Education Funding Improvement Commission Meeting #4 –Must Read!

Yesterday, I attended the Education Funding Improvement Commission Meeting #4. It was held in Dover at 9:00. Former State Representative Scott, who is chairing this committee, thought the timeline which was placed on the commission was very tight. The commission report is due in March. He asked the members if they were in favor of adding additional time so the committee could continue to meet –the committee members present all agreed. One member of the commission, did express that the time of day that they hold these meetings are not convenient for parents and educators. She requested that they hold the next meeting at night.

I am not sure where the commission is heading. There is a great divide with its members. One group of members want to throw out the unit count system completely and the other group of members want to keep the unit count and modify it.

The meetings that I have attended have been more about presenting information then actual discussion. I am not against presentations, it is important to educate members on the issues. My concern is everyone in the room already knows where they stand on the issue. They really need to open up the discussion and figure out which direction are they going to take –removing the unit count completely or keeping it and add weighted funding to it. Once the members decide on this, I believe the members will be able to recommend what needs to be done.

The first presentation was given by Rep. Bambauch and David Blowman. Rep. Bambauch had been working with the Department of Education on this issue for the last year. The Department of Education hired a consultant they had been working with to do the research. The group that prepared the report was Hanover Research. This group only provided data and no recommendations –I had a hard time dissecting the report.

Rep. Bambauch and David Blowman presented a traditional weighted funding model –both of them believe the unit count system needs to be removed and replaced with a weighted formula. Rep. Bambauch commented that the funding system is broken and that funding needs to be fairly distributed throughout the state. Each school would receive a budget and the school principals would have a salary cap (hiring teachers/staff) in place at their schools. He does not believe teachers will be against this. He believes the most important thing teachers want are the necessary resources in place at their schools.

The next presentation was Dr. Marguerite Roza, from Georgetown University, she presented an equitable funding model.  She focused on four reasons to change the formula:  provide equity for students, delivery models are changing and the formula must not stand in the way, simple and transparent, and be outcome focused. Her recommendations were to allocate funds per pupil, ensure funds are flexible, restructure equalization, and build a transparent system.

The next step, in my opinion, should be a vote to see where the members are with the direction of this committee. I am getting the impression there is an agenda in place that not all members of the committee have seen. There seems to be a push for removing the unit count completely and replacing it with one of the models that have been presented over the last few meetings. A letter was drafted by some committee members expressing their concerns about the direction of the committee.

View this document on Scribd

I did make a public comment at the end of the meeting. I suggested that they have more dialogue among the committee members instead of presentations. If they could make sure the Education Funding Improvement Commission website has the meeting dates listed. On their website for yesterday’s meeting it listed the February meeting was “To Be Determined”.  I expressed support for the unit count system but adding weighted student funding for ELL, poverty and basic special education kindergarten through 3rd grades.

Below, is a link to information and presentations associated with this commission. The next meeting will be held sometime in March.

Education Funding Improvement Commission website.

 

 

 

Newark Charter School will only accept five year olds into their kindergarten program

Over the weekend, Rep. John Kowalko emailed me concerning a family whose choice application was pulled from the lottery because their daughter did not turn five during a specific time frame. They were told that they would not be allowed to apply to kindergarten for the 2016-2017 school year. Newark Charter School’s board recently voted to change their admission’s policy pertaining to students who apply to Newark Charter School for kindergarten. Prior to the board’s vote, children had to be five years old at the time of admission. Below is Newark Charter School’s new policy:

All Kindergarten applicants must turn five years of age in the period from September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2016 to apply for KN in the 2016-2017 lottery

I am not sure what Newark Charter School’s reasoning is for changing their policy. There are many reasons why a family may decide to hold their child back a year from starting kindergarten. Many children have late summer birthdays, a disability, or some children just need that additional year.

This family’s child has a physical disability which impacts her fine motor skills and limits the use of her hands and arms. During a parent/teacher conference last spring, the pre-school recommended that the child be retained for an additional year. The family reached out to their feeder school and the feeder school had no objection.

The family reached out to Newark Charter School and it is my understanding the Board of Directors and the Department of Education stated that Newark Charter School followed all proper procedures.

Over the weekend, I wrote to Secretary Godowsky about this family and my concerns over Newark Charter School’s new policy only allowing students who turn five to be entered into the lottery.  I asked Secretary Godowsky if Newark Charter School’s new admission’s policy had been approved by their authorizer?  I did some researching of Title 14 and found some language that I thought would be helpful to the family –Title 14 – Chapter 27 allowed a family to delay kindergarten one year if the child had been evaulated.

Title 14 – Chapter 27 – School Attendance allows for a family to request a one year delay if the child has been evaluated. The family had their child evaluated the year before, so I assumed this part of the code would apply to them. I pointed this out to all parties involved.

The child was entered into last night’s lottery, she is on the waiting list. I am not sure who made the decision to add her name to the lottery and I am not sure why they made the decision — I am just glad the student was entered.  I still have an issue about Newark Charter School’s current policy. Why was the change made? Is it legal? If it is legal, is Newark Charter School obligated to point out the section of Delaware Code to applicants that there is an exception to their policy? I am still trying to get my questions answered.

ATTENDING A PUBLIC SCHOOL SHOULD NOT BE THIS DIFFICULT. If the family did not reach out to Rep. Kowalko, their child would have not been entered into the lottery.

(c) The following provisions shall be applicable to the administration of subsection (a) of this section in regard to compulsory attendance in the kindergarten for a child age 5 years:

 (1) If a child is a resident of the State at the time of that child’s eligibility for admission to the kindergarten at age 5, the parents, guardian or legal custodian of that child may request that school authorities evaluate the child’s readiness for attendance and may request a delay of 1 year in that attendance. However, admission to first grade will be authorized only after schoolauthorities evaluate the child’s readiness for attendance.