Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Reville Drowning in his Perfect Storm

By

Next, comes an editorial in the Boston Herald:

Paul Reville must resign

By Boston Herald Editorial Staff

Tuesday, September 22, 2009 –

Is there nothing the Patrick administration won’t politicize?

Now there’s a growing body of evidence that decisions about which communities will get new charter schools has more to do with politics than with the merits of the case – or the needs of the communities involved.

The Gloucester Times has unearthed (through a Freedom of Information request) the latest smoking gun e-mails from state Education Secretary Paul Reville to Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester urging approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School.

 The Herald’s bottom line:

Reville has shown where his priorities are. Now that his credibility is shot to hell he should do the right thing and resign.

Next, the Statehouse News Service has the lobbying arm for charter schools joining the perfect storm.

The email, first reported by the Gloucester Times, prompted an outcry Monday from a group supporting charter schools and comes at a time when the governor is seeking approval to lift the statewide cap on charter school spending and enrollment. In a statement, Massachusetts Charter Public School Association executive director Marc Kenen said he was “deeply troubled” by the report about the email.

“Political interference – whether by charter opponents or supporters – weakens the integrity of the chartering process and cheapens the hard work and commitment of charter applicants,” he said. “The sanctity of the chartering process must not be sacrificed to further anyone’s political agenda.”

Those of us who have been critical of the process of granting charters, governance, and funding are now singing the same song as the most passionate charter school supporters.  Seems it’s clear the present system of the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education issuing the charters is seriously flawed.

Mayor Menino has taken a very reasonable approach to charter schools – lift the cap but let the local school committee issue the charter and fund it directly through the local budget.  Reform the funding and governance structure, and many folks who oppose the current Massachusetts system could suddenly become supporters.

Perfect storm?  It would be if the storm allows us to examine our common interests and come up with a new charter paradigm that will allow good new schools to flourish without the negative impact to the host community.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Arrogant bastards generally think the rest of the world is out of context, particularly when the world doesn’t fall into line with their brilliant thinking.

      <

      p>”PEASANTS!  My email is a wonderful gift to you!  You should be praising my great writing – especially this demonstration of my ability to compromise for others, like the Globe and the Boston Foundation.”

      • I wonder what he wants us to think the context was?  “Bitter pill to swallow…”  In what context could that mean anything other than “a distressing action that is hard to accept”?

        <

        p>How could that possibly be translated to:  “Well, Mitch, I know the Gloucester charter is worthy on the merits and you really believe, despite the ‘Do Not Recommend’ finding from the Charter School Office that they really are going to have just a swell school, but approving it will be a bitter pill to swallow.  You see, Mitchell, I am both a hypochondriac and a fan of Warheads Juniors Extreme Sour, the most sour candy on earth.  Therefore, when I say ‘bitter pill’ I translate that as the most awesome thing ever.  Hope AZ is treating you well, get me some sour cactus candy if you see some.  -Cheers, Paul”

        <

        p>See, that would make sense, in that context.

      • Besides the way Charters discriminate against any student who takes more work than average to educate, they impoverish the local districts where they are situated.

        <

        p>Solution:  Fund them by voluntary contributions from the Banksters, the New Age Robber Barons and the funding for the Governor’s office and other executive agencies – not local school districts.

        <

        p>Make charter proponents fund themselves and/or be voted funds directly by either the legislature, or the electorate where they are situated.

        <

        p>As it is, Charters impoverish local systems and are not accountable, and tend to be supported by elitists like Reville – who think they know more than everyone else and who loathe local control and oversight.

    • From the Charter School Office evaluation of the Gloucester Charter.  Mitchell Chester chose not to share this with the board;

      <

      p>

      ” 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.

      Commenting in detail the CSO goes on to refer to:

      Limited research-based evidence about why an art integrated
      curriculum will lead to student achievement

      The “Arts Integration as the central theme of the educational
      program is ambiguous

      The final application does not describe the process the school will
      take so that teachers will be proficient in delivering the chosen instructional methods,
      and creating the curriculum.

      • The more of this group I see, the more it sounds that this group wanted a charter now for a school (maybe) later.  Frankly, it sounds as if it were headed to be another Uphams Corner.  It would have given charters a bad, bad name.

    • I’m not convinced that the Mayor and Superintendent are acting on behalf of Gloucester, rather they are acting on behalf of their turf.

      <

      p>That’s politics …

      <

      p>The e-mail was definitely a screw up.  But at this point I want to see more.  

  3. End the pain and fabrications and just resign.  And please no grandiose WWII references on your way out the door.

    • Between Walsh and Aloisi, the Deval Patrick shop has seen by now how painful it gets to stand by your wo/man in the face of reason.  Even without Rubin, you’d think they’d have learned by now how to handle this type of blow-up.

      <

      p>Then again, the fact that it keeps happening may be sufficient evidence that they haven’t.

  4. “Purple Mass Group” is mad because the state approved a charter school in Gloucester.  They have posted over four or five diaries on the subject and today its in the Globe. The angry folks, with an interest in the outcome (what interest is hard to identify) are calling for resignations.  

    <

    p>If the apoplectic advocates for Reville’s ouster, could explain is two or three sentences the nature of the offense, instead of harping on movie metaphors, then they might gain some popular support for their OUTRAGE.  

    <

    p>Personally, I’m outrage habituated after the summer of love 2009, where a small minority of under informed yahoos captured the health reform debate with their trees of liberty, loaded sidearms, Obama as Hitler signs and demagogue Glenn Beck as their inspiration.  

    <

    p>We spend more on education than any other expense in the commonwealth.  To institute Charter Schools and put the state in charge of allocating the start up resources necessarily makes it a political decision.  Calling “politics” and insinuating it is unethical or a crime like murder just doesn’t cut it for me.

    <

    p>

    The Patrick administration urged approval of a controversial Gloucester charter school earlier this year, over the fierce objections of city residents and the advice of state specialists, based not on its merits but because it would further the governor’s political agenda, according to a recently published e-mail.

    In the e-mail, Education Secretary Paul Reville told the commissioner of elementary and secondary education that rejection of the Gloucester charter school proposal, along with the probable rejection of two other pending charter proposals, would send the wrong signal.

    “Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we’ll get permanently labeled as hostile and that will cripple us with a number of key, moderate allies,” Reville wrote on Feb. 5. “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 necessary pill to swallow.”

    The e-mail – which caused a stir on Beacon Hill yesterday, even as Reville insisted it was being taken out of context – contrasted with the administration’s repeated denials that politics played a role in approval of the charter school and could potentially weaken its credibility as it seeks legislative approval of proposals to help the state’s worst schools.

    Last night, as the controversy grew, Governor Deval Patrick sent a hand-delivered letter to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, asking for a reconsideration of the charter school’s approval, a request the commissioner had rejected this summer as unfeasible under state law.

    <

    p>

    • Neil Sagan writes: “If the apoplectic advocates for Reville’s ouster, could explain is two or three sentences the nature of the offense, instead of harping on movie metaphors, then they might gain some popular support for their OUTRAGE.”

      <

      p>It seems to me to be a reasonable request that the decision to approve a Charter School should be an educational decision made by professional educators in the DESE.  It should not be a political decision made by a political appointee for political reasons.  Both Charter proponents and critics agree that the Secretary’s interference in this decision making process destroys the credibility of the Charter School approval process.

      <

      p>Oh, and BTW, I don’t live in Gloucester.  I have no dog in this fight.  I’m just disgusted with Reville’s behavior in this process.  He should resign.

    • Neil,

      <

      p>While I am not an apoplectic advocate for his resignation, I would encourage you to read Secreatary Reville’s own words again.  As far as I can tell, he did not believe that a charter should be granted for this school for any reason other than the need to get him out of a “political cul de sac”.  Why else would he use phrases like “no win” and “tough but necessary pill to swalow”?

      <

      p>Peter

    • I dislike Reville simply because he is full of crap and I’m being nice. I believe he should resign because he has mislead and bullcraped his way through the Gloucester Charter mess. He is also an elitist SOB. Happy?

    • on Tuesday spent about 20 seconds saying he made an error and about 15 minutes telling us why he was right.

      <

      p>That’s Reville all over.  He might impress people as a self-impressed smug factory; but that’s only because most of the time he is a self-impressed smug factory.

  5. that’s the name, right?  I mean, “Cul de Sac-gate” sounds a little weak and “Toughpilltoswallowgate” is too hard to say.  

    <

    p>I think Chartergate has a certain simple elegance.

    <

    p>What think you?

Archives