Is There A Tipping Point When It Comes To Charter Schools?
Charter schools have moved front and center in the education debate, mainly due to the announcements over the past month.
First, there was the donated BofA building slated to house charter schools. This school would hold approximately 2,000 students
Then there was the expansion of Newark Charter School. Once fully operational, this school would hold an estimated 2,300 students.
Odyssey Charter moved into the spotlight with its expansion plan. Projected enrollment: 1,716
That’s a lot of charter. The question is… Is there a tipping point when it comes to Charter Schools and how they impact traditional Public Schools? I think we’ve reached the tipping point. I base my conclusion on the fact that people have started paying attention and speaking out. Agree or disagree, the impact of Charters is being felt.
I’m also concerned that the intent of Charters has been abandoned. Charters were promoted with two main points:
1. Charter Schools claimed to be able to get better educational results than traditional public schools with less money.
The data shows that the claim of better educational results hasn’t materialized. The majority of Charter Schools perform the same as, or worse, than traditional public schools. Less than 20% perform better.
The second part of the statement (better results with less money) is also a point that’s being increasingly questioned by Charter proponents. There’s an awful lot of talk about how Charters should have their capital expenses covered.
When I look at point #1 I’m left with the feeling that Charters have not lived up to their own definition of the purpose of Charter Schools.
2. Charter Schools were promoted as educational laboratories; a place to test new educational models which, if successful, would be implemented into traditional Public Schools.
This has not happened, nor do I think it will. We’ve come a long way from a time when Charters were promoted as a way to improve public education for all. This is due, imo, to the reality that successful Charter Schools have more in common with Private Schools, who control who gets in and stays in, than Public Schools that must take everyone. And until successful Charter Schools have to take and keep everyone and duplicate their results outside of their current student body they haven’t proved a thing. Sorry, but taking already smart kids and getting good test scores is hardly an educational breakthrough that needs to be studied or held up as a stunning educational success.
Which brings us to last night’s meeting. First, special thanks to John Young, Nichole Dobo and Doug Denison for tweeting the event. Thanks to Kilroy for live-blogging it.
How to tackle this meeting? First, I understand that Newark Charter School parents love their school. I understand that they believe they’ve made the best educational choice for their child. I get that most of these parents aren’t trying to hurt other parents and children. I also understand that there are problems in traditional public schools that need to be addressed.
Here’s what I don’t understand. Why are traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools – two groups that were supposed to work together for the benefit of all children – now sworn enemies? What happened to initial idea of Charters as laboratories, sharing and implementing ideas tested in a small environment with public schools?
This might have something to do with it. Go read the whole thing. Mr. Meece’s mindset is quite stunning. I’m going to pull the infamous crab bucket story, he cites, and that I’ve now heard countless times.
Years ago, someone explained to me a phenomenon called the “crab bucket syndrome.” As crabs are caught and tossed into a bucket, the first crab tries to climb out to save its life. Other crabs, seeing his escape plan, grab hold of the first crab’s legs, which pulls him back into the bucket. Eventually, all the crabs perish. In schools, this is a metaphor for, “If I can’t have it, neither can you.” This is what happens when a group tries to “pull down” any other school that shows success can be achieved.
This is happening in Newark, where a group is trying to stop one of our most successful public schools, Newark Charter School, from expanding.
Every time I hear this story I am stunned by the disconnect. I am amazed that it hasn’t dawned on those repeating it that the crabs trying to escape are walking on other crabs, pushing them down in an attempt to get out. Actually, I find the example apt, but I don’t think my takeaway was Mr. Meece’s point. Mr. Meece seems to relate only to the crabs trying to escape, and if they have to do that on the backs of the crabs left in the bucket well… that’s okay with him.
All the crabs were out of the bucket last night, and some of it wasn’t pretty. Back to Kilroy’s link. Again, go read the whole thing.
– Someone says CSD can’t be fix
– CSD board member coming to bat saying NCS is harmful
– Parent declares “I won the lottery and I’m proud” says poor parents should get food stamps not complain abt cafeteria
– It appears all opponents have spoken and now it’s a string of NCS parents
– Next parent supports, says he doesn’t care about lost funds and units in CSD
– Man up now saying competition is good. Charters are good. And we need to heal from wound of this debate
– Assistant principal talking about free lunch and no cafeteria. Says trailers and no capital funding is reason.
– Next up parent, bashing the hell out of CSD. Then won lottery. Cure ensued.
John Kowalko and Nancy Willing spoke, and I’d love it if they told us what exactly they said. From Twitter, and Kilroy, it sounded like Kowalko spoke about the Charter Law and that Charters must consider impact study by CSD, rather than a particular school.
Oh yeah, we are divided. Everyone is fighting for what they want, and the attitude of Mr. Meece and a few others doesn’t endear anyone to their cause. Decorum, indeed.
I think the time has come to slow everything down and regroup. Charter Schools and Public Schools impact each other. We must find a way to coexist, because if we don’t then there will only be one winner… and a lot of losers.
We have reached the tipping point.
Tags: Charter Schools, Education
The future of charter expansion? Like any business, charters have to contend with the challenges of rapid growth which cause many businesses to fail.
I think the actual tipping point will be when charter schools have absorbed all or nearly all the students who are above average. Then they will be forced to choose whether to stop growing (and begin declining), or to begin accepting more high-needs students than their success model is designed for. Neither choice will be a happy one for a charter to make.
At the same time, charter expansion will also cause them to begin competing for the corporate funding they are accustomed to, which will be diluted by the proliferation of charters.
Right now charters have strong political support derived almost entirely from charter parents and operators, in alliance with fringe anti-government/anti-union/anti-public school activists.
But the political tipping point may come as charters suck more resources away from public schools, and parents begin noticing their schools declining and closing, and their property values at risk.
Perhaps we have reached the tip of the tipping point? 😉
Right now we are witnessing individual skirmishes. These mini battles aren’t productive – pitting parent against parent – because they aren’t dealing with the big Charter picture.
And you’ve laid out the upcoming battles between Charter Schools perfectly, Mike. I do believe, that if the Charter infusion continues, that Charter Schools will become indistinguishable from today’s public schools (most already are when it comes to educational results). The only difference that will occur is the possible end, or weakening, of teacher’s unions (although, Charter teachers will unionize if they’re able – and I’d keep an eye on that) and the end, or weakening, of the DOE.
The real power behind Charters has never made a secret of these goals.
Pandora, I like the premise of your piece but you continue to play loose with the facts. You claim to want harmony and cooperation between traditional public and charter schools, but the target of your disdain has consistently been NCS. NCS is the highest rated public school in the state, so your point about only 20% of charter schools collectively bettering traditional public schools is irrelevant to NCS. If some charter schools are not meeting their charter, REVOKE THEIR CHARTER.
As far as your second point, I think you and others need to challenge the prevailing status quo. If problem kids are preventing traditional public schools from achieving the same results as NCS and other charters, why can’t they be removed? Why should my kids education and school be compromised by kids that don’t want to learn? I’m sure you will call me naive, but I fail to comprehend why it is a given that disruptive kids are not allowed to be removed. If we begin with this as a premise, then you are correct that NCS will always come out ahead because unacceptable behavior isn’t tolerated there.
Finally, give Meece’s “crab in the bucket” analogy a rest already. You’ve inferred way more than he said. He never implied the “escaping crab” did so on the backs of the crabs left behind, that was all you. What he said is the escaping crab was pulled back by the other crabs, and that’s exactly what appears to be happening. Make no mistake: we’re all in a pot so he got that right.
I will be addressing my remarks to the State School Board members and Secretary of Education Lillian Lowery but I hope what I have to say here is relayed to Governor Markell and all policy makers in Delaware.
I find it rather unsettling that the opportunity of the public to speak at a forum for or against any pending policy decisions is only allowed to occur after significant discussion by only one side has been heard and tacit approval has been granted on the matter. The question of the authenticity of such a procedure has been brought to my attention by many concerned citizens. This process, currently set by DOE regulations, is an indefensible abridgment of the rights of the public to effectively participate in a contested discussion. This appalling lack of timely access to legitimately question the purported facts that should be honestly and objectively evaluated has not been created or assisted by the State Board of Education members but it is important that you members realize and accept your full responsibility here. You are not limited to being arbiters of whether or not the minimum constraints of a law have been met and allow a decision to proceed solely on that criterion. You are tasked with determining the effect on public education, existing public education opportunities, effect on the community, effect on all public school children, and the impact financially and otherwise that will be felt throughout the entire state public education community.
Therefore I hope every one of you, State Board of Ed. Members and Dr. Lowery, will very seriously consider the difference between the “letter of the law” and the “intent of the law”. In a thoughtfully well written law these items are not mutually exclusive. Laws are written and passed by men and women that occasionally blur that line between word and intent. The current Charter School legislation, albeit well-intended blurs that line in many ways. Your challenge is to honestly and objectively consider when that conflict occurs and is applicable to your authority and responsibility in rendering judgment. Any application written, in good faith, may comply with the letter of the law while not necessarily conforming to the intent of the law and therefore having negative effects that must be considered by you.
I will point out some instances of these inconsistencies in Title 14, Chapter 5 of the code regarding Charter Schools that you should consider in your deliberations.
Subchapter 511 para.2 states “a request for modification to increase a school’s total authorized enrollment by more than 15% shall be considered a major modification, regardless of whether the additional students will attend school at the current location or at a separate location” mandates when impact of a modification must be considered but does not preclude consideration of a major impact being considered when it is 14% (as currently being proposed) or less. Therefore you should give very serious consideration to the impact study presented by Christina School District, the most dramatically affected district. Paragraph 4 explicitly enumerates the same.
In the Title 14, Chapter 5 subchapter 506 paragraph 4 and 5 it references discrimination and desegregation policies. This is another example of compliance with the letter of the law and certainly no deliberate attempt to circumvent the law but you should consider the reality of the situation regarding the laws intent. The 5 mile radius option has been applied in conformity with the law and the presence and availability of other school K-8 in that radius can justify its legitimacy. The fact, however, is that the available Public High Schools for all matriculating Christina District 8th graders are in the Newark area and the five mile radius, self-feeding existing system for lottery access to the proposed NCS high school creation would exclude all of those other students from being able to participate and have equal access to the lottery. This could lead to an unintended but actual resegregation and discrimination. A study of the impact report by CSD validates this presumption and should also lead to a serious consideration of the fact that all Christina District taxpayers will contribute to the finances of the proposed high school while being precluded from equal access to that institution they are paying for.
Finally I ask the Board and Secretary to consider that the original intent of Charter School creation was and is to allow for a serious and innovative implementation of methodology, curriculum and practices that would be replicate in the standard public school environment. To date there has been no evidence of that transference of success being seriously offered nor accepted by existing schools. To expect that self replication of a distinct student body from K-12 under existing public school policy is doable is not realistic and creating a stand alone 20th School District with an autonomous superintendent and administration should not be viewed as a solution or alternative to needed education reform for Delaware’s public school system.
Thank you.
John Kowalko
First, which facts have I played “fast and loose” with? Please let me know.
Second, you say… the target of my disdain has consistently been NCS. Wrong. It’s been Red Clay. Ask anybody. Seriously, I get you guys have just been arrived at DL and Kilroy’s, but can you please stop making things up. Go to our Tag search and hit education. Come back and tell me what you find.
And where are you proposing to move disruptive kids?
And I stand by the idiocy of the crab bucket story and its users.
I get your interest is focused solely on NCS, but you are missing the big picture when it comes to Charters and how it will ultimately effect everyone – including you. Take a step back and look at what’s going on. In the last month we have 3 Charters that plan to house approx. 6,000 students. Do you honestly believe these Charters won’t impact other schools – including other Charter Schools? Do you believe that we shouldn’t know, or care, how these schools will impact other schools and communities?
Thanks for posting that, John.
another problem with the charter law/regulation is that in the interest at assessing school performance, they look at student snapshot, NOT student progress.
if a charter school is able to capture high-performing students, BEFORE THE STUDENTS ENTER THEIR DOORS, the charter assessment process labels that charter school as an out-performer.
where in the charter assessment process is there a longitudinal measurement of how students PROGRESS while at the school?
If you take a school with a median student population that begins at 82% of median grade level, at the start of the year, and ends at 83%, how would you compare that school to one that has a median student population at 34% of median grade level at the start of the year and progress to 49% at the end of the year?
In my mind, the second school is doing a darn good job.
“I think the actual tipping point will be when charter schools have absorbed all or nearly all the students who are above average. Then they will be forced to choose whether to stop growing (and begin declining), or to begin accepting more high-needs students than their success model is designed for. Neither choice will be a happy one for a charter to make.”
Notice that, again, Mike isn’t talking about educating anyone. He’s talking about where the “best” students go, and judging the school accordingly.
“NCS is the highest rated public school in the state, so your point about only 20% of charter schools collectively bettering traditional public schools is irrelevant to NCS.”
There isn’t the slightest evidence that NCS is doing any better a job with its student population than any other school would.
The problem with NCS is that its leader is apparently incapable of simple logic, and so is going to claim that test scores “prove” his school is superior. If it doesn’t work in one direction, it doesn’t work in the other.
I’m on the side of the charters, Pat, but let’s tell the truth: NCS is a white-flight academy.
Charter schools are not the problem. The Charter law is. Any school that follows the law should be approved, but must pass the muster of a judicial review (State Board of Ed fulfills this role in DE for Charters) as that is how the system works.
The education landscape has changes in unimaginable ways in the 17 years since the Charter Law was passed and that was the main focus of my remarks last night:
http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/in-the-interest-of-transparency-these-are-the-remarks-i-read-from-and-entered-into-the-record-at-the-charter-meeting-last-night/
NCS is a wonderful school for those it serves. DE public schools and more importantly public school dollars must serve ALL DE kids so I fear Pandora is exactly 100% on point about the tipping point.
Charter law, tipping point.Tipping Point, charter law. Nice to meet you…nice to meet you too!
Now that the introductions have been made, lets legislate before it’s too late!
“Do you honestly believe these Charters won’t impact other schools – including other Charter Schools?”
I would say the odds are they will. But honesty also compels me to note that the entire argument of the anti-charter folks depends on all their predictions of future horrors coming true, when the truth is that we have no idea what all the consequences would be.
How do you know the integrated public schools won’t be more successful once the racists’ kids are gone?
“Do you believe that we shouldn’t know, or care, how these schools will impact other schools and communities?”
No. But I also don’t believe the worst-case-scenario nonsense I have heard for years from anti-charter people. Indeed, at least one of those people has made the argument that because one of his children is special-needs, and charters could theoretically undermine support for the kind of schools his child needs, he’s against charter schools.
That is essentially the same argument charter supporters are making — this route is best for MY CHILD. You can’t win this argument because the people making the choice for NCS are convinced that such a school would be best for their children. Good luck arguing people out of that conviction.
John: Let’s legislate what?
You know, all I’ve called for is slowing down and reviewing the process. I haven’t said I’m against charter schools and they shouldn’t exist.
There’s a lot missing from these debates.
Me: We should slow this down and get a handle on what’s going on.
Answer: Stop picking on Charters!
Me: Is there a tipping point when it comes to Charter Schools?
Answer: My Charter school is awesome!
Know what would be awesome? If people would drop the emotion and address the situation… Because there is a discussion to be had.
Geezer,
Modernize the law to work in a DE that is 50+% poverty for kids in NCC as opposed to less than 25% in 1995.
Laws do get redone sometimes. I think it’s time DE’s legislature look at the Charter Law.
Not abolish it. Legislate it into a new frame.
check out that room!
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=BL&Dato=20120307&Kategori=PHOTOS01&Lopenr=203070802&Ref=PH/Newark-Charter-School?odyssey=mod|defcon|img|Home
Nice post Rep. Kowalko, but you forgot one other important purpose of charter schools: to promote competition within the public school system and pressure school districts to reassess their educational practices. That’s exactly what’s happening right now in CSD, and CSD needs to “reassess their educational practices” or risk further flight from the district. Protectionist tactics won’t keep kids in the district if better choices are not made available. The Cambridge program at NHS is a great example of the better choices we need, but it’s not enough. We need more viable high school choices in CSD, and we need them quickly. One thing I agree with you on is rolling charter best practices out to the broader public school community should be done as quickly as possible. Rolling out these best practices and expanding NCS are not mutually exclusive either, and both are worthwhile endeavors that would serve the community well.
Standing (and glaring menacingly) room only.
you forgot one other important purpose of charter schools: to promote competition within the public school system and pressure school districts to reassess their educational practices
Actually, this is one of the Big Lies of the Charter school business. And it is pretty easy to see in practice right now. Charters skim off the students that are easiest to manage and leave behind those kids who need more help — the special needs kids, the high-poverty kids, the behavior-problem kids, etc. There *is* no competition then, because you’ve fundamentally changed the entire marketplace. And then you’re left with people like you pretending that there is similarity, equity and opportunity both at Newark Charter School and Bancroft Elementary. There isn’t and there is no comparison.
“Indeed, at least one of those people has made the argument that because one of his children is special-needs, and charters could theoretically undermine support for the kind of schools his child needs, he’s against charter schools.”
This person could be me since I have a special needs child and I find nothing wrong the sentiment/argument. PUBLIC education is not to be ordered on utilitarian grounds: providing what’s best for the most number of people (and the rest be damned). Children have a RIGHT to an education and one that provides a reasonable approximation in quality to what all other kids receive. This right has been recognized by the US Supreme Court and, I am told, is enumerated in the DE constitution. If charters have the consequence of disenfranchising some populations of children from a good education, then charters should be considered a public menace akin to, say, institutional practices that privilege certain religious expressions while inhibiting others. Enjoying a RIGHT should not be exclusive to a majority.
More secrets of NCS success:
The NCS application form for 2004-2005 asks if you have an IEP and if you do, to attach it.
The form also asks for your signature to authorize access to school records to “evaluate your application.”
The IEP question is not on the current application form, but the authorization to access records is.
If admission is based solely on a lottery, why would they need to access a child’s school records? What are they evaluating?
Dana’s comment reminds me that the only real competition that Charters generate is one for limited resources. And as we can see in the NCS debate, we have a bunch of taxpayers telling other taxpayers — “Hey, I’ve got mine and to hell with you.” The competition for resources makes the business of education one of alot of false choices, and people are being suckered into thinking that it is their personal *choice* that is important — not education for everyone.
Dana writes,
“PUBLIC education is not to be ordered on utilitarian grounds: providing what’s best for the most number of people (and the rest be damned).”
I agree. Yet that is exactly the rationale for keeping the highest-scoring kids in classes with lower-scoring ones: The presence of the higher-scorers actually improves the scores of the lower-scorers. What goes unacknowledged is that the highest-scoring kids are not being challenged. Are they being educated to reach their highest capabilities? Not in the example above. They are being used to help improve the scores of the other students first, to maximize their own success second. If I recall correctly, it was when this educational philosophy was brought into CSD that talk of starting NCS began.
“Enjoying a RIGHT should not be exclusive to a majority.”
Agreed again. I’m merely pointing out that the same rationale being used to attack charter schools could also be used to defend them. The issue, as I recall, was fairness. Are you suggesting only Supreme Court-acknowledged fairness can be discussed?
“If charters have the consequence of disenfranchising some populations of children from a good education, then charters should be considered a public menace akin to, say, institutional practices that privilege certain religious expressions while inhibiting others.”
Here’s a proposition: Suppose you show me the evidence that children are being disenfranchised before we continue along that particular garden path? As far as I’m aware, the anti-charter line is that they provide no better an education than non-charter schools. If there’s any any evidence that charters destroy non-charter schools, I haven’t seen it brought forward, either here or elsewhere. Fear is not evidence.
“the only real competition that Charters generate is one for limited resources.”
I can’t imagine how you could be more wrong. Each student gets a certain amount of state money. If traditional schools have fewer students, then they need fewer buildings and fewer teachers. The resources aren’t limited — they simply aren’t dumped into the same failing education system.
“people are being suckered into thinking that it is their personal *choice* that is important — not education for everyone.”
No, they’re not. People are realizing that their personal choice is more important to them than education for “everyone.” Who are you to tell people that educating your kids is more important than educating their own? I mean, go ahead, and good luck.
You people have embraced a losing issue, and it’s that rare losing issue that deserves to lose.
You are defending a failing system and chastising people who are trying to escape it. Put it to a vote and you’ll lose 80-20.
Hey, Pat: Tell us what those “best practices” at NCS consist of. Besides cherry-picking students, I mean.
Each student gets a certain amount of state money. If traditional schools have fewer students, then they need fewer buildings and fewer teachers.
This would be true if all of the students were exactly the same — with exactly the same needs and requirements. They aren’t, by any stretch. Which is — at the end of the day — the real argument. Because charters can jettison those kids that cost them more than the state allocation. Public schools cannot. So I guess it’s me wondering how you could be more wrong.
People are realizing that their personal choice is more important to them than education for “everyone.”
There is a large group of people paying for these personal choices and there is a group of these people have no say in how this happens. There are people who see what you do not — that the reduction of an entire educational system to one more bit of lifestyle semiotics is what is destroying the system. And frankly, I don’t mind if all of these parents have a choice. The vote we need to have is whether the people who *don’t* have a choice — the childless, the adults whose kids are grown, the recent retirees here — should be required to pay into the system. Bet that would make some knees weak. Because if parents get a personal choice on how to spend all of the money then we should have parents actually pay all of the money, right? As long as there is a school tax assessed on my house I do get a say. If no one wants me to have a say, they can return my taxes back to me. But you’ve gotten right into the charter school rabbit hole here with this entitlement to everyone else’s money.
Each student gets a certain amount of state money. If traditional schools have fewer students, then they need fewer buildings and fewer teachers. The resources aren’t limited — they simply aren’t dumped into the same failing education system.
And it has been proven that high poverty schools are very, very expensive. So, when a certain socioeconomic group leaves and poverty at the school they left increases then the same dollars won’t go as far.
And I agree I won’t win a vote or a popularity contest with my opinions, but I’m not trying to. What I’m trying to do is point out the problems (current and future) if changes aren’t made. And if what you claim is true, and a Charter parent wants to say, I don’t care about any kid receiving an excellent education but mine… well, at least that would be the start of an honest conversation.
And Red Clay has done the same damn thing through Choice – so it isn’t only Charters cherry-picking. And I’ve made that point many times.
Is Geezer actually arguing with both sides? Geezer, you are having way too much fun with this thread 🙂
@Pandora – There’s plenty of “honest dialogue” to go around for both sides. For instance, we all know the “plight of the low-income” is a smoke screen for the DSEA to advance their anti-charter campaign. We also know there are real safety and substandard education concerns for kids at many of the CDS public schools which is why so many parents don’t want their kids in those schools. We also know that low income kids typically do just as well as other kids when given structure, and that’s exactly what has been observed at NCS. Unfortunately, the honesty doesn’t extend to leaders in CDS admitting that their opposition to charter schools has more to do with them than it does the kids. They have utterly failed in their responsibilities but will not own that failure. I’m not sure why they even oppose the NCS expansion when it will provide them with an even better scapegoat for their failures going forward.
“you’ve gotten right into the charter school rabbit hole here with this entitlement to everyone else’s money.”
My point was that once you get into that argument, we’re all talking about “everyone else’s” money.
“There are people who see what you do not — that the reduction of an entire educational system to one more bit of lifestyle semiotics is what is destroying the system.”
If so many people see this, why can’t you provide a single link to back it up?
“Because if parents get a personal choice on how to spend all of the money then we should have parents actually pay all of the money, right?”
Even by your own sloppy standards of reasoning, this makes no sense. Nobody on the charter side is demanding to spend “all” the money any single way. You, on the other hand, are, because you have decided that you know better than those children’s parents what would be best NOT for those children but for the OTHER children. That is a seriously screwed-up position to argue from in a nominally freedom-based society.
Not to mention that you couldn’t put together a less popular, more off-putting point if you tried. Real smart slogan ya got there: “Your kids aren’t yours, they’re society’s.” Let me know how that works out for you.
“it has been proven that high poverty schools are very, very expensive.”
No it hasn’t. What has been proved is that we can funnel unending amounts of money to such schools without improving student performance.
“when a certain socioeconomic group leaves and poverty at the school they left increases then the same dollars won’t go as far.”
Why not? Why are you demanding that schools, rather than some other agency, pick up the pieces of these kids’ lives? I’m well aware that a lot of kids come to school not ready to learn. My child shouldn’t be slowed down because other people’s kids aren’t ready to learn.
I don’t mind paying the extra money to educated those kids. I DO mind paying with the attendance of my children.
I spent well over six figures putting my kids and my money where my mouth is. I do not begrudge public schools my tax dollars; I don’t support the voucher movement. But I do begrudge people like Cassandra who want to tell parents that ALL the money must go to traditional schools.
Look, NCS seems like a white-flight academy to me. But the jihad against charters puts you in the untenable position of defending the status quo of a clearly failing system. What’s YOUR side’s solution to the situation? Because whatever it is, I don’t even see it making the current conversation.
Mike O.: You’re right, I can’t get along with anybody. Seriously, I agree with some of the arguments on each side and disagree with parts on each side.
I don’t like slippery slope arguments even when they are backed up with facts; in this case, I simply haven’t seen any. I understand the fears, but I refuse to endorse courses in public policy based on fears alone.
Pan: OK, let’s have an honest talk.
Do we know yet what charters will inhabit the building downtown? Do we know which schools those students currently attend? Do we know what the effects of those schools on existing schools will be?
I think the answer to all those questions is “No.” Until we have some of that information, fears and biases are going to form the bulk of the conversation.
What I DON’T like is bullshit like that floated by the head of NCS. Either he’s dishonest or stupid, and neither one speaks well of that school.
As long as we’re discussing biases, I suppose I should point out that Newark was the epicenter of anti-busing sentiment back in the ’70s, so I’m inclined to see racial animus behind their charter school dreams.
And, to the clown who said something about Appo being such a great district, you have to be kidding. Go back and look at that district’s test scores before the building boom of the ’90s. Same teachers, same schools, lower scores, because the newcomers were mostly high-earners looking for “more house for the money” than they could get farther north.
Appoquinimink’s test scores track perfectly with the increase in household income in the district.
Want smarter students? Give all their parents raises.
Do we know yet what charters will inhabit the building downtown? Do we know which schools those students currently attend? Do we know what the effects of those schools on existing schools will be?
This is my point. No, I don’t have any idea what’s going in that building, but the heads of CSW and NCS (as well as others)seem to know and toss the school names around. And that’s what burns me up. Certain people know what’s going on, others – even when they ask – don’t get the same info.
Believe it or not, I am not anti-charter. What I’m feeling right now is that I’m in the middle of a coup. Actually, I’m feeling that the coup already happened. That is the point of my frustration. The same frustration I felt when Red Clay was busy promoting the referendum to certain communities while keeping others in the dark.
Basically, most of my frustration stems from the done deals that take everyone, except those moving the pieces around the board, by surprise.
Nobody on the charter side is demanding to spend “all” the money any single way.
Which wasn’t my claim, by any stretch, but I gather that this is the part of the argument where we have to live with your strawmen so you can continue this showboating contrarianism. If you are going to make an argument that I can’t tell parents (HINT:charter or No!) anything about an education that I partially fund, it is astonishing to me that you wouldn’t give equal weight to letting parents (HINT: Charter or No!) fund it all — and that way none of you would even need your strawmen here, yes?
Taking the limited money out of the traditional school system isn’t fixing anything — except ensuring that some kids are always underserved. It also lets the usual powers that be continue to let those kids be underserved while churning around on BS like RTTT and whatever new miracle is supposed to be Fixing It All For You.
And you can start by reading Diane Ravitch.
It’s disheartening to read some of the comments in this thread. My head is spinning.
All I know is I’ll still (gladly) be servicing my group of low-income, severe-high-needs special education students tomorrow and the week after and the week after next. These students will continue to come from home environments fraught with stress and we’ll expect them to complete the same standardized tests as their more affluent peers. A test that doesn’t take into account their widely varied learning modalities and levels.
And then they’ll get judged. By a number. And our school will get judged. By a rating. And our teachers will get judged. Based on scores.
But we still work with them. Day in. And day out. Because, I guess, we still see something in them even though those cat-calling parents at last night’s meeting may not give a damn.
Sometimes I’m so tempted to jump into the fray. I could really write a book responding to some of these comments. But, I won’t. It’s just not worth it. I’d rather be planning tomorrow’s Titanic lesson for my fifth graders. Or devising a strategy to get my fourth graders to memorize their four times tables. Because, though so many claim my impoverished children could give a damn about learning, you’d better believe their eyes light up when they’ve mastered those four times tables or they have a moment of empathy upon learning many third-class passengers were left behind in the lower decks of the Titanic because that’s the way the ship was run. We can’t leave them behind. But we are.
Thank you for that, Mike. You are what a teacher should be, teaching students teachers should be fighting to teach.
Perhaps we’ll write that book together!
I’m enjoying the debate. Lots of good points made by both sides — and lots of exaggerations too.
A couple of nuggets to munch on — nuggets that hopefully will keep some of our debaters from repeatedly oversimplifying and/or exaggerating:
To those who say charters don’t serve special needs kids — no one has mentioned one of the new charters that opened in September 2011 — Gateway Lab School in the old St. Catherine of Siena School building near Price’s Corner.
To those who say charters only skim the most intelligent/affluent of the public school crop, how about Kuumba Academy in downtown Wilmington — predominantly African-American in enrollment, and high performing too.
Kuumba, by the way, also wants to expand, and its head has said the school will apply to lease space in the Bank of America Education Palace around the corner from Rodney Square.
its head has said the school will apply to lease space in the Bank of America Education Palace around the corner from Rodney Square.
There’s going to be an application process? Look Scoob… another clue!
Found one news article on this:
See, all the charter insiders know more about what’s coming than we do. I wish they would just tell us already.
I bet even among charter school heads there is an A, B, and C list for who gets information.
I like Mike M, but he confuses caring for sound pedagogy. (I’m totally kidding. That sentence came into my head and I started laughing, and I just had to write it in spite of the fact that it is 100% nonsense. I just can’t help myself sometime. ..most times actually.)
Kuumba skims, as well. It’s simply skimming from a different socioeconomic pool.
Also, mediawatch, don’t think I didn’t notice how one sided your exaggeration examples were. 😉
Your head must be a interesting place, in a Tim Burton kind of way, J.
I’ll see your pedagogy and raise you a Common Core and GLE. I’ll even throw in a PLC and data coach or two, J!
The Teachers Union brought this upon themselves.
And 12 reveals the real agenda.
Shaking my head at 12. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, though.
So you want to know why the necessity for charter schools, standardized testing, competitiveness in education, and even private schools are a load of crap? Do you want to know why equity in education is the best possible and most beneficial goal a society can set for the sake of it’s children? Read this: http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
Thanks for that article, Dana. Really fascinating stuff that makes so much sense.
Pandora: On the contrary, much of what’s in that article is counter-intuitive. Even the Finnish say they achieved excellence without aiming for it. I particularly like HOW they achieved it: By treating each student as an individual.
I suppose each of us will read into it according to our personal philosophies. I noticed that a prominent reform was the end of standardized testing. I also read further (truly, thanks for that link, Dana) and noticed that:
*Teachers all get three years of graduate school training, with a stipend, and salaries are generous. As a result, so many people apply for teaching jobs that only 15% are accepted.
*Free education continues into adulthood, and nearly 50% of the adult population takes classes of some kind, either employment-oriented training or just for its own sake.
So, as inspiring as the Finnish experience is, I can’t imagine it happening here.
“In his book Sahlberg quotes a line from Finnish writer named Samuli Paronen: “Real winners do not compete.” It’s hard to think of a more un-American idea.”
That last sentence is the understatement of the year, and it’s the complete opposite of what the system is currently set up to determine.
“All children receive a report card at the end of each semester, but these reports are based on individualized grading by each teacher.”
IN this country, we’re going down the road of spending billions on software that will “help” teachers do this. Reminds me of the apocryphal story of NASA spending millions to develop a ball-point pen that would work in zero gravity, while the Russians just used pencils.
“The problem facing education in America isn’t the ethnic diversity of the population but the economic inequality of society, and this is precisely the problem that Finnish education reform addressed.”
This is the same thing I addressed as “give all their parents raises.” I notice that the Finns just give out free food and health care to all students, instead of needs-testing them (helps eliminate class distinctions among the students themselves as well as educators).
I also don’t find the Finns’ experiences with a growing immigrant student population (3% of the total, up from 1%) a good point of comparison for the long-established racial tensions found in most American states.
Perhaps the biggest reason we can’t emulate the Finns, and will never stop arguing about education, is that while all their schools are equal, all ours are not. Delaware is better than most states at equalizing funding. Look to Pa. and N.J. if you want to see what happens when localities shoulder most of the bill: Well-heeled suburban districts pay teachers 30% more than poor and inner-city districts.
Only Cassandra has touched on the fear that underlies much of this fight: Property values. That’s why people care about feeder patterns, that’s why they move to certain areas (usually as much on perception as reality), that’s why NCS has a five-mile limit. And that’s why even people without kids have a dog in the fight.
I see charter schools as knocking down some of those barriers, while many others see it as erecting new ones.
It’s not contrariness, Cassandra. It’s just a point of view that disagrees with yours. Try to learn how to live with that with a little more grace.
Perhaps the biggest reason we can’t emulate the Finns, and will never stop arguing about education, is that while all their schools are equal, all ours are not.
Bingo. Perhaps we could start there, with equity.
Cassandra: Your argument is the same as the Catholic Church’s “religious freedom” stance: You disapprove of how some parents want the tax money spent, so you want to take away that option for any and all.
This is not surprising, as you also take the authoritarian stance against the 4th Amendment in allowing the police to subject everyone who drives into your neighborhood at night to a search.
“Perhaps we could start there, with equity.”
Yet we already are closer to funding equity than most states. Whatever Delaware’s problem, that’s not it.
If you mean the inequities between students, well, the inequities in schools echo the inequities in society. Until we win the fight for higher taxes on those who can afford them, education will track with every other sort of social inequity we see all around us.
Silly me, I figured the charter movement would allow somebody to set up a school on the Finnish model. That’s why I support charters — anything that breaks out of the standardization craze is good, IMHO.
I think that if a best practices model is extant and has been successfully tested for several years, you advocate for it and educate people about it to change attitudes about what can be done. You never accept the attitude that it can’t be done here. Instead you think it can’t be done.fully now and one must prepare for it by putting the infrastructure and practices into place that approximate the best practice and can support its possible eventuality. That means you.compromise on what moves the.system toward the best practice model and oppose what moves away.from the model. While different readings of the article are possible in the.margins, what is.doubtlessly central to the Finnish model is using the education system to redress social and economic inequities. That’s they key. MOdels that lack that centrality are doomed to mediocrity at best and failure at worst. The creation of special schools that preselect their student bodies are unequal regardless of how equally the schools may be generally funded.
It’s not contrariness, Cassandra. It’s just a point of view that disagrees with yours. Try to learn how to live with that with a little more grace.
This is more that just a little rich from someone who not only will recreate my arguments into whatever strawman he wants to argue and never acknowledges that or apologizes for it. The contrariness is in the need to create the strawman in the first place. And you will find that the grace you want to lecture me on is self-evident once you get that I’m not about to suffer fools lightly.
Your argument is the same as the Catholic Church’s “religious freedom” stance: You disapprove of how some parents want the tax money spent, so you want to take away that option for any and all.
More stupid bullshit from you. I am a taxpayer for one of these school districts. I should be represented here when this school district wants to funnel money away from my community. And I’m not. Nor are many other people who are participating on this thread. But then, how authoritarian is it when you are here presuming that just because your representation falls over backwards to make sure your community is well taken care of that somehow the rest of us should be happy with the crumbs that fall from the table. Just because you are accustomed to thinking of city communities are inferior to the one you escaped to doesn’t mean that anyone here needs to defer to your silliness.