close

The Mississippi Justice Institute filed an appellate brief in the Mississippi Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center challenging the constitutionality of charter school funding in Mississippi.

The brief was filed on Friday, November 9.

MJI represents several parents of children who attend charter schools in Mississippi, and urged the Mississippi Supreme Court to affirm a trial court’s ruling that the funding for charter schools is constitutional.

The appeal is being handled by MJI Director, Aaron Rice, and MJI pro bono counsel, Michael B. Wallace, a shareholder in the law firm of Wise Carter Child & Caraway, P.A.  MJI joined with the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office, MidTown Public Charter Schools, and the Mississippi Charter School Association in filing the joint brief.

The Mississippi Justice Institute is the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.  It represents Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions.

The Mississippi Justice Institute is supported by voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. It receives no funds from government agencies for its operations.  To learn more about MJI, visit www.msjustice.org.

A school district in Mississippi appears to have backtracked from comments that appeared in a recent article detailing the district’s new proposed policy for homeschool students.

According to the Delta Democrat Times, Greenville Public School District Deputy Superintendent Glenn Dedeaux said the district is “legally responsible to ensure every child of educating age receives an adequate education” and he warned that not all homeschool curricula “are approved by the Mississippi Department of Education to meet the necessary standards.”

Dedeaux also implied that homeschoolers must take subject matter tests to graduate.

Regardless of what you may or may not think about homeschooling, these comments run counter to Mississippi law. Indeed, Mississippi has one of the most parent-friendly homeschool laws in the country.

Mississippi code specifically says:

[I]t is not the intention of this section to impair the primary right and the obligation of the parent . . . to choose the proper education and training” for their child, “and nothing in this section shall ever be construed to grant, by implication or otherwise, to the State of Mississippi . . . any right or authority to control, manage, supervise or make any suggestion as to the control, management or supervision” of the private education of children. Further, “this section shall never be construed so as to grant, by implication or otherwise, any right or authority to any state agency or other entity to control, manage, supervise, provide for or affect the operation, management, program, curriculum, admissions policy or discipline of any such school or home instruction program.

To homeschool in Mississippi, a family must file a certificate of enrollment with the school attendance officer where the family resides. They must do this by September 15. Beyond that, parents have the freedom to make their own education decisions for their children.

While there is not official data on the number of homeschoolers in Mississippi, estimates put it at around 17,000 students statewide. If homeschoolers were a single district, they would be the fourth largest district in the state.

Dan Beasley, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association, reached out to Dedeaux. Dedeaux said he was misquoted in the original article. And, to his credit, he understands he has no authority over which program a homeschool family selects.

Mississippi families who choose to homeschool their children should not be susceptible to illegal attempts by school districts to regulate their education.

Dubbed the "wild west" of charter schooling by detractors, Arizona is showing that a model that provides parents with numerous choices, and bottom-up autonomy, works.

Two years ago, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NASCA) gave Mississippi the eighth highest score on their policy analysis of state charter laws. At the same time, Arizona came in at just 18th.

In the eyes of organizations like NASCA and others, states like Arizona do not have the necessary regulations in place concerning key issues like renewal standards, academic performance, or a default closure provision. And they don’t perform authorizer evaluations.

Mississippi took a different approach and developed a “model” charter law that was based on best practices from NASCA and similar organizations. But as we have seen, charters have been slow to open in Mississippi. Not because of lack of interest among operators or parents, but because of the process of authorizing charter schools in Mississippi.

This year, 16 different operators proposed opening a total of 17 schools across the state.The prior two years, 18 operators filed similar letters of intent to begin the charter school application process. Yet just five schools are currently opened for this school year, with one more coming in 2019.

Arizona, on the other hand, has approximately 600 schools serving north of 185,000 students. That accounts for about 20 percent of public school enrollment in the state. Deemed the “wild west” by detractors, over the past five years some 200 schools have opened with about 100 closing. Those numbers aren’t because of a law, either for better or for worse. But because parents in Arizona now recognize that they are empowered to choose the right school for their child.

Administrative attempts to shut down a public school, regardless of how poor it is doing on test scores or other measures we commonly look at, is not an easy task. You are usually met with a fierce opposition of loyal parents and potentially lawsuits as well. For the most part, Arizona parents have moved beyond that.

Arizona parents don't wait for a school to get better

They move on. It is parents who are now closing poor performing schools, not the government. Of those schools that closed, they were open on average just four years (even with a 15 year reauthorization window) and had only 62 students their final year. Without government intervention, parents were able to determine what wasn’t working.

We shy away from using words like “market” when it comes to education, but that is exactly what is happening. After all, parents have the ability to make a choice.

So it’s a different model, but how is it working? After all, our focus should be outcomes and not intention.

A review of the most recent NAEP scores among Arizona’s charter students helps to answer that question.

Beyond the overall numbers, perhaps more newsworthy, Arizona charter schools have also boosted the largest gains in the country over the past eight years among all four tests. No state showed more progress in terms of points gain between 2009 and 2017 (when Arizona charter schools are compared to the 50 individual states).

A couple other important points to make. While Arizona’s 8th grade students are competing with a traditional top-performing state like Massachusetts, the similarities stop there. Arizona is educating a high-minority population while Massachusetts (and similar states) are largely white. At the same time, Arizona spends about half of what Massachusetts spends per student.

Today, 84 percent of zip codes in Arizona have a charter school, the highest percentage in the country. Mississippi’s new to the charter game so it’s not a fair comparison. But that number is a rounding error in the state.

By making options available in large numbers, also known as supply, and giving power to choose to parents, also known as demand, we see a successful bottom-up accountability system.

The first public charter school opened in Mississippi more than two decades after our nation’s first charter school welcomed students in Minnesota. Today, five years after state legislators finally allowed charter schools to operate in our state, it is safe to say that charter approvals continue at the same snail’s pace.

The Mississippi Charter Authorizer Board recently voted to allow a new school, Ambition Prep, to open in West Jackson next year. It was the only school to be greenlighted by the state in this cycle, though two other proposals were tabled for consideration in October.

In 2018, 16 different operators proposed opening a total of 17 schools across the state from the Coast to Jackson to the Delta. The prior two years, 18 operators filed similar letters of intent to begin the charter school application process.

But when Ambition Prep opens it will be just the sixth charter school in the state, with all but one in Jackson.

Educational entrepreneurs are interested in opening schools. And parents are interested in options. Despite the small footprint, 15-20 percent of public school students in Jackson who attend a grade that is also served by a charter school are enrolled in charter schools. And that number will only increase.

Yet in light of the slow-growing sector, limited enrollment, and swelling wait lists, we wonder whose opinion matters more when it comes to educational choice – government or parents’?

Our charter law emphasizes a rigorous application process and “high quality” schools. Yet this bottleneck has created much greater pressure for early charter schools and a less dynamic and attractive environment for new operators to enter. The restriction of charter applications to D and F-rated districts most recently left the authorizer board torn between rejecting or approving an application faster than they would like to, in the event the district’s grade changes and invalidates the nearly successful proposal.

In advance of the release of school grades, state superintendent Carey Wright cautioned against judging charter schools too quickly, since they face unique start-up and environmental challenges along with the added pressure of serving students far behind academically. But the law makes this reasonable approach difficult: schools have a very narrow timeframe in which to meet certain state-determined guidelines or be shut down.

A different approach

Many years ago, Arizona took a different approach to charters than Mississippi. In Arizona, charters have a 15-year window rather than just a 5-year window to stay in business, as they do here. But most schools take far fewer than 15 years to prove their worth. And instead of the state stepping in to close poor-performing schools, parents do.

Over the past five years, more than 200 charters schools have opened in the Grand Canyon State. In the same five years, 100 other schools have closed. The average charter school that closes in Arizona is open just four years and has an average of 62 students in its final year. Parents don’t wait for the state to say if a charter is or isn’t meeting government benchmarks. They make a determination themselves. The charter sector grows according to demand, not top-down controls, ensuring that parents can make decisions about their child’s education without delay, rather than waiting for years to have a school or seat open up. Families also have many schools to choose from if one is not the right fit.

The data shows us that choice produces better student outcomes than tight government regulations.

In 2017, National Assessment of Education Progress, or NAEP, scores showed Arizona charters again performing as high as or better than traditionally top-performing states like Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey. Arizona did this while spending half of what those states spend and educating a high-minority student population.

Schools like Jackson Academy, Jackson Prep, St. Andrew’s, St Joe’s, MRA, Hartfield, and others compete for students every day. They sell themselves on why consumers, parents, should send their children to their school. And parents make decisions on where to enroll their children based on a host of reasons, ranging from academics to athletics, from values to extracurricular activities. This has created a robust private school market in the area. Why shouldn’t public schools of choice work similarly?

We’re glad leaders in Mississippi are working to create more public education options for those who want them. But the slow pace of opening charters, and the limitations on where they can be located or who can attend, is not leading to a responsive charter marketplace anytime soon. In these early stages of development, Mississippi has the opportunity to learn from other states and decide if parent demand and satisfaction should play a greater role in the charter approval process.

After all, what’s working for Arizona just might work here too.

This column appeared in The Northside Sun on September 20, 2018. 

Sending piles of extra money to district schools, either via taxpayers or celebrities, has not produced the outcomes we’re continually promised. Real reform comes from a fresh start.

While LeBron James is and will continue to be recognized as one of the great basketball players of all time, he has also worked tirelessly to become the sports hero of the left. He constantly receives fawning praise from the media, and the few who dare to second-guess him are instantly branded racists.

Ohioans love what James does on the basketball court. His politics? Not so much. In 2016, James took to the campaign trail to stump for Hillary Clinton. She went on to lose the Buckeye state by nine points. Donald Trump accumulated a larger percentage of the vote in Ohio than Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton ever did in winning it.

As James left for Los Angeles to play basketball for the Lakers, as a parting gift of sorts and to much fanfare he announced the opening a new school for at-risk students in Akron, Ohio. If you only read the press clippings or watched ESPN, you would assume James was paying for the entire I Promise school and its reoccurring costs. This would not be unheard of for wealthy individuals or their foundations.

However, it is a public school, and Ohio taxpayers are footing most of the bill. James and his foundation are spending about $2 million in the school’s first year, and would spend $2 million or more a year as the school grows. But the public school district is still paying more than half the costs, perhaps up to 75 percent. This is all to be determined.

The district owns the building. The district pays for teachers and administrators. The students ride district buses. The district will cover these expenses by shifting students, teachers, and money from other district schools.

Don’t get me wrong, James is doing an honorable thing, but as a percentage of his net worth or annual income, this is the equivalent of the average person making a $500 annual donation to the local church. The important question to consider is: what changes will occur as a result of this outlay?

Can Public Schools Improve Themselves?

Beyond the issue of who is paying, I Promise has no incentive to innovate or be any different than other district schools. The kids will get bikes, and some other perks such as paid college tuition. The school will be operated by the same district it was previously. Union contracts are the same, meaning employment and financial flexibility will still be lacking. The kids will just be in a newly refurbished building.

We’ve seen celebrities dump large amounts of cash into public schools before, with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Newark, New Jersey as the most recent example. The results? Not so good. The problem?

“Zuckerberg envisioned the teacher contract reform to be a centerpiece of the reform and contributed $50 million — half of his total donation — to go to working on that cause. Zuckerberg wanted to be able to create more flexibility in teacher contracts to reward high-performing teachers and to fire teachers with poor records of student achievement. Those types of protections are determined by New Jersey law, and Zuckerberg couldn’t simply come in and change the rules without going through the state legislature to make the changes,” Business Insider reported.

The New Jersey legislature agreed on some new accountability measures for teacher contracts, but only if seniority protections remained. Seniority rules that require hiring and firing teachers not based on a school’s need for their skills or the teacher’s quality are one of the key barriers to improving public schools.

Billionaires Often Aren’t Very Good at Fixing Schools

This story has been told before. In 1993, philanthropist Walter Annenberg wanted to improve education by spending $500 million on public schools. With matching grants, that total ballooned to $1.1 billion. What was the outcome?

According to an assessment from the Consortium on Chicago School Research, “Findings from large-scale survey analyses, longitudinal field research, and student achievement test score analyses reveal that…there is little evidence of an overall Annenberg school improvement effect.” Essentially, the schools that received Annenberg’s money did no better than peers that did not.

Again, the policies that stifle innovation and progress don’t disappear because a famous person makes a charitable donation. Often, rich people hire advisors from the same system they’re hoping to reform, rather than people with a proven record of benefiting students. After all, spending more money on education is something we taxpayers have been doing for some time. Just look at this chart:

Since 1970, much to the chagrin of those who constantly complain about how much we spend on education, education spending has tripled (adjusted for inflation), while math and reading scores have remained virtually unchanged. In my home state of Mississippi, the increase is closer to “only” 150 percent, which is still not insignificant. The bottom line on test scores, however, follows national trends. Sending piles of extra money to district schools, either via taxpayers or celebrities, has not produced the outcomes anyone would like to see.

Successful Philanthropists Started Fresh

That is because district schools have stubbornly refused to change and been slow to adapt. We have seen educational entrepreneurs and businessmen become heavily involved in the charter and private school markets, rather than in public school reform, with much success. In New York City, Success Academy Charter Schools are showing that every child can thrive if they are in the right environment.

“Of the New York City charter network’s 5,800 students who took a standardized test, 95 percent passed the math test and 84 percent passed reading. As a comparison, 41 percent of New York City’s public school students passed the reading test and 38 percent passed the math test. This achievement comes from a charter school student group made up of 95 percent children of color and whose families have a median income of $32,000. The five-highest performing districts in New York’s public schools have less than 10 percent students of color and family median incomes ranging from $130,000 to $290,000, according to a Success Academy analysis,” education site The 74 notes.

The amazing results continue for students with special needs and who are homeless. Despite the criticisms that any large charter network receives, the network had 17,000 applications for just 3,000 open seats last year. Politics aside, parents just want what is best for their children.

In 2007, North Carolina businessman Bob Luddy opened Thales Academy to provide students a classical education at about half the price of area private schools, or around $6,000 per student. Luddy, who made his fortune as the owner of CaptiveAire, the nation’s leading manufacturer of commercial kitchen ventilation systems, operates Thales like a business.

His schools cost about half of what district schools spend to build. They don’t have auditoriums because those are too expensive to maintain. They save on personnel. Class sizes are larger, demonstrating their efficiency the way a business strives to create more products with fewer employees.

And it’s working. Today, one school has turned into six, with 25 Thales schools in planning stages in Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. “In business we look at outcomes, did we gain sales, did we please our customers? Schools don’t look at it this way. We have a big building. We have sports. They’re all inputs,” Luddy says. Luddy is slowly working to change that, and he’s seeing a significant success with this innovative approach.

Innovation in Mississippi

In my home state, Cena Holifield had a vision to educate students with dyslexia. So she built a school that provides comprehensive dyslexia therapy for young students, and she did so at a time when most district schools did not, certainly not at the level you can receive at the 3-D School.

Parents from all over Mississippi, and even neighboring states, choose the 3-D School, even if it means breaking up their family for a few years. Because of the demand, the school now has two campuses, the original location near Hattiesburg and one on the coast in Ocean Springs.

T. Mac Howard had the vision of providing at-risk students in the Mississippi Delta with a high-quality education, which is very hard to come by for those without the financial resources. After beginning with an after-school program, he founded Delta Streets Academy, and today boys in Greenwood who otherwise would not have this option can now receive a great education at a minimal cost thanks to Howard’s vision and generous investors.

Those who become involved in education do so for noble reasons. Time will tell if James’ entrance into education is any different than that of other big givers who have spent heavily on district schools. For students and taxpayers in Akron, let’s hope it does. But the evidence makes it look like a very long shot.

This column appeared in the The Federalist on August 20, 2018. 

In Janus vs. AFSCME, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in favor of Mark Janus, a government worker in Illinois.

In the ruling, the Court restored First Amendment rights for Janus and all public sector workers. No longer will public sector employees be required to fund political agendas they disagree with. You can enjoy freedom of speech and association, even if you work for the government.

In addition, the way government unions will extract fees from members has changed. The union will now need public sector employees to “affirmatively consent,” or opt-in to pay dues, rather than being required to opt-out, something that unions often made very difficult.

The full impact of Janus on unions will be determined in the future. It is almost guaranteed that they will lose members, and therefore dues, because of the ruling. And by extension, political clout. In “closed-shop” states, those that are not right-to-work, the way the system generally worked was unions helped elect friendly politicians and those same politicians would choose to raise taxes or cut other programs before they would suggest cuts to pay or benefits for government workers. Not exactly a model for fiscal responsibility.

Unions have generally put on a positive front after Janus. But the question has long been, what will they do? Will they moderate in an effort to hold on to members who are not liberal Democrats? After all, only half of all teachers voted for Hillary Clinton. If recent conventions from America’s largest teachers’ unions tell us anything, the problem appears to be that the unions are actually not liberal enough.

The National Education Association (NEA), of which the Mississippi Association of Educators (MAE) is an affiliate, racked up these accomplishments at their recent convention:

All business items are available for viewing here.

As for the nation’s other large teachers union, the American Federation for Teachers, they also got in on the fun of letting anyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren know they are not welcomed. Or at the very least, they do not have a voice.

In fact, Warren spoke at the convention. Along with her fellow senator, Bernie Sanders. The only person who could top Warren and Sanders was Hillary Clinton, and she was there as well. Among the issues AFT is demanding:

This is a crucial time for all government unions, including teachers unions. But they have made it perfectly clear what they are all about;and who is welcomed in their camps. Teachers unions may sounds nice because we all know teachers and we have all been impacted by teachers, but there is a world of difference between what teachers are doing in the classroom and what is coming out of the headquarters of AFT or NEA.

Not only do teachers unions stand against every student-centered education reform measure, they are fully aligned with far left ideology, whether it has anything to do with education or not.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has spoken and individuals no longer have to pay for and be part of speech they disagree with as a condition of employment.

A survey of Tennessee’s voluntary state funded preschool program found statistically significant negative results for children who enrolled in the program compared to those that did not.

There have been numerous studies on early childhood education in the past that proponents will likely point to in an attempt to discredit this survey. But this is the first randomized control test, or “gold standard” study. Because the program was oversubscribed, researchers were able to randomize the sample and provide a control group.

As we have often seen, this study showed some positive effects on student achievement at the end of preschool, but those gains have dissipated as the children enter elementary school. Specifically, by third grade, the survey found statistically-significant adverse actions on student math and science achievement and no significant effects on reading achievement.

These results don’t mix with the popular narrative of the day: that preschool is a wonderful thing, it is popular, and we would be better off if every parent began enrolling their child in a program at three years old. And because parents aren’t doing this, that is why their children may struggle when they hit kindergarten. That is the message from many politicians and the media.

Mississippi is headed in that direction

Mississippi began its journey into state funded preschool five years ago. Proponents celebrated that we were “finally” doing something. At the time, Mississippi Center for Public Policy was one of the few groups willing to speak out against such a program. As is often the case, legislators push a program because it sounds good or feels right without looking at the unintended consequences.

Mississippi has many wonderful private preschool providers. Many are run by churches, others by private schools or some other private enterprise. But they are competing with one another. They compete for students and the tuition needed to stay in business. That is healthy.

And parents can then choose the best program- for their family. That decision may be based on curriculum, or some other factor that is important to them such as whether the program is three days or five days or if it is a half day or full day. And it will usually involve talking with friends or scouring Facebook or other websites for reviews.

Beyond that, preschool isn’t necessarily the preferred early childhood education format for every family. Data shows it’s not and we see parents becoming very flexible for their children. If one parent can’t stay at home full time, many parents adjust their schedule so one parent can always be at home. Or they start working from home. Or they have relatives or friends watch their child. Again, there are options that families are taking advantage of.

Parents still offer the best childcare

For those who are fans of regulations, you will like the Tennessee program. The state mandates the minimum length of daily instructional time and the maximum size of a classroom. All teachers need a state license and each school has to choose among a set of approved curricula. So, very much like elementary and secondary school. And the results weren’t that much different.

What children need are involved parents. This has not changed, and will not change. Family is the building block of society and parents are responsible for raising their children. Children who stayed at home in Tennessee were better off than children who were enrolled in the program.

The debate today is similar to any time large government programs were born and expanded. In the 1960s, there was a perception that families and churches aren’t meeting all the needs for those in poverty, so the assumption is that government must step in. That’s the wrong step to take.

Yes, poverty programs solved some short-term problems, but they created the long-term perception that government was going to take care of people, inadvertently leading to more single-parent families. And the poverty rate remains virtually unchanged.

There is a belief that if something is wrong then only government can solve it. And as time passes, the government program only becomes larger and the private or non-profit sector shrinks before it disappears. We then begin living under the impression that this is government’s responsibility, regardless of how poorly government is functioning.

A parent friendly solution

Many parents like the idea of state funded early childhood education because it would remove a financial burden. That is understandable, but the state can do that without usurping the role of the private sector, and the family. And moving children from a good setting to a free, but poor, setting.

The federal government offers tax credits to help with childcare costs, and the state could do something similar. Rather than investing tax dollars in programs at state approved preschools, that same money could be returned to families for their child’s needs via tax credits. Families would be helped, the private sector would flourish, and government would not be expanded.

Mississippi Center for Public Policy recently signed on to a national letter urging the United States Department of Education to rescind a “Dear Colleague” letter from the Obama administration regarding school discipline.

This letter warned school districts that received federal funding against disparate outcomes in the implementation of their school discipline policies.

“As attorneys in the conservative movement, we believe that the suspension ‘Dear Colleague’ letter is not only poor public policy – studies have shown it has a negative impact on academic performance – but also an illegal exercise of federal administrative power and an unjustified intrusion into state and local matters," the letter said.

You can read the full letter below. 

[pdf-embedder url="https://mspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-12-DeVos-dear-colleague-letter-Final-002.pdf" title="2018-06-12 DeVos dear colleague letter (Final) (002)"]

Victory for charter schools in Mississippi

Mississippi Justice Institute and other defendants protect constitutionality of charter schools according to trial court

 (JACKSON) – Hinds County Chancery Judge Dewayne Thomas ruled today in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of charters schools in Mississippi. Judge Thomas ruled in favor of the charter schools and their parents, and against the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) Director Shadrack White, who represents the parents of charter school students, said, “This is a critical victory for the parents and their children who attend charter schools in Mississippi. Judge Thomas saw that the constitution does not trap my clients in their traditional public schools when public charter schools provide a better option. These parents know what’s best for their children.”

The charter lawsuit turned on whether the Mississippi Constitution allowed funding from state and local governments to be spent at charter schools. “Our case was simple,” said White. “My clients pay taxes, so they should have the right to take that money to a public charter school if that is a better option for their children. These schools are making their lives better. The plaintiffs in this case, however, had an extreme argument: that the funding for charter schools, agricultural schools, some alternative schools, and other types of non-traditional public schools should be barred.”

“As this case marches forward, I am going to continue thinking about all the good that charter schools have done for my clients, like Gladys Overton and her daughter Drew,” said White. “When we started this case, Gladys told us that, in her old school, Drew experienced nonstop bullying and a difficult classroom environment. Drew moved to ReImagine Prep, a charter school in Jackson, and today she is thriving. She was the most improved student in her class last year and, like every other student at ReImagine, is learning computer coding skills to prepare her for the workforce.”

“Students like Drew are who we fight for,” added White.

####

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram