From the Director's of Oregon's "Stand for Children"

I can tell the politicians in our group are doing their work. They are getting some pretty influential groups to make some pretty firm and well articulated statements and stands regarding online public education. Here is yet another one that came out yesterday evening:

"DATE: June 1, 2009
TO: Oregon Legislators
FROM: Holly Pruett, Stand for Children, Oregon Director
Dana Hepper, Stand for Children, Advocacy Director

RE: Concerns about SB 767Stand for Children sees the need for Oregon to define & clarify the role online learning plays for students and schools. Oregon needs to ensure academic and financial accountability for these and all schools. However, we're concerned that SB 767, as written, jeopardizes competitive federal funds.

So far, the Obama administration has made $5 billion available to states in the form of competitive grants to states, mostly in the "Race to the Top" funds. The USDOE has been incredibly clear – they will provide significant funding to states who embrace school improvement and innovation. States rejecting innovation, including shutting down and placing caps on charter schools (virtual or other), will be at the bottom of the list for competitive federal grants. These are just a few examples of USDOE representatives expressly stating their position:

Steve Robinson, Special Assistant to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at the Department of Education, said,
"if Oregon passes a moratorium on charters of any kind it makes it MUCH less likely Oregon will receive any of the $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funds." (Personal communication, 5/7/09)

ARRA's cover letter to Governors laid out the policy assurances they are looking for from states, including:
Intensive support, effective interventions, and improved achievement in schools that need it the most – A state would identify schools most in need of academic intervention, and report on the progress of those schools in implementing reforms to improve student academic achievement. More specifically, a state would report:
on whether the state allows charter schools and whether there is a cap restricting the number of such schools, the number of charter schools currently operating in the state, and the number of charter schools closed within the last three years for academic purposes. www.ed.gov/programs /statestabilizat ion/2009- 394-cover. pdf

The Chicago Tribune reported Arne Duncan pushing his home state of Illinois to challenge the status quo:
"Duncan said funding inequity, a limit on the number of charter schools, marginal efforts to police teacher quality and other old-school ways put the state at risk of disqualification from future innovation funding." www.chicagotribune. com/news/ local/chi- arne-duncan- 15apr15,0, 3060737.story

The AP reported Duncan making similar comments in response to Tennessee's legislative action:
States will hurt their chance to compete for millions of federal stimulus dollars if they fail to embrace innovations like charter schools, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Thursday… responding to a question about Tennessee, where Democratic state lawmakers have blocked an effort to let more kids into charter schools. "States like that would not be helping their chances, I can say that," [said] Duncan. http://www.google. com/hostednews/ ap/article/ ALeqM5iQ72cmvb28 46meWCIAJArK1w2H mAD98FJOV00

By prohibiting the State Board of Education from renewing existing waivers, we risk closing schools currently serving 3000 Oregon students – before we've even decided how to deal with on-line learning in Oregon. This combined with a moratorium on charter schools indicates to the federal government that Oregon is not interested in innovative ways to improve schools and jeopardizes hundreds of millions in federal funds."