I first wrote about Comcast’s Internet Essentials program in 2012. The program provides $10/month Internet access to low-income families, along with credits for computer hardware and training. Families with a child who receives free or reduced school lunch are eligible. One criticism has been that families with past due Comcast bills were not eligible – which meant a lot of families could not take advantage of the offer.
But now, Comcast has relaxed that restriction, offering what it calls an “amnesty.” Families who have past due Comcast bills that are over a year old may be eligible for the low-cost program. In addition, the first six months are FREE. Comcast’s announcement is here.
The offer of amnesty and six months free is only offered if you apply before September 20. Applications are distributed and submitted through your child’s school. So call you school for an application, and get it to them well before September 20. Comcast has already begun a publicity push for this program – I heard coverage on the radio today. Schools, get on the ball and stuff those applications in the Welcome Back packets!
A broadband Internet connection can make a world of difference to a struggling family for school, for consumer decisions, and for employment opportunities.
The Delaware Charter Schools Network is accepting nominations for its awards with the acutely ironic name “IDEA Awards.” (Click here for the nomination form.)
The Delaware Charter Schools Network (DCSN) is seeking to shine the spotlight on innovative programs for their annual IDEA awards.
“Bringing to light those programs so other teachers, other leaders can see them and go, ‘Wait a minute! That would be great for my kids,” said Kendall Massett, director of the DCN.
But no one program should be duplicated, instead, it should be modeled.
“You have different kids, you have different people. It needs to be adapted to you community, to your kids, and to your ability to make those things happen,” Massett said.
Awards are given in various categories to school leaders, teachers, parents and students.
There is a long list of award categories:
Community Ties Award: For a school, staff member(s), student(s), or a community organization
Cornerstone Award: For a Parent or Group of Parents
Impact Award: For a Charter School Leader
Giving Back Award: For a Charter School Student or Alumnus
Innovation Award: For a Teacher or Group of Teachers (Elementary, Middle, and High School)
Dedication Award: For a School Staff Member or Group of Staff Members (Elementary, Middle, and High School)
You have until September 15, 2014 to apply or nominate someone you know who’s making a difference. To apply, click here.
UPDATE 6/25 In reply to kavips, who asked what happened at the meeting:
I said it would be tedious, and I wasn’t lying. The group is going though a twenty-something page list of questions (the watermelon questions) and discussing and taking a straw poll on each to determine if it belongs on the pre-acceptance application, or only on enrollment forms after acceptance. Plus a few other nuances. I would characterize the discussions as “politely contentious.” Tedious, but necessary in order to get to the point of even being able to think about making recommendations.
Some of the discussions got so elongated that the moderator resorted to the “parking lot” tactic (no, not taking the offender out to the parking lot for a good beating). Rather, the “parking lot” was a poster-sized sheet where topics were “parked” for future discussion, so the group could continue to plow through the list. I am not sure how far they got in the list; I think I may have fallen asleep :-)
But I will say that the topics that ended up “parked” were telling, because they went to the heart of the “specific interest” preference. The big ones I recall were essay questions, and prior report cards. When asked on a pre-admission application, these are the kinds of questions that give the choice to the school, not the family. And those were the ones that sparked the most discussion and could not be settled in one night.
The group has a list of questions asked on existing choice applications, and is now identifying whether each question belongs on pre-acceptance application, or should be collected only after acceptance. The group discusses each item and holds a (nonbinding) vote on each one. It can be a tedious process, but the discussions sometimes touch raw nerves and highight some of the areas of contention.
At the May meeting, one of the parent members cogently asked the group to evaluate each item in light of the question she posed: “Whose choice is it?” Is the family choosing a school, or is the school choosing its students?
The specific interest clause came under scrutiny several times. Delaware’s charter law contains the poorly defined and highly malleable provision that a charter school may give admission preference to “Students who have a specific interest in the school’s teaching methods, philosophy, or educational focus.” Charter School of Wilmington notoriously uses an admission test as a dubious measure of “specific interest” in its STEM mission. A number of members suggested that filling out the application was a sufficient sign of interest, and that a test measured knowledge , not interest. Personally I think an admission test is a measure of the advantages the student has had previously.
It’s nearly June and on cue there is late-breaking charter mischief afoot in the General Assembly. This year it is micro-charters. Current law says that a charter school must have at least 200 students [to open]. But a new bill, SB 234, would remove that language and allow the creation of even smaller charters (h/t Kilroy).
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Sokola and Rep. Scott, the chairs of their respective education committees, so there is going to be some muscle and political capital behind this bill. And as usual there is no public discussion on the need for this bill, and no time for parents to organize. Although interestingly, the bill has not drawn any other co-sponsors. I suspect the vote will be based simply on factional loyalties to the sponsors, rather than any real need or demand for the bill.
Why is this happening now? Where is the burning need for smaller charters? What public purpose is served?
The answer is found in the recent embarrassments the charter lobby has suffered due to several new charters failing to draw sufficient enrollment. The spectacle threatens to undermine the lobby’s contention that charters exist because they are demanded by parents. One of the underenrolled schools, Academia Antonio Alonso, plays a key role in the megacharter showcase, the Community Education Building.
According to Jennifer Nagourney, director of the Charter Schools Office in the State Department of Education, the department has three options: impose remedial measures on the schools, revoke their charters, or allow them to open as planned.
But apparently Sen. Sokola and Rep. Scott have found a fourth option: loosen the law to make the deficiencies legal.
This comes at a time when the public and legislators are becoming aware of the negative impact charters have on our district schools, by drawing away funds for key programs. Another bill (SB 209) has passed the Senate and is pending in the House, which allows the state to impose conditions on charters based on their projected impact to district schools.
So the last thing we need is to lower the bar on the creation of new charters, especially marginal charters with dubious financial viabilty, who will wreak their havoc on neighboring schools, and then likely fail and walk away from the trauma caused to their students.
Do we really want storefront charters fragmenting public education even further? We expect schools of all kinds to operate with a scale that permits organization and a reasonable economy of scale. Micro-charters will inevitably become personality-driven fiefdoms with no internal mechanics of governance (remember Pencader?). What’s next, kitchen-table charters?
I have no problem with paying school taxes; in fact there are lots of programs and enhancements I would gladly pay more taxes for. But I would like it to be subject to referendum to maintain some semblance of accountability:
State Rep. Darryl Scott, who isn’t running for re-election, says House Bill 355 will be filed next week.
The measure would revise a provision in current law that requires a school district to hold a successful public referendum before a school board may approve any tax increases to fund non-capital budget expenditures.
Under the bill, a school board could raise its local tax rate by up to 3 percent per year without a referendum. Larger increases and revenue enhancements for the purposes of funding capital projects, like new school construction, would remain subject to referenda in all cases. (from wdel)
Do… not… want.
And certainly not while local school taxes are being skimmed for charters.