Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…learing from others helps eveyone….why can’t we all just get along…..what ever platitude we want to use, it still comes to this: creating good schools for students. There are hundreds of DOE public schools that work, why are they so hard to replicate? We got rid of Community School Boards because they were corrupt (not my experience in my home district) and couldn’t create new and innovative programs. We dismantled Distirct offices because they were bastions of patronage and fusty educrats. We closed and sold 110 Livingston Street becasue it devoured money. Where are we now? Eight yers later we sound like four year olds….she’s taking everything, she’s not helping, he’s mean to me. Kids in crowded kindergarten classes must be looking at us with amazement.
Demonizing folks doesn’t work.

When we claim that ALL charters/traditional public/private are/do/hate/love this or that, then we miss the point.

Chris, this is exactly the point I’m trying to make. There are lots of different kinds of charter schools out there. There are a group of us that want the public to know that we are NOT like KIPP, Achievement First – and most importantly – Harlem Success. It is possible for charter and traditional public schools to share a set of values on which their teaching is based, to share an outlook on children, to share a SPACE.

Let’s be real. There are some charters that treat the traditional public school system poorly. I’ve heard first hand horror stories about how a certain franchised charter school on Lenox Ave acts in their shared public space. Let’s tell the public about that. Let’s tell the DOE about that. But let’s not loop all charter schools together for the sake of argument and our own personal viewpoints.

First, I’m going to put this in terms of fruit.

Charter schools and non-charter public schools each have different mixtures of fruit, some of which is more costly than others. So, comparing the average cost of each piece of fruit is not appropriate. Rather, you want to compare apples to apple and oranges to oranges.

So, moving out of the metaphor…Leonie is talking about average funding/general education student. Someone else (you?) mentioned that ELL students were funded differently. We all know that special education students cost a hugely disproportionate amount of money. Given the differences in student body compositions, the overall average is not an appopriate statistic.

2) So long as charter and non-charters get goods or services or potential expenses taken care of without any money changing hands, comparing average $ to a district and average $ to a charter school is not apporpriate. Non-charter schools get facilities paid for, and the DOE provides a lot of central office services to charters free of charge. You know that you have to take that into account right?

I think the bigger issue is why the DOE gives the impression that it is not interested in public schools and strives to enhance the reputations of other types of schools….private, parochial, independent or charter. Maybe it’s a way to decrease enrollment and reduce class sizes? With fewer folks in public school, there is less crowding and it keeps other educational entities from closing. All in all a win-win for all sides

And to the other side, I have known many teachers and students and families that would say the exact opposite about KIPP. They believe in their approach and philosophy. Interesting article in The Economist that you should check out. An outsider view of KIPP: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13519194&CFID=53058960&CFTOKEN=96661914#thursday.

My visits to KIPP (I have seen three different KIPPs at various times) have shown me students thinking up a storm. They were processing and not giving up on hard problems.

We need to be careful not to be divided in an effort not to be conquered. The charter schools that are not serving students well (i.e. not teaching them anything and basically performing at the same level as the district schools) are the only ones we should be speaking out against.

I understand your dislike for KIPP’s model, but I think it is important to realize once again, that parents choose to apply to charter schools and if they don’t like the model, they can choose to leave. Children in district schools do not get that luxury.

The great thing about charter school is that everyone can use the model they feel is best and parents can decide if they like it or not.

If you actually believed in the competitive model of school improvement — which I don’t but which most charter school advocates supposedly adhere to, the city would be forced to emulate these practices in order to keep parents in the regular public schools. But you know what? This administration would rather increase class size in our regular public schools,in order to ensure their failure, in order to allow them to privatize the system more effectively.

Underlying this whole ridiculous argument is the misconception that more money actually leads to higher achievement, of which there’s very little evidence. Even if charters do have higher funding, it’s not enough to matter from an achievement perspective. Leonie would, of course, have the extra funding spent on lowering class sizes by a couple students, which would be the biggest possible waste of it. Why it’s worth spending your time advocating for money you would then immediately flush down the toilet is beyond me.

But there is no administration that I know of elsewhere that is so intent on undermining the ability of neighborhood public schools to provide a quality education — while encouraging charter schools to succeed in their place.

I’m not necessarily bad-mouthing KIPP, but teaching practices that don’t allow kids to think don’t appeal to me. Students should learn how to navigate their world in a way that makes sense to them. Students at KIPP are regularly demoralized and shamed.

You are right. They don’t deserve to be labeled as bad … I didn’t say that. I guess you’re suggesting that I implied that based on my classification of those other schools as the “good guys.” Fair enough. It was a little tongue in cheek, though.

I’m just wary of their one size fits all model. The teachers I know that have worked there and the kids I know that have left KIPP schools have some no-so-awesome things to say about it.

That’s all I really mean.

Come on … when have you EVER gotten a straight answer from the DOE?

“the average NYC public school gets $8,000 per gened student”

Your words. Since you referred me to Patrick Sullivan’s blog post, I assume that you are referring to the “$8,278 in per capita tax levy funding for public schools” that he identifies. I agree with both of you, so long as you recognize that $8,278 represents about HALF of what NYC public schools receive per pupil.

Charter schools get less money. Some charters – like the franchised ones – can fundraise immense amounts of money, for sure. But there are other charter schools too … ones that don’t have EMOs, full time fundraisers, or connections with the wealthiest people in the country. Those schools (like mine) have a very difficult time raising that same kind of money. I know that from many years of first hand experience in charter schools, both EMO schools and otherwise.

Please recognize that, like traditional public schools, charter schools differ greatly. We’re not all Dave Levin and Kenneth Langone.

I consider those schools unsavory based on their instructional practices. For certain, they are all very different in many ways. Philosophically, one commonality is that they all trust that providing students with tons of practice with isolated skills results in learning. Which might be true, depending on one’s definition of learning and on one’s preferred method of measuring learning.
What makes the “good guys” the good is that they understand that discreet skills instruction is essential to learning, to the extent that it is couched in meaningful learning experiences. These learning experiences should come out of social studies, and connect with reading, writing, music, drama, movement and arts. Measuring that kind of learning is much more murky, and thus less desirable in this standardized, data driven world.
Many of those unsavory schools sacrifice the arts and physical education, thus implicitly devaluing those disciplines.

“Charters receive equal or more funding than traditional schools”… “charters get less funding than district schools”

In other words, according to DOE both are myths! This implies that charter do not get equal, more, or less funding that traditional schools.

The reality is that DOE refuses to reveal what all the ancillary costs that they cover for free to charter schools are worth. When they are forced to reveal this info, then perhaps we will know how much taxpayer funds go to charter schools.

We already know that charter schools raise loads of other money, and receive special privileges to reduce class size, and other advantages, at the same time that DOE is forcing class size higher in all other schools.

And Socrates, if you really believe that “they are only trying to raise enough money to close the funding gap” you’re more naive than anyone could believe possible.

The other funding source that’s always brought up is philanthropy, but this DOE has raised tons of philanthropic funds, and many charters explicitly state that they are only trying to raise enough money to close the funding gap. I’d be surprised if charters have raised more than Tweed has, but I’d put good money on a bet that says that, inclusive of philanthropic dollars, the district spends considerably more per student than charters do.

Michael, I’m curious what you’re basing your list of unsavory charters on. I’ve visited most of the ones you mention and the schools in those networks are very different from each other. Or is it just the fact that they are CMOs that bothers you?

You can go to the Galaxy system and see what individual schools get from all funding sources and then calculate a per pupil figure. For example, M006 is where the mayor votes. The school budget is $5,585,296 for 796 kids, or $7,016. Yes, much money, especially Federal money is spent on facilities, food, busing, Tweed management and is not included in that figure. But all of that funding benefits both charter and traditional public schools alike when charters are situated in BOE facilities.

I sat down with Garth Harries and Michael Duffy who oversee charters for DOE. They rejected my assertion that charters get more per capita. Garth estimated that the funding was about the same when a charter was in a BOE building. We agreed to disagree. No one, anywhere, has said charters get 73% of traditional public schools.

The operating budget is coming up for review. I will recalculate a better estimate for per capita across public schools.

Patrick

Here is the Galaxy link. Go look up schools in the area of your school. Keep in mind they probably provide more special ed and ELL services and so get more for those purposes.

https://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/dbor/galaxy/galaxyba/schallo3.asp

According to the city council, tax levy funding accounts for about 50% of the per pupil expenditure. So let’s do the math.

.5x = $8,278
x = 16,556

Curiously close to the $16,800 figure. Wouldn’t you say?

But Patrick Sullivan, who wrote the blog post and who is posting on this article, should know that. I assume that you know that too, right Leonie?

Check out our NYC public school parent blog for a more detailed accounting:

Friday, September 5, 2008
Charter School Funding Per Child Much Higher Than Public Schools

The stats come from NYSED, the Center for Charter School Excellence, and the Center for Education Reform.

New York City traditional public schools received $16,800. New York State charter schools received a $12,432 per pupil allocation this year. That’s 73%. Charter school funding comes from the STATE, but is filtered through the city. And while public schools are receiving a significant funding increase next year – as they absolutely should – charter schools funding is being cut even further.

The ELL and demographic stats are also courtesy of NYSED and the NYC Charter Center. They are accurate.

Unsavory charter schools include, but are not limited to: KIPP, Achievement First, Explore, Harlem Success, Harlem Children’s Zone …

The “good guys” include, but are not limited to: Harlem Link, Community Roots, Girls Prep, Renaissance, Our World Neighborhood, Bronx Arts …

I know I might receive some flack for this, but I think I’m pretty well informed. I’d love to hear others’ thoughts.