A bill which would have required 65% of teachers at charter schools be state certified appears to be dead.  Sponsor Sen. Vicki Walker (D-Eugene) pulled SB 621 from the Senate floor because it did not have the votes to pass.
 
Originally, the bill would have required that all teachers at charter schools be certified, instead of the current 50%. 
 
There is little correlation between teacher certification and student achievement, as most private and home schools prove year after year. 
 
There are 70 publicly funded charter schools in the state.  They operate independently and are providing a valuable education alternative for Oregon families.
 
This regulation was unnecessary, and intrusive, and I’m pleased that even in the heavily democrat Senate, the bill didn’t have the votes to pass.
 
Read more in the Oregonian or the Statesman Journal.

The Big Bang Theory has new meaning: mention the Bible in biology class, and—BANG!—you’re out of a job. Religious intolerance has reached a fever pitch.

Kris Helphinstine, a high school biology teacher in Sisters, was fired last night for deviating from the established curriculum on evolution by “including biblical references in material he provided students.”

When asked about the incident by the Bend Bulletin, Helphinstine said, “Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry… my whole purpose was to give accurate information and to get them thinking.”

Matt Wingard at the Wingard Report is talking about a school choice bill recently introduced in the legislature.  This looks like a great first step for school choice in Oregon.
 
The School Choice Working Group (which I am a part of in my role with Cascade Policy Institute) has drafted a bill to create 1,000 state-funded scholarships for low-income children in Portland. HB 3010 got its First Reading Monday on the House floor and will now be referred to a committee—most likely the House Education Committee. Twenty-nine legislators co-sponsored the bill—nearly one third of the Oregon State Legislature.
 
HB 3010 creates a pilot project within the poorest neighborhoods in Portland to allow low-income parents the same access to school choice that higher-income Oregonians already enjoy. Here are the basic details of the pilot project:
 
Students Must be Low-income: To enroll, the student must qualify for the federal free-lunch program and live in a neighborhood where a majority of the students in the local public school also qualify for a free-lunch.
 
Qualifying Neighborhoods: Tentatively, the school neighborhoods that would qualify would be Boise-Eliot, Clarendon, Humboldt, King, Lent, Peninsula, Rigler, Rosa Parks, Sitton, Vernon, Whitman, Woodlawn, Woodmere, Binnsmead MS, George, Lane MS, Ockley Green MS, Portsmouth MS, Tubman MS, Jefferson HS and Roosevelt HS.
 
Grant Amount: The grant would be equal to the per-student funding (ADM) amount from the State School Fund—roughly $5,000.
 
No Negative Financial Effect on Portland Public Schools: The Portland School District will not lose any state funding during the pilot project. The point of this element is to remove the money excuse from the people who run PPS.
 
Random Selection: If more than 1,000 qualified students apply, grants will be given out by lottery.
 
Every single legislator who co-sponsored HB 3010 deserves our thanks. The bill’s two Chief Sponsors are public school employees:
State Representative John Dallum was a school superintendent and
State Representative Jerry Krummel is a high school teacher.

Below are the emails of all 29 state legislators who stood up for minority parents in Portland. Courageous lawmakers need to be thanked. Please send them an email:
 
rep.johndallum@state.or.us, rep.jerrykrummel@state.or.us, sen.jasonatkinson@state.or.us, sen.rogerbeyer@state.or.us, sen.garygeorge@state.or.us, sen.larrygeorge@state.or.us, sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us, sen.brucestarr@state.or.us, sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us, rep.brianboquist@state.or.us, rep.tombutler@state.or.us, rep.kevincameron@state.or.us, rep.salesquival@state.or.us, rep.lindaflores@state.or.us, rep.billgarrard@state.or.us, rep.vicgilliam@state.or.us, rep.fredgirod@state.or.us, rep.brucehanna@state.or.us, rep.bobjenson@state.or.us, rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us, rep.ronmaurer@state.or.us, rep.karenminnis@state.or.us, rep.donnanelson@state.or.us, rep.andyolson@state.or.us, rep.dennisrichardson@state.or.us, rep.waynescott@state.or.us, rep.pattismith@state.or.us, rep.kimthatcher@state.or.us, rep.genewhisnant@state.or.us
 
Sign up for the Wingard Report by emailing wingardreport@yahoo.com.        
 

At Oregon Catalyst Matt Wingard is talking about SB 621, and the Oregon Education Association. 
 
I’ve been thinking all day about how best to respond to Senate Bill 621, which appeared at the Oregon State Legislature this week. Nowhere in the bill does SB 621 mention the Oregon Education Association. It doesn’t have to. Besides, the teacher’s union prefers to work behind the scenes. In all public venues (on billboards as well as on their website, for instance) they claim to be fighting for Oregon’s kids. In fact, on their website they say “the top priority of the Oregon Education Association is to ensure that all students in Oregon receive a quality education.”

I challenge anyone to read SB 621 and conclude that the OEA is telling the truth.
Many of you do not have first-hand knowledge of how the teacher’s union in your state operates. Why would you? Unless you’re a teacher who has disagreed with union orthodoxy (or heaven forbid openly supported a candidate for office who supports school choice), or you’ve tried to open a charter school, or fought in the legislature for real education reform, you’d never come into contact with your state’s teacher’s union.

Sometimes I wish I were still ignorant of the union’s deviousness and power. But when you work in and around the public education system it’s impossible not to notice the high percentage of students who are not receiving the “quality education” the OEA claims to desire. The sad fact of the matter is that teacher’s unions are responsible for most of what’s wrong in today’s public education system. If their policies didn’t create the problems, they are often immovable objects to eliminating the problems that have developed.
 
Head on over here to read the rest.

Yesterday, the Governor of Utah signed a bill that will provide vouchers for over half a million kids attending Utah’s public schools. The program, which will begin this fall, will grant vouchers from $500 to $3000 per student, based on the family’s income.

The bill states “parents are presumed best informed to make decisions for their children, including the educational setting that will best serve their children’s interests and educational needs.”

That sounds like common sense to me. Think little Erskine would do best at the public school across the street? Utah will provide for his education. Think the Catholic or Montessori or Scientology gradeschool across town would be best? Utah will help you send him there too. This bill helps parents of every income level make sound educational choices for their children.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Stephen Urquhart went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the bill wouldn’t hurt public schools financially. For funding purposes, schools will be able to count students who transfer for five years. Utah’s public schools are funded through the state’s income tax, and voucher funding will come from the general fund. In the surrounding debate, no one could prove that the program would hurt public schools. Despite this, nearly the entire education establishment opposed the bill.

My main concern with voucher programs in general is that when government provides the funding, they also have the ability to control how that money is spent. But, for now parents may choose any school that meets the following requirements: employs college-educated or skilled teachers, operates outside a residence, enrolls at least 40 students and does not discriminate based on race, color or national origin. They must give parents the results of a standardized test once a year and submit to a financial audit once every four years.

Rep. Urquhart’s blog, www.politicopia.com has great information on the pros and cons of the bill. Check it out, then come back here and discuss.

Do you think Oregon has a chance of passing a similar law? Would you vote for it if you could? What would it take for the education establishment to support voucher programs?

Today the Senate Education and General Government committee passed SB 392. 
 
The Oregon Family Council and the Parent’s Education Association oppose SB 392 for the following three reasons.
 
SB 392 restricts parent’s rights.  Currently, parents have the freedom to decide whether or not their 6-year-old child is emotionally, physically or intellectually ready to begin education at the first grade level.  SB 392 would remove that right, and force parents to begin formal education of their 6-year-old child, regardless of whether the parents believe the child is ready to attend school fulltime.
 
SB 392 may force some parents to homeschool their children.  Parents who decline to place their 6-year-old child in the 1^st grade level at a public or private school would only have one option left: homeschooling.  However, many of these parents may not be able to homeschool effectively, either for financial or capability reaons.  SB 392 would force parents who believe their child is not ready for a traditional school to homeschool, and it is possible that the education would be less-than-satisfactory, leaving the child unprepared for their 2^nd grade experience.
 
SB 392 forces some children to enter 2^nd grade unprepared. Many children will be homeschooled at the first grade level by parents who are left with no other options under the provisions of SB 392, and may not have provided a proficient 1^st grade education to their child.  Nevertheless, these unprepared children will more than likely be placed in the 2^nd grade upon entering the public school system.
 
Call your State Senator and ask them to oppose SB 392 on the Senate Floor.  Parents are responsible for their children, and know them best.  Parents should have the right to direct when their children begin formal education.