HB 424 – Eliminating The “Special Interest” In Charter And VoTech
On July, 1,2014, Rep. Darryl Scott introduced HB 424:
| Primary Sponsor: | Scott |  |
| CoSponsors: | { NONE…} | |
| Introduced on : | 07/01/2014 | |
| Long Title: | AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS. |
| Synopsis of Orginal Bill: (without Amendments) |
This bill eliminates the ability of charter schools to give an enrollment preference to students who have a specific interest in the school’s teaching methods, philosophy, or educational focus, or who are within a five-mile radius. It also requires that admission to vocational-technical high schools be determined by a lottery system. |
Looks like Rep. Scott has handed the House his retirement gift, and I really hope other members pick up his call.
First, I’ve always had a problem with picking a career path for a 10 and 13 year old (and in some cases younger). And I’m really not sure how children that age “demonstrate” special interest. Of course, those with financially secure parents will have quite a resumé of science, math, arts camps and visits to the Met or NASA, but how does an average kid, who doesn’t have those advantages, demonstrate special interest? Especially when you consider the admission’s requirements for certain Charters, Vo-Techs and Magnet schools (Yep, magnet schools should be in this bill, too). It doesn’t appear to be enough to say, “I really like and have always been interested in science, art, math, etc.”. Or, why taking the time to complete an application to a specific interest school doesn’t demonstrate… well, interest.
We are all aware that The Charter School of Wilmington has an admissions, I mean placement test. It is used as way to determine which classes to place a student. They also require an essay to be completed on the test day, and according to CSW’s website the essay “is also used to phase students once they are enrolled at CSW.” Well, if that’s true, then why not give the test/essay after the student is accepted? Seriously, why not?
And it’s not only charter schools that have the special interest requirement. Magnet schools are doing this as well.
Conrad Schools of Science requires an interview/assessment appointment for all high school and in District applicants. This consists of an approximately 10 minute interview and an approximately 30 minute writing assessment. As well as submitting… Current year’s report card, Previous year’s report card, Standardized test scores (DSTP, DCAS, Terranova, CAT, MAP, etc.), and Student work from science class (project, poster, etc.). Conrad transformed into a magnet in the fall of 2007. In the year before the transformation, Conrad had 74% low income and 18.4% special ed. In the 2013 – 2014 school year, Conrad has 35.6% low income and 2.9% special ed. Draw your own conclusions.
Cab Calloway School of the Arts requires an assessment. They say… “Your enrollment is based solely on your performance during the assessment.” Here’s where all those expensive piano lessons and art camps pay off.
Even Vo-Tech is requiring an essay: An application is complete when the form (with parent signature), essay, final report card from the previous school year, and a most recent report card are submitted. Why is that?
Back to HB 424… Scott also wants to eliminate the 5 mile radius, which brings Newark Charter School’s policies into play. I’ll sit back and wait for the explosion.
All of these schools require more than specific interest, and every additional requirement for admission is a way, imo, to shape their populations.
I really hope someone picks up HB 424. It’s past time to address these issues. We really need to stop carving public education into slices.
Tags: Charter Schools, Education, Magnet Schools, Vo-Tech
The flip side of that, particularly with the vo-techs, is that a student with a genuine interest in one of the shops may be passed over for someone who simply wishes to go to that school to get out of their home district. If someone wants to be an auto mechanic, and they know that, why not make sure they get to go to the school where they can learn that?
I can certainly see the need for this bill, as the schools have become increasingly re-segregated as a result of these “choice” schools, but it must be implemented in a way that does not water down the original purpose of the school, be it arts for Cab Calloway or technologies for the Vo-Techs.
You make an excellent point about Vo-Techs – and everyone knows why they’re suddenly popular among a group that wouldn’t have considered them years ago.
I’m fine with having a school for arts, tech, etc., as well. It’s all these hurdles (tests, essays, interviews, assessments, etc.) that are designed to shape their population. Not to mention, for those who do not have a car/transportation, making these extra appointments is difficult.
And the specific interest law isn’t really about interest. It’s about advantages – advantages such as expensive summer camps/after school music lessons – as well as attending one of the few well-funded, low (non) poverty elementary schools that offer TAG, Odyessy of the Mind, TSA, etc. A child from Shortlidge will not have the same opportunities to demonstrate interest as a child from North Star due to the programs available in their public school. That doesn’t mean the Shortlidge student doesn’t have a specific interest – they do. What they don’t have is that expensive resumé.
didn’t that bill die the instant it was entered as the 147th is over?
Someone could revive it. Wouldn’t that be great? Regardless, it’s out there and I’m calling my Rep and pushing for it. Maybe it’s time we got out ahead of the game.
Revive as in introduce as fresh bill using this as template.
As for his entering of the bill compared to how he feels and voted on public education: appears to be a symbolic gesture or a guilty conscience.
I agree with you though, that I would support it if reintroduced and hopefully my reps will do just that.
I hope to introduce just such legislation early this session and hope my colleagues will join me on this bill. I expressed my disappointment to Rep. Scott on many occasions last session regarding his education agenda and the leads he seemed to be following. I also told him that this bill was one of the few bills of his (regarding education) that I could totally embrace and although disappointed at the futility of introducing anything on the last day of a session the door was now open and would not be allowed to close.
John Kowalko
And there you go!
I have to be missing something here because from where I’m sitting the legislation breaks more than it fixes.
Right now we endure a charter school system that operates on the principle that their declared focus ought to form a basis for admission. Going to an arts school, better have talent in the arts. Going to a science school, better have an aptitude for science. Why is this wrong?
Instead we want to encourage those parents who want their kids out of a district to apply and take a seat in a charter school for which their kids may not be interested or have an aptitude for. Why is that right?
To the point that “picking a career path for a 10 and 13 year” old is a problem, it might be. But to my knowledge, the student picks the school not the other way around. Presumably, if they or their parents pick a charter/vo-tech school that voluntary choice must be driven by a personal interest in the school’s curriculum . If there is a problem here it isn’t that the schools exist, its that kids and parents choose to go to them to the exclusion of other educational options. What legislative remedy fixes this? None.
Know what’s a problem? That I can predict if you’ll get into one of these “desirable” charters or magnets based on which elementary school you attend.
This isn’t about specific interest – it’s about
admissionsplacement tests, essays, participation in school clubs like TSA, Odyssey of the Mind, Math League, etc. (which don’t exist at most high poverty schools), summer camps which cost a fortune, but add to a students’ specific interest, having access to necessary transportation to take the tests, write the essay, etc..Choice always sounds good to middle class people, because, in order to access choice, you need to be able to get your child to and from school, or to the closest assigned bus stop – which isn’t that difficult if you have a car or work a normal schedule.
Here’s hoping Darryl will consider a comeback.
License tag #2 would become him nicely.
“But to my knowledge, the student picks the school not the other way around.”
And the schools get to pick which ones they accept by putting up as many convenient barriers (essays, placement tests, etc.) as it wants.
Exactly, SussexAnon.
And, ATIAM, if you go to our search bar and enter Education or Charter Schools you will find a ton of posts I (and others) have written, in great detail, on this subject. I can see where you’re coming from, but there’s a lot of history here.
What isn’t addressed is that there is a desire and need to leave the feeder schools for some very real reasons. These reasons have not been addressed, there has been no legislation to correct it and in any discussions, it is the deflected as that the Charters, Magnates, or Vo-techs are to blame for the conditions of the feeder schools. This is a backwards argument. If the conditions in our feeder schools were forced to respond to the core issues of academics and behavior, there would be very little demand for alternatives. Fix the problems and the alternative schools argument goes away.
Mr Kowalko, perhaps if our local schools were not governed by a conflicted DOE and complacent DSEA, then real improvement could occur. Instead, the parents grasping for good education are forced to fend off the likes of the Governor, Mr. Murphy, DSEA sycophants, socialistic liberal financial redistribution, AND legislation that doesn’t attack the problem but rather the bemoaned results of our inadequate NCC TPS’s. Let me stress, as a parent seeking to get my children a good education, I do not care one iota which school it is as long as it meets reasonable expectations of behavior and academics. I don’t care who is in the school or what name is on the building. The problem is that alternative schools are the ones providing what parents want and they are being attacked because they can’t meet demand.
Why do commenters here want the special interest removed? Because the higher demand alternative schools want to be able to continue to provide what the parents have asked for. Sending a very artsy child to DMA would lead to problems. Sending a failing child to a school that has accelerated classes will create problems for the student. Sending a child who has trouble operating the least sophisticated electronic device to a computer curriculum votech will lead to failures for the child. In addition, doing the above takes away resources from a student who might otherwise be more suited or capable.
Legislation needs to be presented to fix problems, not attack parents trying to fix what the state, DOE, and DSEA, and a judge created.
Public education is a liberal socialist redistribution scheme by definition. But thanks for the charter school rant. I assume “by the alternative schools providing what parents want” you are referring the ones that are still open, financially viable and not under probation by the DOE?
But if you would love to end this redistribution strategy and bear the full burden of the cost of your childrens’ education, have at it. I could use the tax cut.
It would also be refreshing to see parents be a bit more humble about education and admit that just because they went to school it does not mean they know anything about education. At all.
And there’s the Newark Charter School supporter.
And I wouldn’t be too sure about his claim to not care “one iota which school it is as long as it meets reasonable expectations of behavior and academics. I don’t care who is in the school or what name is on the building.”
Check out MRyder’s comment at Kilroy’s responding to my comment about equitable funding for high poverty schools:
Yep, I’m having trouble believing him, but maybe I’m missing something. Anyone?
“Public education is a liberal socialist redistribution scheme by definition.”
Dead Wrong. You’ve put the cart before the horse. Its what you do with it that makes education a integral part of an economic redistribution scheme. Nor is public education, by definition, a liberal socialist scheme. We’ve education boat loads of people that will never participate in economic redistribution. Candidly, on the evidence, there is a better argument that primary level education does little more than cement you to your existing position in the social-economic strata.
Give me the choice of a charter school tax bill or an illiterate public school graduate, I gladly pay the tax bill.
Finally, haven’t got the slightest trouble believing M Ryder’s motivation. You’d be a shittiest kind of parent, at best, for not trying to get the best education available for your kids.
Except data shows that most charters (nationwide) are not better than public schools. Go check out the DDOE website if you don’t believe me. You really need to get up to speed on this issue.
And there’s no confusion concerning M Ryder’s motivation. He’s quite clear.
My problem with the Tech school in Sussex is ” no elected school board “. People with real world experience in the topics being taught should be able to run for a seat to help stear the direction that a given field needs. It should be ” end result driven”.
preparing a student who chooses that path for a seemless path into an apprenticeship or higher level tech school prior to entering the work force.
Merriam-Webster: Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.
Please explain how gov’t owning a major “industry” such as education is not socialism by the dictionary definition.
Sussex Tech needs to keep the Tech in Sussex Tech.
The trolls lost this argument a century ago:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119314/feminism-and-teaching-interview-dana-goldstein
SA
Home Depot called. They’ve run out of duct tape, coat hangers and loose word association. You’ll need something more reliable to hold your argument together.
Yeah, dictionary definitions are highly overrated.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this issue, and some time thinking about this bill.
As a corrective I am not sure that it does not go too far in the opposite direction, but I will admit that at this point I don’t yet have a better suggestion.
Here’s my thinking:
1. I agree with the overwhelming, let’s call them resume advantages, that middle and upper class kids have in terms of demonstrating “specific interest,” and I think that, along with the five-mile radius and the transportation issues there is no question that charters in general (Kuumba-type charters excepted) are far less accessible to low SES families. No problem there. [Although this IS Delaware: Newark Charter, for example, has plenty of low SES families living within a 5-mile radius; they somehow just never get into the lottery.]
2. I can see pandora’s point about not necessarily committing children to a specific interest at a young age, except that … some of them are. My son knew he wanted to do computers as a lifelong thing by about age 8 or 9, as opposed to his twin sister who figured out her major for college about three weeks before she left (and may still change it). So I think a diversity of choices (a good general education and some more specialized schools) is a good thing. The question then becomes how (fairly and equitably) do you decide how to populate those schools?
3. Cab Calloway uses an audition process. Cab is a magnet school that is pretty damn high-intensity in its demands on kids when they get there. It’s fun and everything, but those kids are expected to hit the ground running and work. Hard. Every day. And there is no question that the curriculum of the school is not designed for kids just starting out in acting, or music, or fine arts. And that’s fine with me as long as there are other choices of available for kids who are just beginning to explore that interest when they get to 9th grade. On that I can only speak to the visual arts, because that’s where one of my daughter’s interests lay when choosing a high school. You know what she found out? From her perspective the visual arts programs at AI DuPont and McKean were every bit as good as the one she found at Cab. I honestly think AI’s art program is probably STRONGER than the one at Cab. So at least in that sample, we’ve got some idea that there are other choices.
4. But let’s talk CSW and the infamous “placement” test. If that process weeds out low SES kids, it weeds them out by convincing them not to apply, not based on their performance on the test. Over the past several years (and I’ve checked) darn near every low SES/African-American/Hispanic kid (from Red Clay; there is a preference) who has applied to CSW has gotten an invite. The issue is that not very many have applied. This raises two issues in my mind:
4A–That I don’t want a child walking into CSW (even at Phase 3) who is unprepared for the highly demanding atmosphere there. It is not a place to build study skills, it is a place to build on study skills you already have. A bright (but unprepared) child is going to struggle there, is not going to feel comfortable there. In that, CSW is no different than the IB or Cambridge programs in our traditional high schools (whose demographics, by the way, are very similar to CSW’s).
4B–But CSW also has a community obligation to do better outreach and prep so that there will be more kids ready. kilroy sometimes wants a CSW-style middle school. For a lot of reasons I think that’s a bad idea. But I do think that if CSW invested in creating a “Charter Scholars” program that went into middle schools and created enrichment programs especially aimed at low SES and minority students to (a) discover those talented kids by grade 6; (b) build a relationship with them and their families; and (c) commit to helping them get prepared to come to CSW three years later, that would go a LONG way towards solving the problem. Of course the devil’s in the details and the funding and the WILL to do something like that.
Long-winded as this has been, here’s my point: existing charter law has functioned to exclude–no argument. This bill, however, would not so much grant better access to the system as functionally change the curricula to which we really want these kids to have access. Maybe we’ll end up there, but I honestly think there are other options to improve the system we have to try first.
SA:
Government owns the sewer system? Is that “system” also part of a liberal socialist redistribution scheme by definition?
A clue – maybe in certain corners of Sussex County but generally no.
Steve:
Holy shit. Very insightful. Couldn’t agree more. Well done.
I agree with most of your points – and I love the idea of charter (as well as AP, IB, Cambridge, etc.) students going into middle schools (and elementary!) and working in enrichment programs. It probably should be part of their curriculum. Sorta like, National Honor Society – which requires volunteer hours.
Another thing I’d change is allowing charters to have their own buildings. House them in existing public schools – as programs, not schools. This would accomplish several things:
1. Charter schools, by nature, are insular – which is rarely a good thing. Spending every day with people exactly like you isn’t great preparation for life. (I remember kids joking in college about how everyone could tell who went to Catholic school. And we could tell.)
2. There would be more porosity in the programs.
2a. As of now there’s one entry point into most charters (all choice really). If you don’t get into CSW in 9th grade and NCS in kindergarten (possibly 1st, not sure) then you aren’t getting in.
2b. Likewise, if you get in, but can’t stay in the program (for whatever reason) you have to physically leave the school building, as well as all your friends and everything that’s familiar and start over – usually at your feeder school since choicing during off years is almost non-existent – despite the chorus of “Choice!” proponents.
Your point about Cambridge and IB being no different than CSW is valid… to a point. I can’t speak to the Cambridge program, but I can tell you what I’ve seen in IB. While not many, I have seen kids enter IB after 9th grade. They were attending the public school in which the program was housed and smoothly transitioned into the program.
I have also seen kids leave IB or go partial IB. The kids that leave the program do not have to physically leave the school. I think sometimes we forget how big of deal changing schools is and the embarrassment of having to leave for an “easier” school. (And parents are the worst when it comes to school status.)
Partial IB is exactly what you think it is. (This decision is made at the beginning of 11th grade/end of 10th). These students take half IB courses and half regular courses. They are able to access the areas of IB they want while dropping the areas they don’t want. But… they do not have to leave the school.
Also… not all IB classes are filled with IB students. Other students can take IB classes – and IB students take other courses (if their schedule allows). That’s what I mean by porosity. The program allows movement in and out of it without requiring the student to change schools.
Another reason I’d prefer charters to be housed as programs in existing public schools is funding. Charters that pull a large percentage of accelerated or wealthier students affect public schools. If public schools lose AP students then there will be fewer AP classes offered. If public schools lose wealthier families their poverty will increase – and we know that high poverty schools are expensive and lose accelerated/enrichment programs due to need.
Basically, if these programs are housed in public schools tax payer money will benefit the school as a whole. The public school also benefits by having parents with the luxury of time. And kids benefit by diversity – maybe not in every classroom, but on the sports fields, clubs, etc.
So, while I agree that the bill is not perfect, it starts a much needed conversation – which could actually end up benefiting every student.
Have mixed views on the separate building idea. My daughter went to the Mt Pleasant IB program. The program was great. The school not so much.
On the one hand you had hard-working IB kids – highly motivated, task oriented, goal driven kids – getting out of their IB class and stepping into a zoo. The IB kids were distracted, occasionally threatened and frequently feeling out-of-place. It lead some IB kids to further insulate themselves out of perceived fear for their safety or kids moving away from IB because they wanted to assimilate into the larger student body. I’m sure it happened that some kids successfully balanced the environmental zones but I wasn’t aware of it.
Neither result yields well rounded kids rising to their full potential.
pandora
IB point is a fair point, but consider: CSW and Cab (and Cab middle) are co-located in the same building, and as far as insularity, CSW and Cab kids can cross-register for each other’s classes. Some of my daughter’s best friends at CSW were Cab kids she met who came over to take Calc at CSW. I agree the model of doing programs, magnets, or charters can be made to work inside regular school buildings. I also agree that (unfortunately) many charter parents want that insularity, which is why we don’t see this happening very much.
The point about porosity is well-taken … to a point (ouch, pun not intended). But it is interesting to note that one of the things that people criticize Cab and Conrad (and, I think Newark Charter if I’m not mistaken) for is that after my grandson completes Cab Middle he will have to re-apply for Cab High. I think that’s a good thing because it gives other kids a chance to get in, and it creates a graceful way for kids who might not like it to get out.
Look: here’s how I would handle that, at least in the interim: while “counseling out” is highly over-stated for the Red Clay charters (which are the ones I have the most data about), there is a certain amount of attrition every year. Parents get transferred; family circumstances change. I would say, for example, that CSW has about a 1-2% attrition rate between each grade level annually just to account for the families that move away. I think in the beginning we should open up those slots for people to apply to come in.
I would start that slowly because I have a real concern that it would be incredibly difficult for a lot of kids to come into CSW or Cab in 10th grade because the learning curve is both steep and graduated (10th grade assumes you’ve mastered specific skills in 9th grade). So I think there would need to be some learning curve for schools in terms of how to accommodate those kids.
Your trauma on leaving the school argument doesn’t affect me much, because while I acknowledge that it exists, I place that responsibility on the parents. You need to know, and you need to be sure your kid understands the nature of the beast when you opt out of the traditional school system. That’s simply a feature of the system: if you leave, you leave.
On the other hand (and I think you may have a different view of this because in some respects Brandywine SD is an outlier), I think you may overstate that trauma. Delaware is already unique in that my daughter’s social circle throughout high school was multi-school. Her continuing group of close friends was composed of kids who went to CSW, AI, Cab, and Conrad. They’d played soccer together, or had been in middle school together, or had other common experiences, and despite going to different schools they stayed together as a primary friend group. To me, growing up in Virginia, that would have been unthinkable, but here in Delaware it happens a lot. I think that for many kids you overestimate that trauma.
The trick, as I said earlier, is to find a way to make policy that addresses the structural exclusion of certain kids based on SES or race without so changing the system that what they are being excluded from disappears just as they gain entrance.
In that sense I have long argued that districts should be the primary chartering organizations. Yes, I know that Red Clay has its problems, but the only reason we have not seen a closer integration of charter and traditional schools is because no other district has even been willing to try the experiment.
Hey, we have something in common! My daughter is in Mount’s IB program – which has really grown in numbers. Which is probably why her experience today is different than your daughter’s – who I assume (correct me if I’m wrong) was part of newly formed, very small IB program. The growth of the program (I believe her freshman class had approx. 150 IB students, the next freshman class had even more) has created balance in the school.
I see what you’re saying, Steve, and, for the most part, agree – as usual. Why someone hasn’t put us in charge of this situation escapes me!
I understand it’s difficult to enter CSW, IB, Cambridge, etc. without the foundation (That argument does not fly with NCS, or other elementary schools) but that’s why your idea of creating enrichment programs in lower grades makes good sense. If these kids aren’t ready for these programs then we need to make them ready. There’s a lot of moving parts to this.
@pandora
“moving parts” which can’t be put into place as long as we continue to operate large numbers of charter schools as a completely parallel network of schools with no direct relationships to the districts in which they exist.
Again: Red Clay has done many things either controversial or questionable or just wrong (depending on your perspective) with charter, choice, and magnet schools, but Red Clay has also done many things right in that process, and provided many instructive lessons in both what to do and what not to do that for whatever reason the rest of the state continues to ignore.
(Just like Brandywine SD has been a case study in how to follow a completely different model in which there is no real parent impetus for having charter schools there. But I’ve always kind of thought of BSD as an independent school district, not a Delaware school district, and I think in large measure that’s how the people running it feel.)
Tangentially: In the long term Red Clay’s high schools have benefited from charter competition: McKean’s culinary arts, physics, and broadcasting programs; Dickinson’s IB Program (which is lifting the whole school and making your point about high academy programs being integrated into the whole school) etc. etc.
Now if we could just solve the elementary school problem without having to go through the entire process of changing the state funding formula (which is where I am resigned that we’re going to have to go).
Something in common . . . is that cause for relief or concern?
@ATIAM
I’m keeping the GasX ready for either eventuality.
” Over the past several years (and I’ve checked) darn near every low SES/African-American/Hispanic kid (from Red Clay; there is a preference) who has applied to CSW has gotten an invite. The issue is that not very many have applied.”
If I remember correctly when Delaware schools were first desegregated it was attempted to be done on a voluntary basis.(someone will correct me if I am wrong) With the number of volunteers not being sufficient the desegregation was forced.
If certain schools present such a perceived advantage, than the two previous statements should not be true.
I think it was the same parental involvement that had some parents putting their children on buses to attend schools outside of their neighborhood in the 70’s has parents putting their children on busses to charter schools.(lets talk about that or not)
Having children of a wide age range we are ending up using two different approaches, older ones took the parochial school route and younger ones are on the public school route. I feel that the same parental involvement with both groups of our children will bring about the same outcome, more or less.(attending schools in our feeder pattern!)
I don’t think this change would effect Brandywine School District because I believe they don’t have any carter schools. The problem with BSD is Concord HS cherry picks students from Brandywine HS(choice), Mt. Pleasant cherry picks with its IB program and Talley MS and Mt. Pleasant Elementary cherry picks with its Odyssey Program. Let’s see what law can be passed to stop that parental involvement.
SN
Not arguing with you but Imodium might be the better call. 😉