accepted a soft freeze to help the district alleviate a $1.3 million budget cut. Ed Waltman (Mankato) and Harold Remme (New Ulm) are only two area superintendents who have already accepted pay reductions.

This spring alone, more than 100 jobs and $10 million were cut from area school budgets. Those are significant numbers in any industry, especially in education where officials are continuing to adjust to rising achievement standards and evolving demands from a workforce that is waiting to replace a generation of baby-boomers with today's learners.

During Monday's meeting of the Mankato Area School Board, officials closed the meeting to the public and began discussing bargaining terms for the upcoming negotiation session with teachers. And while it's too early to tell what the next round of contracts will look like, odds are good that freezes will be a topic of discussion.

I'd be curious to know what people think about wage freezes for teachers. Some would argue that unions have worked against themselves by driving districts into a corner financially and that freezes are not only appropriate, but responsible, in this economy. Others would argue that teachers are already underpaid and undervalued and that further wage loss is too much to ask.

Given the fact that Gov. Tim Pawlenty has proposed frozen education funding through the biennium - and knowing that a district's expenditures rise 2-3 percent each year due to salary raises and increased operating costs - this does not appear to be an issue that will go away soon.