The Gloucester Times reports that:
Chester’s endorsement of the school came against the advice of charter school experts in his own office, which had recommended that the Gloucester application “not be approved,” along with the two other charter bids this year.
In his request to Chester, acquired by the Times through the state’s public records law, Reville warned that rejecting all three charters would get the Patrick administration “permanently labeled as hostile” to charter schools, something that would “cripple us with a number of key, moderate allies like the (Boston) Globe and Boston Foundation.”
Boston Foundation? Is Secretary Reville saying that the Boston Foundation is a lobbying group for charter schools? Is this the group that wrote a “report” that charter lobbyists continually cite as a reason to expand Commonwealth Charters?
Anyway, it seems that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education determined that the Gloucester charter school should not be approved. Reville then tells Chester that the Gloucester proposal is a bitter pill that needs to be swallowed for political reasons. Only problem, it’s the taxpayers of Gloucester who are the ones who are being force-fed this bitter pill by the state. And they want to lift the charter school cap so more communities will need to swallow bitter, poision pills for political expediency?
Here is a text of the Reville email, as published by the Gloucester Times:
From: Reville, Paul
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 11:54 p.m.
To: Chester, Mitchell D. (DOE)
Subject: charters
Mitchell,
Hope all’s well and warm in AZ. I appreciated our talk today and your openness and flexibility. This situation presents one of those painful dilemmas. In addition to being a no-win situation, it forces us into a political cul de sac where we could be permanently trapped. Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we’ll get permanently labeled as hostile and they will cripple us with a number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation. Frankly, I’d rather fight for the kids in the Waltham situation, but it sounds like you can’t find a solid basis for standing behind that one. I’m not inclined to push Worcester, so that leaves Gloucester. My inclination is to think that you, I and the Governor all need to send at least one positive signal in this batch, and I gather that you think the best candidate is Gloucester. Can you see your way clear to supporting it? Would you want to do the financial trigger even in light of likely stimulus aid?
Thanks for not seeing this as an independence issue. It really is a matter of positioning ourselves so that we can be viable to implement the rest of our agenda. It’s a tough but I think necessary pill to swallow. Let’s discuss some more tomorrow.
Paul
What does Deval do about Gloucester and what does he do about Reville? He has already asked the BOE to reevaluate its’ decision on Gloucester, apparently the board is not too happy with that request. Reville has been in Gloucester recently attempting to smooth over the hurt feelings and now this email. I question whether anyone can ever believe him again. He’s lost his believability. Can he be trusted? So what does Deval do? What does Reville do? I wonder if either has the stomach for doing the right thing here which starts with either firing or a resignation. Talk with the good people in Gloucester and I get the feeling this story is not going away.
<
p>The BOE meets both Monday and Tuesday. My hope is that he is gone on Wednesday.
What exactly is the politics here? In other words who is benefiting from the irregular approval of the Gloucester application and how and why?
The Governor and Reville benefit because they continue in the good graces of the Globe. The Globe, particularly Lehigh, are major supporters of the charter movement. Let’s see how the Globe responds to this issue. Do the ends justify the means?
<
p>Fire Reville for two reasons. #1-The mishandling of the Gloucester issue, and, #2-He is apparently to dumb to know that you do not put in writing what was in that email.
…that there were other pending charter applications proceeding without the irregularities. If it’s just a matter of supporting charters generally, then why not approve proper applications elsewhere? I thought it was sounding like Gloucester specifically was advantageous.
Do some research and start by rereading the email in question. Get back to me. Gloucester was an imperfect application that got approved because it was “less imperfect” and “less politically probematic” than the other applications outstanding at the time. Gloucester got screwed because Paul and Mitch had to please the Globe and the Boston Foundation. Well how about pleasing the damn taxpayers or better yet, having some integrity.
<
p>Fire the SOB!
<
p>When does Doug Rubin step in to “fix” everything?
…working with these applicants to ensure that a proper application package has been submitted? It seems to me that if the administration is in fact supportive of charters there would be ways to help the process along without compromising its integrity. Reville could say to Gloucester (or any other community), “We think you’re on the right track, but in order to obtain final approval you/we need to do X, Y, and Z. Please get back to me when you have done this and don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.” Why is the administration so bent on staying in the good graces of one newspaper or columnist anyway? I doubt very highly that either has THAT much sway over the electorate.
I’m worried that you are serious.
If a group does not have the brains to prepare a proper charter application then they have no right opening charter school.
<
p>And again, were you serious?
Why do you have such an attitude about this? My experience with dealing with government is that there are often complex procedures, fine print, etc. Officials should be available to assist, especially if it is in their interest to do so. I’m actually trying to learn something here and work out a solution that if it doesn’t make everyone happy, at least gives everyone the satisfaction that the process was followed. You seem to be more interested in a vendetta against Reville which may stem from an opposition to charter schools. You’re relatively new here (or at least newly active), but you should know at BMG we are much more interested in discussions than spitting contests.
I have no use for Reville and the crap he pulled is Gloucester makes my side of the argument look pretty good. Revile and the BOE’s job is not to help develop charter applications, it is to evaluate them. If applicants can’t prepare an application they do not get to open a charter. This is not like helping with homework after school.
<
p>Does that help?
As you can probably tell this is not an issue which I have studied in great depth. I just tend to reflexively push back when I sense that people are calling for heads or otherwise rushing to judgement. Personally, I’m not even that big a fan of the charter school concept, but I feel if it is the policy of our government to allow them, then it is the responsibility of the government to make sure people know how to apply and implement the policy. I’m not defending Reville on the merits; I just want more information on principle before people start crying scandal.
I am crying scandal!
BTW, you’ve been awfully generaous with your “3” ratings. Usually those are used posts that are offensive or otherwise do not further the discussion. I really don’t think my questions and input on this thread have been “worthless”.
I do find your posts to be worthless. It is my opinion that your support for the “Menino plan” for how we handle public records (emails) is utter nonsense.
There’s a difference.
a little civility please, PMG.
You are both right. Let’s burn the public docs and craft policy so that we please scot Lehigh.
<
p>Chris: I’m interested in your thoughts on the possibilty that the deleted email may relate to an ongoing investigation. Where do you draw the line? Speculation-yes, but how do you know if the email has been deleted? Should we give Tom a pass?
I believe that most emails can be read and deleted on the spot as I do with most of my own. If an investigation opens and notice is served then the emails become evidence. It would be obstruction of justice to delete them at the point, but also legitimate to say, “Sorry I can’t help you; those messages were acted upon and deleted ages go.” I’m concerned as somebody pointed out that we’ll go to a lot of non-written communication which could break down. I also envision government officials essentially operating under a 5th amendment assumption (ie anything you say/write can be used against you) and that would have a chilling effect on communication leading to less efficient internal operations and decision making. As I mentioned to someone else, I’m not advocating violation of the law. If the current law is clear that these emails should have been saved then the consequences of not doing so should follow. I am saying that I disagree with the premise of the law and feel it should be modified.
The current law DOES NOT allow you to delete email in City Hall. Work to change the current law. Work to make prostitution legal. Work to bring your beliefs to life, but follow the rules that are in place today. There are plenty of laws that I believe are stupid, but I follow them because the ARE laws.
The law says that the e-mails must be preserved, it doesn’t say how. If preserved on the server, there is no reason that an individual cannot delete them from his/her own computer.
too bad memino missed the memo
I don’t know where he is going.
<
p>Lots of energy to elect Deval came from people who were angry with the privatization agenda of the Republican administrations, and a state Board of Education that was a subsidiary of the Pioneer Institute.
<
p>The governor’s Readiness Commission, on the grass roots level, seemed like a good way to gather ideas, information, and energy in an administration that wasn’t particularly savvy on education issues. However, the recommendations from the grassroots were filtered through a leadership circle that was heavily dominated by the business community.
<
p>Educators, school committee members, the people who are involved in education policy on a day-to-day basis are outside the loop. Paul Reville certainly isn’t a listener – the Massachusetts Association of School Committees provides solid evidence of that fact.
<
p>Given Deval’s record on public education, I don’t expect too much. Alan LeBovidge is gone. James Aloisi is gone. Sadly, Deval seems to be changing course in the wrong direction on education.
<
p>Deval needs a bold move – replacing Reville with someone like former Worcester Superintendent James Caradonio. Sadly, I don’t see it happening.
I concur. In conversation with Reville and staff you always leave with the impression that your nothing short of a bother. He has distain for local elected officials (see Gloucester) and he suffers from smartest-guy-in-the-room symdrome.
He just caves to the political pressures. The DESE staff and BESE board’s own standards ruled that those applications all failed. Reville’s just suggesting that they approve the least egregious to avoid being labeled “anti-charter” by the knee-jerk charter advocates of the Globe, Lehigh, the Boston Foundation, and the Pioneer Institute. And he’s being led to that position by the biggest phony of them all, Deval. No profiles in courage being written here! Sorry, but right now Deval’s blowing much of the progressive support he had. The Gloucester application stunk. If they haven’t the guts to state that, then I haven’t the will to support them politically. Reville’s only argument at this point is that he looks better than Peyser did. If Peyser were still there, there’d be equal and opposite pressure to approve all three failed applications.
<
p>And, quite simply, where are the kids in all this? Adults doing adult stupid things that will affect kids…ALL the kids of Gloucester.
Well, Reville has to go, no question about that. Patrick needs to step up and do the right thing. Geez. Absolutely disgraceful.
…Reville will be gone by sundown Monday. Or is the Boston Foundation more important that the Democratic base?
he wasn’t getting my vote anyway. hopefully more “good government” people will feel the same way.
Sorry to double post from another thread, but there are two threads on the same topic:
<
p>This application process and the final granting of this charter has been flawed and problematic from the outset.
The public hearing which they are required to have, with at least one Board member in attendance, was held without a sitting/voting member and at least half of the 90+ folk who signed up to speak in opposition were not granted the opportunity to address the board’s representatives. Later when it was determined that perhaps a board member should have been there, they cited a completely unrelated regulation as their basis for RETROACTIVELY waiving the requirement for board member attendance.
<
p>The Charter School Office (charged with reviewing and recommending applications based on their merits) issued a DO NOT RECOMMEND which was subsequently ignored by Commissioner Chester in his advisory role to the BESE.
<
p>At the meeting when the vote took place, the BESE was directed by the Commissioner to disregard opposition — despite an overwhelming disparity in numbers between the pros (about 17) and the cons (well over 100+ letters). Also to be disregarded was the concern over potentially negative effects on the receiving community. Of course this begs the question: Why have a public hearing at all if the pubic input is to be disregarded in the final analysis?
<
p>Irregularities were sufficient enough for the Joint Committee on Education to convene a special meeting in Gloucester to address the issue of PROCESS — not the application. Both the Commissioner and the Chair of the BESE suggested later that this should suffice as a substitute for the original public hearing required for the application despite the completely different subject matter being addressed. Note that speakers were told not to speak on the merits of the application, but to address their concerns over the approval process.
<
p>Now we discover that the Secretary penned an email to the Commissioner issuing his opinion that despite no worthy candidates — certainly not the one that would have affected his community in Worcester — it was politically necessary to advance the best of the bad candidates and acknowledged it was a tough pill to swallow. The Commissioner’s pr suggested that the Secretary’s viewpoint was simply one of many considered by the Commissioner in coming to his decision. Hmmm… my boss wants a charter school, they’re all bad, but we have to pick one….
<
p>As if all this wasn’t bad enough, Chester is now trying to justify his decision to support the GCACS citing strong academic curriculum in complete opposition to the position of his own CSO that cited concerns over whether they were ready for prime time:
<
p>From the CSO Do Not Recommend summation:
“The founding group is not recommended to be chartered because
overall they did not meet the criteria for the final charter application.
During the interview they demonstrated that they may possess the
capacity to open and oversee a charter school but it was not clear that it
would be successful in three areas of charter accountability: creating an
academic program that will support student achievement,
organizational viability, and faithfulness to the proposed mission
described in the charter application. We would encourage them to
reapply in a subsequent year.”
<
p>I can not believe that the Governor is going to allow this charter to stand and become the poster child of an intensely flawed system that takes no accounting of the desire, needs or effects on the receiving community — it’s a precedent that ought to cause grave concern to other districts that likewise might find itself on the short end of this political stick.
<
p>There needs to be an immediate revision of the approval process that takes into account community needs. Additionally there absolutely needs to be a fundamental shift in the funding mechanism. At it’s full buildout, this school will drain away more than $2.5M from our district, but because of the size of our district there is no way to accommodate the fiscal impact without closing schools, increasing class sizes and wiping out more programs — hardly the direction we need to be heading if we’re trying to increase performance results for all our children.
<
p>JG
When will public officials learn? What is it they don’t get?
<
p>If you work for the state, write emails as if the entire world is going to read them.
If you’re going to do something illegal, don’t leave evidence.
<
p>The full editorial is at:
<
p>http://www.gloucestertimes.com…
this is the editorial from Gloucester?
Read the entire editorial.
Farmer fought with Chester and Reville every step of the way and he has been proven correct. If you are making the case that the City of Gloucester will be “punished” by the BOE for speaking up on behalf of their kids and taxpayers, then we have bigger problems that we thought. I would put nothing past these thugs so maybe Farmer should be quiet.
Who said anyone should be quiet.
<
p>Tell you what, you can make anything you want up then debate yourself.
<
p>That’s what you’ve been doing so far with other comments. Just make it easier for yourself and make your own entries to debate.
You’ve done the impossible. You hurt my feelings. When is the resignation?
The Gloucester application was less than perfect (okay, flawed). Horrors! Let’s start closing down the charter schools, fire the Commissioner, and ride Deval Patrick out on a rail.
<
p>Reveille’s email sounds perfectly balanced and reasonable to me. When you are trying to encourage the development of charter schools, against some pretty entrenched opposition (to the whole concept) it is important to pay attention to the big picture. If anti-charter forces are successful in discouraging charter school development, and I have to believe that the “flaws” in the Gloucester application are at least tangentially related to the hostile reception charter proponents get (witness the interaction upthread to the mere asking of questions) then what’s so horrible about encouraging the approval of one of three applicants this round?
<
p>I am a strong proponent of the importance of education and our government duty’s to ensure that everyone has a chance to get a quality one. I don’t think our public schools are funded well enough, and our fantastic teachers are not adequately compensated.
<
p>But I also happen to think that charter schools are not the devil.
The chater school office sends the proposals out to a review panel. The reviews of all three schools this year came back “do not recommend”. These reviewers turn some down and approve others – I don’t think the process can be called biased against charters school creation. Commissioner Chester overruled the recommendation for one of the three schools and brought a positive recommendation for the Gloucester school to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
<
p>Why does Secretary Reville tell Commissioner Chester that this is a “no-win situation”, a “painful situation”, and a “necessary pill to swalow” and thank him for “not seeing this as an idependence issue”? Is there any other explanation for this other than that the sole reason for granting one charter is the political considerations he so clearly lays out in the email?
<
p>Should we be approving the creation of this school, and spending several million dollars (the state funds both the charter school and the district, phasing out over three years) so that Secretary Reville can keep the Boston Globe happy and get out of a “political cul de sac”?
<
p>Isn’t the Patrick administration already doing plenty to encourage the creation of charter schools with proposals for readiness schools, and lifting the cap on the number of charter schools allowed to operate in the Commonwealth?
The CSO office’s report had nothing to do with local disapproval. Their report states:
<
p>
<
p>I don’t see “local opposition” in there. Do you?
That sure looks like a compelling endorsement for the Gloucester Charter. NOT!! By the way, did Reville resign today? I did hear he was releasing a public statement. Can’t wait to hear what the genius has to say. Maybe he apologizes to the good people of Gloucester tomorrow in Malden. Wish I could see his tearful apology. Gotta work, otherwise I would be there to see Paul and Mitch dance their way through the meeting. Ever wonder what the rest of that committee thinks? The drama!!