BOE 7 July 2011 Charter School Discussion V.

Sheard 301-949-3372

7 July 2011 Mr. Barclay and Members of the Board My name is Virginia Sheard and I began my MCPS experience at the Kensington Elementary School and graduated from BCC. I am speaking as a resident who often discusses matters of land use and zoning with friends and neighbors, has been involved with the Kensington and Wheaton Sector Plans and numerous development proposals and how they might impact our residential neighborhoods. I want to comment on the two charter school applications you are reviewing, one of which is in my neighborhood. I support the concept of charter schools to supplement MCPS programs because, although our school system has a stellar national reputation, it also has some problems and creative and innovative charter school programs can address these problems when targeted to a specific academically under achieving group of kids. Examples might be the high dropout rate of certain high school age girls or underachieving middle school boys, particularly in lower income areas. In DC and across the country there are some very successful examples that demonstrate the value of creative charter schools that bridge the gap between the public schools and academic and social success. I believe that these applications seem to meet the technical requirements for charter schools (objectives, programming, governance, etc.) but they seem rather safe ordinary ideas, not unique or innovative. Each of the two applications have some merit but will either address the needs of a specific group of underachieving at risk kids? The Montessori program has some supporters and also some who do not support their rigorous philosophy but there are thousands of Montessori schools so what makes this one unique, different, an innovative supplement to MCPS? I think this Board has failed our kids in not developing a proactive charter school policy that defines clear objectives and priorities, identifies at risk student groups who could benefit from the focused special attention a charter school can provide, and outlines how a charter school could seamlessly integrate with our public school system and make it better. Rather here you are now faced with only two applications and you will likely accept one of them not because it has exceptional merit but because of local
1

BOE 7 July 2011 Charter School Discussion V. Sheard 301-949-3372

and state political pressure (and money) for MoCo to have a charter school. Do these proposals truly represent innovation or a unique approach to making a difference for at-risk students?

BOE 7 July 2011 Charter School Discussion V. Sheard 301-949-3372

Another concern is the student selection process. In the last several weeks I have been given at least six interpretations of how the selection process will be handled particularly regarding the Crossway Montessori proposal, the including -- that all the current students in the program at that site and the kids in the residential program will be enrolled, or alternatively, all available slots will be filled by lottery, or some will be enrolled initially from the existing program and then a lottery will fill the remaining slots. County representatives have said that all the resident children and all eligible neighborhoods kids will be enrolled. Crossway has indicated that it will provide funding for any resident kids not accepted into the charter school. Crossway will need to address the needs of four different groups of kidsone group are the 80-100 (?) students in the existing Montessori program at the site, another is the 40 or more kids who live at Crossway with their mothers who are part of the Crossway residential program, another group is the neighborhood children (and by the way this site is definitely not in a lowincome area), and the last group is the low-income kids within a mile of the site. I hope you do better in future years to attract the kind of innovative charter school proposals that our kids deserve. I urge you to consider carefully whether your responsibility is to approve one of these applications because it is politically expedient and let the first planning year sort out all the messy details, or not approve either one and engage in a serious effort to solicit innovative applications that represent the best of the best.

Thank you Virginia Sheard