The average free/reduced lunch percentage in SFUSD’s charters is 48.45, compared to 54.0 for SFUSD. Not significantly lower, but obviously not higher.

Charters overall are often divided into two groups — the elite ones that are largely about cloistering the privileged away from the unwashed masses, and the “mission” charters serving low-income kids. I would agree that the latter group will probably serve at least as many low-income kids, but the existence of the former group changes the overall statistics.

Pacific Collegiate Charter in Santa Cruz, Calif. (about 70 miles from my home and in an area I’m fairly familiar with) routinely shows up as No. 1 or 2 on lists of “best schools in the U.S.,” and it’s resoundingly the former type. Its school district has 37.6% free/reduced lunch students; the charter school has zero. Its district is 32.8% Latino; the charter school is 5.8%. Its district is 55% white; the charter school is 73.1% white. So that’s just to give you an example.

http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/funding/2009eligiblecs.xls

The combined average of all the NYS charter schools is 73.2% eligible for free and reduced price lunch. I can’t speak for San Francisco, but I think that’s a pretty high number.

The figures show the number of students qualifying for free and reduced-price meals by what’s called “direct certification.” Those are the students who automatically qualify because they’re receiving some other type of government aid — food stamps, TANF (temporary assistance to needy families), public housing etc.

Here are the numbers of those students at San Francisco’s two KIPP schools.

KIPP San Francisco Bay Academy
Total 316 students
“Direct certification” number: 8 (2.5%)

KIPP Bayview Academy
Total 245 students
“Direct certification” number: 12 (4.9%)

“… no single charter school parent could possibly be found to be neglectful or educationally neglectful…”

“…. you think that some charters, damn them, have unreasonably high expectations for parents)…”

I have not expressed either of those viewpoints. However, by definition, if a charter school imposes requirements for admission — whether they are as simple as choosing and signing the form or involve signed commitments to various forms of behavior and logistical support — it filters out the families who cannot and will not do those things. That’s just logic. The only possible argument is to claim that there ARE no families who cannot and will not do those things, which is a dishonest argument.

I don’t know this, though I’m not saying it’s NOT true; can you provide the statistics?

(We already know that charters, on average, serve a much higher proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch,

It stands to reason that if charter school parents are the bastion of goodwill toward schools, proactiveness with education, and involvement in the daily school lives of their children, there should be a significant difference in the rate of neglect and educational neglect in the home from their counterparts in the district public schools.

(We already know that charters, on average, serve a much higher proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, so that metric is out the window and hasn’t convinced any ideologues reading this.)

In fact, based on some of the arguments above, one would think that no single charter school parent could possibly be found to be neglectful or educationally neglectful. Lord’s sakes, they CHOSE their child’s school! They actually signed the application form at the bottom!

For anyone wondering what educational neglect is, it is a subset of neglect involving failing to provide sufficient support for a child’s education, as indicated by failing to show up for meetings at school, especially if a child is consistently in academic or behavioral trouble, or having an extremely low attendance or high tardiness rate without a medical excuse. And yes, ACS studies the facts and makes an independent determination of whether they constitute neglect (in case you think that some charters, damn them, have unreasonably high expectations for parents).

So I would think that digging up these statistics would enhance this conversation quite a bit. And I would predict that, through a combination of the truly at-risk nature of charter schools’ populations served and, sadly, low expectations from many district public schools for parent involvement (independent of parent predisposition), we would see a higher rate of ACS findings of neglect among charter schools than among the general population.

Ken

The SRI study confirming that Bay Area KIPP schools lose 60% of their students was dated September 2008. That’s pretty recent — where is your info that attrition has dropped since coming from, Socrates?

I’d be interested to see figures about other KIPP schools elsewhere — please post.

I’ve also come to understand that KIPP recruits students from the lowest-performing areas of town.

On the internet, Caroline, it is very easy to find out whether SF KIPP schools are representative of the rest of the KIPP world. I’ve poked around on this internet thing and found that, in fact, the SF KIPP schools are among the highest in attrition. You’re ignoring Jay’s evidence of both that fact and the fact that KIPP SF attrition has declined recently in order to hold onto your position.

So if we agree to disagree, does that mean I’m agreeing with facts and you’re agreeing with outdated anecdotes?

In San Francisco, KIPP does require parents and student to sign numerous commitments to this and that — homework, behavior, dress code etc. In addition, all students do have to take a test, and the parents do have to ensure that the kid gets to the test site at the appointed time. (I know this, having applied for my own daughter, you recall). Parents also need to be willing and able to get the student to school for the longer hours, meaning more days and generally earlier starts. In our district, that is definitely more effort than going to the middle school down the street.

Again, perhaps San Francisco KIPP schools are unique in these areas.

And for the record, I’m a charter schools guy and I spent more years teaching in (poor, inner city in NYC) district public schools than I have spent, so far, working in charter schools.

I see it is “Carnival of Unfounded Falsehoods” day. How exciting.

Unfounded Falsehood #1:
Getting into a KIPP school is so hard that the scores of lazy low-income parents whose kids wreck the district schools would never apply for admission: It is simply untrue that there are “many extra steps” to get into a KIPP school. In some KIPP schools, getting in is no harder than getting registered in the district. Once again, your anecdotes are insufficient to explain an organization that affords its leaders great flexibility. If you’re going to make the claim that it’s harder to get into a KIPP school than a district school, please provide evidence that this is true beyond a couple schools in SF.

Secondly, it is untrue that urban areas have parents who are so lazy, uneducated, or unconcerned about their child’s educational well-being that they wouldn’t even take the very minor step/s they need to take to enroll their children in a good school. I’ve taught in a very low-income, urban district for over a decade, and there are very few kids whose parents would not jump at the chance to get them into a KIPP school.

It’s equally plausible that KIPP schools are populated by the most dissatisfied parents (as Jay Mathews mentions) – that is, parents whose kids are doing the worst in district schools – or that the thousands of lazy urban parents in America are so excited to get their ornery kids out of their hair for 10 hours a day that they can’t wait to send them to KIPP for the free extended day/year of babysitting.

Unfounded Falsehood #2:
Charter Social Workers are out of touch with how hard district social workers have it: It is also not true that social workers in charter schools are biased by the fact that they don’t know how rough it is in the district. I know a number of charter school social workers, and every single one of them has district experience. So do most of the charter school teachers and administrators.

Unfounded Falsehood #3:
KIPP SF is representative of all of KIPP: Just because KIPP SF does it (and whether they do is up for debate) doesn’t mean all of KIPP does it. You have avoided reading the articles and books that talk about KIPP’s attrition numbers across the country, because focusing on SF makes your case a lot more strongly than focusing on the national KIPP averages. I’m sorry if I don’t buy the argument that you don’t have time, given the amount of time you spend online defending your unfounded positions.

Unfounded Falsehood #4:
Parents of students all know where their school’s budget comes from.

I agree that we should include private funding, so we know what it costs to provide a KIPP-level education, but I am also certain that you would find that even with the philanthropic dollars, KIPP schools spend less in most areas of the country than their local districts spend. I’ve heard KIPP administrators, in fact, say that running their schools at below the district level of funding is their goal. Have you asked KIPP spokespeople for these data? I’m sure they’re not that hard to get.

**Try talking to a charter school social worker, and see if you’ll agree that charters disproportionately attract motivated, savvy parents. It’s not necessarily true!**
Sure from the inside of a charter school it may look like that, but talk to someone with experience in BOTH a charter and a non-selective traditional public school serving a disadvantaged population.

If just one extra step is required to enroll your child in a charter, as opposed to a traditional public school, obviously only the families who are motivated to take that one extra step will apply for the charter. That skims off a number right there. In the case of KIPP, which is the area I’m commenting on, there are numerous extra steps. By definition, the families unwilling and unable to take those extra steps won’t apply. That simply isn’t subject to debate. (One could argue that there ARE no families unwilling and unable to take those extra steps; I’d say they need to get out more, but basically I’d have to agree to disagree.)

Over and over and over again I’ve seen studies about charter schools, including commentaries from charter advocates acknowledging this issue. confirming that charter schools nationwide underserve special-education students and English language learners. Those findings are so consistent and so frequently referred to that I’m surprised that’s even a question.

Socrates — this discussion seems to be about numbers; what individuals have I attacked “ad hominem”? Goodness.
]
In any case, my KIPP information is absolutely NOT anecdotal; the whole point is that it’s based on researching the enrollment figures for the San Francisco Bay Area KIPP schools, from the California Department of Education website. My research got attention because the resulting information was so striking — and the fact that paid academic researchers and the press had never looked at it before (or at least not mentioned it if they had) was similarly striking. Since I blogged those figures, a subsequent study by SRI International confirmed them (in fact, amplified them). No anecdotal information was involved at all.

If you’re referring to my anecdote about taking my then-7th-grader to KIPP SF Bay Academy to try to enroll her, that’s in response to the irrelevant (but frequent) question of whether I’ve ever visited a KIPP school.

Here’s something that IS anecdotal: A fellow parent at my kids’ San Francisco public high school is a former KIPP executive. We were chatting about the quality (or not) of the school lunches. She sighed that she wished our kids’ school could afford the same lunch provider KIPP uses, which costs considerably more than SFUSD can afford. She said, “But they [KIPP] have all that private philanthropy…” Totally anecdotal; just reporting it anyway.

I know it can be very annoying when people expect you to answer (as if on demand), so I appreciate your time and patience. My final thoughts (for now!):

1. You write “… not just those who are lucky enough to attend charter schools.” I agree, so let’s create more charter schools so that we can have more lucky kids!

2. You write “And to the extent that implementation of charter schools in NYC has caused more overcrowding…”. I have seen no evidence that charter schools have caused overcrowding. Charters don’t just take space… they also take kids. Sometimes, they don’t even use DOE space and, therefore, should be relieving crowding. When they do take DOE space, I have seen no evidence that they are given more space per pupil than traditional public schools. Anecdotally, I have heard the opposite many times (from charter school operators, to be fair).

If you can be convinced that charter schools aren’t causing overcrowding in traditional public schools, I hope you can fully support the growth of the charter movement.

Ken

And I think I’ve sufficiently explained my position on charter schools and class size. I support smaller classes for all NYC students — not just those who are lucky enough to attend charter schools. And to the extent that the implementation of charter schools in NYC has caused more overcrowding , this has become increasingly difficult to achieve for the substantial majority of NYC public school students who continue to attend regular public schools.