Charter Schools and Sharing

I support charter schools. Nobody should be subject to the irrational tangle of regulations that paralyze neighborhood schools. But charters could be so much more constructive if they a) embraced unions, that have the greatest repository of educational wisdom and protect the honest flow of information which is so crucial to school improvement, and b) tithed by accepting their fair share of the more challenging students. Yes, there are charters that focus on the "low end" of poorest children. Charter magnets, however, tend to "cream" the most motivated students leaving a greater critical mass of the most challenging students in neighborhood schools.

My school has always been troubled, but we were not a hardcore inner city school until we lost almost all of our "best" students to eleven magnet schools. I just compiled the numbers of students on IEPs in the seven charter magnets that compete with us. Those charters tested as many high school special education students as I have in two classes (of sixty students). Many years, I have taught as many special education students as were enrolled from elementary to high school in all seven "high end" charters combined! Most special education students are wonderful and I love them as I do my "regular" students. If charters would set a goal of 10% of their students being special ed, it would not create a hardship for them, and neighborhood schools would not have 35% of their students on IEPs.  - John Thompson

Comments

[Norm]

What are some examples of those irrational tangle of regulations that paralyze neighborhood schools? Why not look at them and figure out what it would take to untangle them before establishing a parallel school system that undermines the concept of a neighborhood school, which by the way the overwhelminng majority of kids in this country - even the successful students - were brought up in?

I suspect these often relate to union contracts which is the whole point of charter schools and in fact the point of the entire market based ed reform movement. Shanker's original concept of small groups of classroom teachers, the least powerful people in the system (other than kids - see your link to flowers and sausages as an example) was so unrealistic given the power structure of the school system. The biggest enemy of reform is the over-empowered principal unchecked from below where the real knowledge resides. True reform would come when teachers with parents in neighborhood schools get to elect their principals.

The major fallout from the Klein "reforms" in NYC will turn out to be the installation of many principals without any core knowledge of the education process, something just about every teacher who teaches for 3-5 years in a classroom setting (there are a hell of a lot of "teaching" jobs that do not meet that criterion) knows.

What kind of people do you think teachers would choose as principals if they could? Bet on people who really taught.

[Anna]

I’d like to set the record straight for Mr. Thompson, who is confusing charter public schools (open to any student who applies) with magnet schools (that require students to take entrance exams and meet a determined quota).

Charter schools are public schools that serve the public interest first. In Illinois, 84% of charter public school students are low-income and 94% are African American and Latino. Results from the RAND Corporation’s 2008 study disprove the stereotype about Chicago charters “skimming the cream” - luring the top students - from public schools and show that charters continue to outperform their neighborhood schools with comparable demographics. The same standard goes for students with disabilities – charter public schools accept Special Education students on the same basis as other students. When I was an AmeriCorps volunteer at Noble Street Charter High School, I co-taught several Special Ed classes and I’m proud to say that all of the Special Ed students I keep in touch with are now succeeding in college. In my opinion, it’s because of their enrollment in a charter public school that they were able to achieve their highest potential.

Charters are granted specifically to meet the diverse needs of individual communities and give life to the best ideas within those communities. While most charter schools are not unionized, it is our position that successful charter schools and robust union activity are not mutually exclusive. We believe a peaceful coexistence is possible.

In the past, the unions have taken an aggressive stance, portraying charter schools in an unfair, inaccurate light. INCS is committed to providing the public and key policy leaders with an accurate picture and all facts required to make important policy decisions about Illinois’ public education system. Our children, their parents and their dedicated teachers deserve nothing less.

[Margo/Mom]

John:

I'd like to give you an AMEN on this one--but it ain't so. I will give you that some of the charters--particular the "successful" ones are able to discourage the entry of students with disabilities. I can attest to this with personal experience. However, in each of the cases that I have encountered, the charters were started by people who had learned this skill in the local school district. In our district we have lottery alternatives. No entrance requirements--just have to "win" the lottery. Until recently special education students could be barred just by not allowing a "unit" at the school and a very complex application process for those that did have a unit (first you have to win the lottery--then you get in if there is a slot in the "unit" If the "unit" has an opening, it doesn't get filled unless the next kid on the waiting list is a kid with special needs). Feds caught on and made them stop. But, that doesn't mean that the school principal and teachers can't suggest that the school might not be a "good fit." Doesn't mean they can't do all those uncooperative things that suggest a need for a change in placement (not following the IEP, or the behavior plan).

One local charter school keeps its success rate high by not providing any summer school options. If a kid doesn't pass a class, well, they don't fit any more. They can't pass 9th into 10th, nor can they stay in 9th (sorry--no spaces). Their principal and some other decision makers moved out of the public schools to start this place.

But the real corker, is the charter that is sponsored by the district. Their angle is that they figured out they get a cut of the state $ by being a sponsor--and they cut a deal with the union by agreeing that all teachers would be union. They have targetted superannuated drop-outs (kids they had already given up on--so it might be a net gain). Not only do they suffer from an extreme lack of imagination in their program (which is too bad--because on paper it looks like a good idea), but they also are laboring under the delusion that since they are a charter, they are not obligated to accept students with disabilities.

I'd say that all told, the bigger benefit is for districts to work on injecting more creativity into minimizing red tape (and trust me--some of it is put in place not just by the district, but at the building level) and developing good programs within district. If you balance whatever it is that charter schools are not required to do, by the difficulty of having to scrimp by on their reduced budget (here they get only state funds and federal funds, no local taxes) and having to provide for every need (like special education) as an individual school. It's really amazing that districts can't compete them out of existence.

[john thompson]

Norm, You write: "The biggest enemy of reform is the over-empowered principal unchecked from below where the real knowledge resides," and sometimes I feel you are right. But I don't allow my head to go there. In my experience, when principals make wierd and destrcutive decisions, they are over-stressed and facing pressures that they can't talk about. The tangle of explicit policies that are are the worst usaully have to do with discipline. In my experience, every single due process ppolicy for regular and special ed students makes sense when standing alone. Put them all together in a poor school with a critical mass of students on parole, on IEPs, on 504's, and principals are overwhelmed. I hate lumping those groups together because it may be intepreted. I'm not complaining about the challenging students, I'm just stating an empirical fact that there are not enough hours in the day to run a school, and meet those policy requirements when you have such a high percentage of kids with special needs.

Margo/mom, when I read your comment I'm reminded that I occassionally need to give in and wrap my head around the problems that Norm mentions. I blame education's "culture of compliance." What I hear from you is that administrators who flee the regular system bring that culture with them. This gets us to a dynamic that divides people who still support NCLB-type accountability from most educators. I can see why the CYA mentality of education would drive reformers into the blame and shame game of NCLB. We do a lot of shameful things. The question is how do you make things better. Back when Oklahoma had the largest per capita Socialist movements in America we had a newspaper called The Sledghammer, and its motto was, "Hammer the System. not the individual." Rightly or wrongly, I follow their wisdom.

Anna, surely you are not saying that all poor kids are the same? You are not saying that there are poor kids that transcend the challenges they face? You are not saying that all children who have survived trauma are effected the same way. I explicitly wrote about charter magnets. We have a charter alternative school that has more troubled kids than all of the city's magnets - charter and noncharter, private and public - put together. My sense is that they are not doing any better than the regular aklternative school, but I don't have the evidence and I didn't write about that.

I continue to support charters because I believe that we can experiment, and if charters would listen more to unions, we would all benefit. But the fact of the matter is that magnets "cream." How could it be otherwise? Magnets are not comparable to neighborhood schools. I wish Margo/mom hadn't had such an experience, and I wish she and others didn't have such bad experiences in regular schools. But I don't see how we can make things better by dwelling on blame. We can't even afford to dwell on blaming principals.