That is indeed how it works. I'm not picking on Patterson Park Charter because it happens with all of these dozen schools. So the state and the city allots funding to these non-profits who then give it to a specific school as a donation. THIS IS A BACKDOOR WAY TO FUND EACH SCHOOL DIFFERENTLY AND CHOOSE WINNERS AND LOSERS....ALL ILLEGAL UNDER EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS. So as some schools are closed for inadequate student performance we see that these schools have the resources that may be giving them an edge. We want all students to have this edge.
There was a huge education funding issue as regards Baltimore in that the Thornton agreement made as a commitment for funding for the state kept being slowly defunded statewide and that hurts Baltimore ever more. As you see below the base funding and what schools get from the state are two different things and in each case it is the same Enterprise Zone schools getting the extra funding.
We are hearing that schools will be closed according to achievement and students will be faced with more strict grading as passing and failing become tougher. This would not be a problem if all schools received equal funding.....IT BECOMES A HUGE PROBLEM WHEN CHILDREN ARE SELECTED ACCORDING TO WHERE THEY LIVE!!!
BELOW YOU WILL SEE ADDITIONAL STATE AND CITY FUNDING TO SELECT SCHOOLS WHEN MOST OTHER SCHOOLS ARE BEING MADE TO MAKE ENDS MEET WITH WHAT IS THE STANDARD FUNDING MODEL.
Let's look at University of Maryland and how it now gives grants to selected schools. This is a public university that receives state funding and federal grants that are now sending money to individual schools:
University of Maryland sends the following:
Ben Franklin at Masonville Cove School $20,000
Furman Templeton Elem 10,000
Samuel Taylor 10,000
Wolfe St Academy 20,000
Augusta Fells Savage 76,256
THIS IS A MARYLAND STATE FUNDED PROGRAM THAT SELECTS WHICH SCHOOLS WILL RECEIVE EXTRA STATE FUNDING IN THIS CASE FOR MUCH NEEDED COMMUNITY CENTERS.
21st Century Community Learning Centers
The purpose of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) is to create community learning centers that provide students with academic enrichment opportunities as well as additional services designed to complement their regular academic program. The participants must provide services to students, and families of students who primarily attend schools eligible for Title I school-wide programs or schools that serve a high percentage of students from low-income families.
I JUST WANT TO SAY YET AGAIN......ALMOST ALL OF THESE SCHOOLS ARE TARGETED TO BECOME AFFLUENT AS THEY ARE IN ENTERPRISE ZONES YET THESE PROGRAMS ARE BEING ESTABLISHED AS HELPING THE UNDERSERVED. THESE FUNDS WILL BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE.
Arlington Elem $266,436
MLK Elem 266,436
Margaret Brent Elem 338,990
(Village Learning Place)
Patterson High School 132,700
(YMCA Central Md)
Bay Brook Elem 8,760
Maryland Human Resources Department
pays for the following school staff with Child First:
Calvin Rodwell Elem $32,362
Bay Brook Elem 12,876
Barclay Elem 18,836
Baltimore City Public Schools
pays for Child First:
Calvin Rodwell Elem $17,606
Bay Brook Elem 1,983
Barclay Elem 14,016
DO YOU LIKE UNDER ARMOUR WRITING YOUR EDUCATION POLICY WHILE DONATING TO THE PRIVATE NON-PROFIT FOR A TAX WRITE-OFF? THAT IS HOW MAYOR RAWLINGS-BLAKE AND GOV MARTIN O'MALLEY ROLL.....
The growing reliance on private money to fund public education Posted on August 15, 2011 Education Speaks.org
Back in early August a group of private donors, led by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, donated $1.5 million in private funding that will allow students across the state to take the New York State Education Department Regents Exams in January 2012.
This idea of private philanthropists stepping in to help SED meet its responsibility to students has raised eyebrows across the state. On the one hand, there are some who argue that private monies already fund most education in New York — in the form of school taxes. On the other, there is a growing concern that private donors are using philanthropy in a way that pressures government to follow their public policy agendas.
“Regents Pay a Political Price for Their Free Advisers, Dissenters Warn,” an article in today’s New York Times, outlines concerns about New York’s privately funded Regents Fellows program and the role these “free” advisers will play in determining education policy.
Do you think the Fellows program is “a way to add resources and expertise at a time of severe budget cutting” as Chancellor Tisch says? Or should New Yorkers be concerned that the majority of the funding for the program seems to come from folks that are viewed by many in the education reform movement to be advancing an agenda of high-stakes testing and charter schools?
BELOW YOU SEE MY STANDARD ARGUMENT AGAINST THE KIND OF EVALUATIONS WE ARE SEEING UNFOLD. I WANT TO USE THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF MY CURRENT DISCUSSION OF THE EXTREMES IN DIFFERENCE IN FUNDING IN BALTIMORE AS NON-PROFITS AND PRIVATE DONORS PAD THE BUDGETS OF SELECTED SCHOOLS.
HOW DO YOU EVALUATE A SCHOOL OR TEACHER IN A SYSTEM THAT HAS NO STANDARDS REGARDING FUNDING? YOU CAN'T!!
Let's be clear about this new push towards data and accountability in school achievement. Everyone wants schools/students to achieve but we recognize that achievement declines were the result of education policy sent to us by these same elite schools back in the early 1990s fundamentally changing how teachers taught in the classroom. Reversing these policies are all that is needed to return to the best in the world classrooms and achievement..it is very simple regardless of what the education technology industry wants you to believe. In the 1990s teachers were told, and I was one of them, to stop using text books in the classroom...they stopped creativity and innovation we were told. We were also told to allow children to use calculators in class even as teachers protested that the students would not learn basic math if they simply tapped into calculators. Education leaders at the national level ignored concerns and this is why we have children who cannot read or do math. It was deliberate education policy by these same elite schools now telling us we need all of this education technology and data collection to improve education. It is simply a Wall Street tech bubble.
The evaluation of student/teacher are not necessarily bad. Almost all academics agree is that these tools have not had time to be developed and accessed and do not provide useful information at this point.
Maryland's new school metric Our view: A new method of measuring school progress crunches lots more data, but is it too complex and difficult for parents who aren't mathematicians to comprehend?
12:20 p.m. EST, December 19, 2012 Baltimore Sun
The new system for measuring school progress announced by the Maryland State Department of Education this week is being touted as a great advance over the one it replaces. State officials say the School Progress Index aims to cut in half the percentage of students who fail to score proficient or better on standardized tests by 2017 and that it sets more realistic targets for what schools can achieve. Yet its complexity and the lack of transparency regarding how school performance is calculated are enough to raise questions about whether the new system really represents much of an improvement over the old.
Maryland developed the School Progress Index in order to receive a federal waiver from the requirements of the Bush-era federal No Child Left Behind Act. Under that law, schools were judged to be failing if they didn't make "adequate yearly progress" in boosting test scores in reading and math, leading toward 100 percent proficiency in both subjects by 2014.
No Child Left Behind's greatest success was to focus national attention on the quality of American schools compared to those in other leading countries. But it also had a number of unintended consequences that undermined its usefulness, including encouraging states to lower standards and, in some instances, pushing teachers and principals to resort to cheating in order to show progress.
When it became apparent that even many otherwise high-performing schools — not just in Maryland but around the country — were in danger of being labeled failing because they couldn't meet the law's requirement for 100 percent proficiency by 2014, Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced he would grant waivers to states that agreed to embrace the Obama administration's school reform goals. In May, Maryland became one of 34 states whose applications for waivers have been approved.
Maryland's waiver allowed it to develop its own standards for evaluating schools, and the system it came up with breaks the process down to three key indicators: achievement, growth and gap reduction. The first measures the percentage of all students scoring proficient or better on standardized tests who are on track to meet the targets set for that school. The second indicator, growth, measures the change in student performance from year to year; and the third, gap reduction, measures how much progress a school has made toward reducing the performance gap between its highest- and lowest-performing students and groups of students.
Breaking down the factors that go into assessing each school's overall performance gives educators a far more granular view of where schools are succeeding as well as where improvements are needed. But it also requires some mighty data crunching to yield the weighted numerical indexes used to score each school's performance, and not everyone will find their meaning easy to grasp.
Calculating the School Progress Index for a single elementary-middle school, for example, involves manipulating a matrix of no fewer than 49 separate data points which, when run through the system's computers, produce an overall score expressed numerically as a value between 0 and 1. Parents who aren't professional statisticians could easily drive themselves crazy trying to figure out what the numbers mean for their child's fourth-grade reading class.
And they shouldn't have to. There are few things more frustrating than being presented with a barely comprehensible statistical measure that tells people little about what they really want to know. Of course, as people become more familiar with the new system and how it works, those concerns may fade. Parents are pretty resourceful when it comes to judging whether the school their kids attend is doing its job, and to the trained eye of an educator, the numbers paint a much more detailed and in-depth picture of a school's strengths and weaknesses while pointing to multiple paths toward needed improvements.
The importance of the new metric may still boil down to the same kinds of questions the No Child Left Behind law set out to answer: Are students making steady progress toward proficiency in math and reading? Are they developing the skills they will need to graduate and be successful in college or the work world? Are the achievement gaps along racial, ethnic and class lines being reduced? Given the choice between the overly simplistic No Child Left Behind pass/fail system and one that may prove too complex, we'll take the latter. It at least provides useful tools for administrators, principals and teachers to improve performance. But we hope state officials will work to translate its findings in a way that is readily accessible to parents and students, too.