Washington state actually audits its charter schools; consequently, it discovered that three charter schools run by Summit Schools, employed a total of twenty-four uncertified teachers.
In Washington, teachers must have a valid license, or their school must pursue waivers and/or emergency certification. Summit didn't do any of that. Senator Lisa Wellman, in a press release, underlined that students enrolled in 50 courses were taught by teachers without credentials or oversight by Summit. Wellman underlines that Summit's board of directors is based in California, though their website lists a Washington board as well (though that board may just be appointed by the California board). The California board chairman is Robert J. Oster, a venture capitalist and board member at the right-tilted Hoover Institute at Stanford. Washington's chairman is Evan Smith, who boasts a background in business and education and--well, no. He's a VP at Starbucks, used to work at McKinsey, did some political press secretary work, and taught for a grand total of one year in New Orleans. If that smells like another Teach for America product, well, yes.
Summit is very much from the corporate sector of charterdom. Started in 2003 by Diane Tavener, it was adopted and infused with cash and technology by Mark Zuckerberg, it has since spun into both a charter business and a digital school in a box business.
But Washington state should not have been surprised to find Summit using uncertified teachers. The website says nice things like "Teachers are at the heart of every Summit classroom serving as content experts, mentors, and leaders," but notice that list of roles, because Summit's model has always been about using "mentors" in the classroom while students hunker down in front of a computer screen.
The whole Summit business approach (and Summit is definitely a business, not some philanthropic school thingy) is to McDonaldsize the personnel role, thereby cutting out all the big human resource expense. At one point, they even had their own Facilitator Farm to grow some inexpensive meat widgets to stand in a classroom while students and computers did the work.
Given Summit's history and education-flavored business model, I would be shocked if their schools were staffed by 100% certified teachers. Washington State got exactly what they should have expected to get. Maybe they weren't paying attention, or maybe the people who should have been paying attention just didn't care. Also, the Summit boards meet once a quarter, rather than once a month as required by Washington law.
At any rate, it now appears that Summit may owe the state almost $4 million for an unprecedented, but entirely predictable, breach and disregard of the state's rules. The audit reports that the board did not take steps to "address concerns over uncertified teachers," though it's not clear if anyone expressed those concerns to the board. The board certainly wouldn't have had those concerns on their own, because these schools may have been violating state law, but they were following the company business model. We'll see what happens next.
What do you think of the certification process in WA? If you want to defend it, maybe explain why it does a good job identifying and preparing teachers.
ReplyDeletePretty hard to spin Summit's actions as a heroic stand against a bad licensure system. I can poke holes in most state certification processes, but I haven't seen anything from the corporate world of hiring "coaches" and "mentors" that looks remotely like an improvement.
Delete