Post a comment about the budget cuts at your school on our interactive comment map. more »
GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools
Mail Bag
July 14, 2009
A question: “I have heard of the success of charter schools…”
A reader wrote in this simple message:
I have heard of the success of charter schools, and would like to learn more. I have a 11yr old son and a 5yr old granddaughter. Please tell me all you can.
Any brave souls want to step up to the plate? If you write an especially good response, we’ll forward it along to the questioner. E-mail us or leave a comment.
-
July 14th, 2009 10:14 am
I advise parents to visit schools … be they public or charter … with the potential student … ask to visit classrooms, to talk w/ teachers and other parents … and talk to students. And, keep in mind, travel to the school is a important consideration … a 45 minute train/bus ride twice a day must be balanced against the quality of the school. A neighborhood school w/ neighborhood friends must be balanced against a school that is at a distance w/ few friends.
-
July 14th, 2009 11:00 am
Sorry, but I had to give the dissenter’s view. Yes, charter schools work for some kids, but they are a harmful force in public education.
It’s easy to get the positive view of charter schools, since they’re being pushed by the nation’s most powerful and bountifully funded forces and get reams of glowing PR (at the expense of non-charter public schools). Much of the mainstream press (or what remains of it) is also big on promoting charter schools – sometimes due to close connections with those same powerful forces and sometimes due to naivete, insufficient research and excessive susceptibility to that glowing PR.
The Wikipedia entry on charter schools is undoubtedly groomed regularly by the many people paid by the well-funded charter forces, and there is no corresponding paid force that would edit from the skeptics’ viewpoint — but it’s a place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school
From the resisters’ perspective, Clay Burrell recently posted a thoughtful commentary on http://www.change.org.
http://education.change.org/blog/view/backs_to_the_wall_reflections_on_the_charter_dilemma
As to why charter schools, which sound so fantastic in concept, would provoke any objection or controversy, I’m going to quote another source that offers some eloquent insights. In my view, charter schools are something like Communism – they sound really good in theory, but human nature corrupts the concept and causes the good intentions to go awry.
The following excerpts are from the introduction to the March 2008 book “Keeping the Promise? The debate over charter schools,” a collection of essays published by Rethinking Schools in collaboration with the Center for Community Change. These are the points that raise concerns from my own philosophical/political perspective. Someone who believes that the free market and privatization are the solution for our schools would not have the same reaction.
The introduction was written by education researcher/commentators Leigh Dingerson, Barbara Miner, Bob Peterson and Stephanie Walters.
“The charter school movement has roots in a progressive agenda that, as educator Joe Nathan wrote in Rethinking Schools in 1996, viewed charters as “an important opportunity for educators to fulfill their dreams, to empower the powerless, and to help encourage a bureaucratic system to be more responsive and effective.
“…Unfortunately, the charter concept also appealed to conservatives wedded to a free-market, privatization agenda. And it is they who, over the past decade, have taken advantage of the conservative domination of national politics to seize the upper hand in the charter school movement.
“… Virtually all segments of the charter school movement have targeted urban areas. Some hope to counteract inequity, spur innovation and better meet the needs of marginalized students. Others, taking advantage of the frustration that inevitably follows when districts are allowed to deteriorate, seek fame and fortune. … [T]here are those who view charters as a way to get rid of public schools altogether.
“The elixir of an individualized bailout from a struggling system has serious side effects, however. It can create a painful wedge in many communities, especially among African-Americans. It can weaken the political will for a collective solution to the problems in public education; and it can promote the deterioration of traditional schools. As highly motivated and engaged families pull their children from traditional public schools, urban districts have fewer resources – both financial and human – to address their many problems. The worse the schools get, the more appealing the escape to charters and private schools, all of which feeds into the conservative dream of replacing public education with a free-market system of everyone for themselves, the common good be damned.
“… one cannot deny that the charter school concept, as a movement, has been hijacked by individuals, groups, and corporations who are guided by free-market principles, often with a hostility to unions, and who do not necessarily embrace core values of equity, access, public purpose, and public ownership.”
The commentary brings up other key issues:
Charter schools “too often … prefer, in practice if not in rhetoric, to educate “the deserving poor.” There is far less inclination to serve students whose parents are absent or uninvolved, or who have severe physical or emotional educational needs, or who have run afoul of the juvenile justice system, or who don’t speak English as their first language. Perhaps the most glaring example involves students with special education needs. Such students are increasingly overrepresented in traditional public schools.
“… Overall, studies have shown that charter schools perform either worse or just as well as comparable public schools.
“… Even if it is shown that certain bureaucratic rules, union requirements, or state and federal mandates stifle innovation and suffocate higher achievement, shouldn’t they be thrown out or modified for all schools, not just charters?”
[In reference to the fact that some charter schools, famously including the highly praised KIPP chain, require teachers to work crushingly long hours and, unsurprisingly, experience high teacher turnover:]
“Reforms are bound to fail if they rely on the voluntarism of idealistic, overworked teachers who burn out and leave the school once they decide to have a family or want any semblance of a meaningful personal life.”
It’s often noted that the late teachers’ union leader Al Shanker was one of the early proponents of charter schools. Education activist/blogger Mike Klonsky, reviewing “Tough Liberal,” Richard Kahlenberg’s biography of Al Shanker, described Shanker’s vision:
“In a speech to the National Press Club in 1988, he proposed the idea of teacher-led ‘charter schools’ where rules could be bent if the great majority of teachers in a small school approved. He called on districts to ‘create joint school board-union panels that would review preliminary proposals and help find seed money for the teachers to develop final proposals.’ ”
Klonsky quotes from the book:
“Shanker “watched with alarm as the concept he put forward began to move away from a public-school reform effort to look more like a private-school voucher plan..Shanker came to believe that the charter school movement was largely hijacked by conservatives who made many charter schools vulnerable to the same groups that made voucher schools so dangerous: for-profit corporations, racial separatists, the religious right, and anti-union activists…Shanker watched with dismay as ‘those who had tremendous contempt for public education’ jumped on to the charter school bandwagon.”
-
July 14th, 2009 12:45 pm
I keep hearing from charter opponents that only disinterested, careless and underprivileged parents have their kids attend district schools (thus the higher test scores on charters, at least in NYS - you can look it up, Caroline), so a brave act of citizenship would be to avoid charter schools. Then at least one active parent who has the wherewithal and the time to sign a charter application could be left to enroll his or her child in a district public school.
-
July 14th, 2009 12:47 pm
Caroline,
Does Rethinking Schools or any other source have a figure for the percentage of charters that are part of conservative-backed (whatever that means) networks? My sense is that there are a lot more mom and pop charters that fervently believe in public education than there are otherwise, and the doom and gloom attributed to Al Shanker’s final thoughts on charters is misplaced.
-
July 14th, 2009 1:58 pm
Kitchen Sink, I’ve strongly disputed you before when you mischaracterize my views in this way, claiming that I am stating: “…only disinterested, careless and underprivileged parents have their kids attend district schools…”
And since I have refuted you over and over, it’s dishonest of you to repeat that mischaracterization yet again.
But for the benefit of those who haven’t seen this very exchange repeated previously:
I (and other charter school skeptics are NOT saying that “ONLY disinterested, careless and underprivileged parents have their kids attend district schools…”
What we are saying is that what Kitchen Sink would characterize as “disinterested and careless” parents do not enroll their kids in charter schools. (”Underprivileged” is not in the same category as “disinterested and careless.”) That’s because it requires some effort to seek out and apply for charter schools; kids who don’t have parents/guardians who are willing or able to make that effort don’t attend charters. Again, the Rethinking Schools quote:
“Charter schools “too often … prefer, in practice if not in rhetoric, to educate “the deserving poor.” There is far less inclination to serve students whose parents are absent or uninvolved, or who have severe physical or emotional educational needs, or who have run afoul of the juvenile justice system, or who don’t speak English as their first language. Perhaps the most glaring example involves students with special education needs. Such students are increasingly overrepresented in traditional public schools.”
Perhaps in NYC charter schools outperform public schools, but overall, nationwide, they don’t, as study after study has confirmed.
I don’t know of a study counting up how many “mom and pop” charters there are vs. those run by charter management organizations. One can only assess by following the public discussion, which charter schools are viewed approvingly by the free-market, anti-public-education forces. My assessment would be that those forces approve of all charter schools except for a few select outliers. (There’s one in L.A. that teaches entirely through the view of indigenous Mexican culture that has drawn a lot of criticism from the right, for example.)
-
July 14th, 2009 1:59 pm
While I hope that this thread doesn’t devolve into an us-versus-them, negative exchange which too often exemplifies public conversation about charter schools, here’s my take as a charter school teacher and administrator:
In New York State, charter schools are an opportunity for parents, teachers and community members to establish, govern and run a public school that meets the needs of the particular group of students that it serves. The school’s mission, culture, goals, curriculum and pedagogy are not determined and controlled by a central Department of Education, but rather by a local Board of Trustees. This Board may include parents, teachers and other educators and community leaders.
By definition, charter schools are united by their model of governance. Whenever people talk about things they do like or don’t like about charters such as who funds them, whether they have uniforms, small class size, whether they are unionized or not, whether they focus on testing or teaching the whole child, whether they have an extended day or year, whether they share DOE space or are in private facilities, are large in size or small, they are talking about individual decisions that each specific school team has made in accordance with their mission, not something intrinsic to charters as a model.
If you think that you, or teachers, parents, or organizations in your community know what will work for students, you can start an independent public school that is accountable to it’s contract with the state, the “charter”. That’s the beauty of the model. I think the biggest success of charter schools is opening up this opportunity to groups that have traditionally been disenfranchised or undeserved to open their own schools.
Best,
Nicholas Tishuk
Director of Programs and Accountability
The Renaissance Charter School
teach11372 @ gmail.com -
July 14th, 2009 2:27 pm
Before jumping into whether charter schools are good or bad, I’d explain what charter schools are and how they operate. Put simply, charter schools are public schools that operate independent of the local school district. A group of educators, parents or other community members submit an application to a charter school authorizer, which decides whether or not to approve the charter school. In New York, there are three authorizers: the local school district, the State Department of Education and the State Univeristy of New York, and they grant 5 year charters. Like all public schools, charter schools are free and cannot charge tuition. Charter schools are open to all students, and may not select their student body. Parents must apply to charter schools, and if there are more applications than seats in the schools, a random lottery must be used to enroll students (there are no tests or auditions to get in). And like other district schools, charter schools must serve students with disabilities and English language learners. Instead of being governed by the local school district’s board of education (or mayor), charter schools are governed by their own board of trustees. This gives each charter school the autonomy and flexibility to craft its own programs, select or design its own curriculum, hire and fire administrators and teachers, create its own daily schedule and school calendar. Many charter schools use this flexibility to offer longer schools days and school years, and design unique academic programs. In exchange for this autonomy, charter schools are held accountable for academic performace. Their authorizers monitor, visit and evaluate the schools regularly, and at the end of 5 years decide whether the school should stay open or not. As schools of choice, charter schools are also accountable to parents. If parents are not satisfied with a charter school, they can pull out their child and the if enough parents do so the school will have to close.
At this stage it’s very difficult to make general statements about charter schools, or district or private schools, because they are so diverse. The first thing I would tell your reader is to visit the schools, check their authorizers’ websites for reports on performance, and talk to parents who send their kids there.
-
July 14th, 2009 2:33 pm
I would say “you have heard well!” While there are huge debates about whether charter schools are better than regular public schools, what is not up for debate is that when you ask the parents of students enrolled in charter schools, they are overwhelmingly happier with their children’s education (and therefore attitudes toward public school) than are parents of students enrolled in regular public schools. That has to count for something.
-
July 14th, 2009 2:59 pm
Dissenter makes a great point — but not a great public-policy-setting point, unless we’re willing to provide those same features to the non-charter schools.
The first that comes to mind is small class size. Another relates to “creaming.” A third relates to that the neighborhoods where charters are being injected — often at the direct expense of non-charters — are often neighborhoods with weaker non-charter alternative choices (as if the Chancellor isn’t responsible for them as well).
Then there’s examples of SATISFIED non-charter parents who want their school protected from the forced injection of charters: e.g. P.S. 123 in Harlem vs. Harlem Success Academy 2; I.S. 278 in Brooklyn vs. Hebrew Language Academy Charter School.
As to above digs at ANY parents, such is only detrimental to this discussion. Huzzah, Caroline.
Quick question to Mr. Tishuk: I appreciate your comments. What are your thoughts on the chain-and-franchise model of many charter organizations? You make it sound like it’s all local-inception and grass-rootsy. That’s not my understanding, even if that is the PR.
-
July 14th, 2009 3:02 pm
Sheesh, I’m leaving on vacation right during this interesting discussion, but a few things before I go:
Gideon posts about what charters are SUPPOSED to do and then claims that’s what they DO do. Sadly, that’s far from accurate.
The claim: Charter schools are open to all students, and may not select their student body.
The reality: Supposedly this is true. However, as I noted and quoted Rethinking Schools as pointing out, the fact that charter schools only enroll students by specific request results in “creaming” (see my previous posts for more explanation). In addition, charter schools that wish to covertly screen their applicants are completely free to do so. There is no process overseeing/auditing whether charter schools put every applicant into the lottery, or whether the school administration tells parents “this school isn’t the right fit for your child” somewhere along the way. The acclaimed KIPP schools have a counseling session with parents/guardians of each applicant before the enrollment is completed at which they are perfectly free to do that, for example.
(And no, public schools in general aren’t comparable, because if one school “counsels out” a problem kid, that kid will still wind up in another school in the same district. Charter schools that screen out/counsel out problem kids never have to set eyes on or worry their heads about the kid ever again.)
The claim: Parents must apply to charter schools, and if there are more applications than seats in the schools, a random lottery must be used to enroll students (there are no tests or auditions to get in).
The reality: KIPP schools give tests to determine the student’s academic achievement level BEFORE the enrollment lottery takes place.
The claim: Like other district schools, charter schools must serve students with disabilities and English language learners.
The reality: Supposedly so — in theory — but the actual numbers show that charter schools serve far fewer students with disabilities and English language learners than public schools do.
Even charter insiders and boosters frequently call for better monitoring and accountability, as Arne Duncan recently did — Gideon’s account of the rigorous audits is from fantasyland.
The claim: “…when you ask the parents of students enrolled in charter schools, they are overwhelmingly happier with their children’s education (and therefore attitudes toward public school) than are parents of students enrolled in regular public schools.”
But if you asked parents of those non-charter public schools THAT ENROLL ENTIRELY BY REQUEST — that get no default enrollments — would you get the same satisfaction level as charter parents? That would be the only honest and sound comparison. Parents who pro-actively chose and applied to a school are obviously more likely to voice satisfaction.
-
July 14th, 2009 4:36 pm
In essence, this whole topic has to be addressed as…”Would you like your children to go to private school for free?”
-
July 14th, 2009 5:37 pm
To Michael M:
> What are your thoughts on the chain-and-franchise model of many charter organizations? You make it sound like it’s all local-inception and grass-rootsy. That’s not my understanding, even if that is the PR.
Indeed, some charter schools are managed by entities referred to as CMOs (charter management organizations). While the number of schools run by the big name CMOs is not the majority of NYC charters (probably 35-40%), they tend to have a higher profile than the mom-and-pops like the one I work at. Even these schools, the KIPPs, Achievement First and Uncommon Schools, started as extraordinary mom-and-pop schools: KIPP MS, Amistad Academy and North Star. They took the toughest kids in Houston, New Haven and Newark and built schools that were successful and to where parents wanted to send their kids.
I think there is room for multiple models, including the CMOs. All social problems, such as the sustained crisis in public education in NYC, have multiple causes and potentially multiple possible solutions. Do I think that all charter schools should be KIPP? No, but I also don’t think they should all be Renaissance, either. In the past 10 years, charters have proven to be vital part in the education of NYC public school kids. Why? Besides having various educational and pedagogical innovations, charter also have operational and fiscal autonomy from the District, which is crucial in everything from when you get your books and curriculum, to how you are allowed to hire a new teacher to developing programs that would take months to get approved in a district school. These differences exist whether a school is a CMO or a mom-and-pop.
Like any good ecosystem, we need biodiversity in public education: charter schools, large comprehensive schools, small schools, specialized and testing schools and themed schools alike. Different kinds of schools can serve different populations of kids, effectively, based on their mission and vision, culture and leadership.
I think it’s great that, for example, talented kids who want to study the arts can go to Frank Sinatra HS or take college level courses at the Queens HS for the Sciences at York College. However, until every single public school is great and offers an appropriate option for every kid, no matter how talented or brilliant they are, we need to open up more schools. Unfortunately, a good number of schools in NYC are dysfunctional. Myself and many charter educators know this firsthand, we started our careers in the B/DOE.
My focus on grassroots, community based schools is simply a response to Elizabeth’s original question. It is the model I have a great amount of experience in and one I have seen help kids who would otherwise be lost in district schools. However, mom-and-pops aren’t the only good model and I am continually impressed with the new and different schools that are being developed in charterland and in district schools. Once the ideologues can acknowledge that there are both good charters and good district schools, it will help us figure out how to fix the struggling ones.
Best,
Nicholas Tishuk
Director of Programs and Accountability
The Renaissance Charter School
teach11372 @ gmail.com -
July 14th, 2009 5:45 pm
Thanks, NT. More later.
-
July 14th, 2009 7:49 pm
Interest Parent,
All that I or we can is quite a lot, so I am merely going to ask you a couple of question and make a few observations.
1) There are real questions out there about whether charter schools are good or bad for the kids in them, good or bad for the people who work in them, and good or bad for the larger system of public education. Without venturing to answer any of those questions here myself, I ask you, “Which of these issues are of concern to you?” Some parents feel that the larger systemic impacts are quite important them, and some do not. Some parents feel that the treatment of those who work in them is important to them, and some do not. Some focus just on what is best for their child, and some do not. You should figure out your stance on these issues before you delve into the debate about charter schools, as it might save you a lot of time and aggrevation. As I said, all of three of these are contentious areas.
2) Overall, you need to understand that neither charter nor non-charters are better across the board. There are great charter schools that do very well for their students, and lousy charter schools that do not — just like non-charter (i.e. traditional) public schools. The debate about charter school quality is about averages, overalls and tendencies. But your child is not going to go to a random or theoretical charter school. You child is going to go to a particular charter or non-charter school. That means that you need to look into each school and examine them as individual schools.
3) You need to figure out which school — be it charter or otherwise — is best suited for your particular child. Charter schools often like particular missions, philosphies or target populations — as do non-charter public schools. Again, the larger universe of schools is not your concern, just the ones that might be best for your child. The research and reports look more holistically than you need to.
4) Beware of test score data as your exclusive means of judging a school — charter or non-charter. Even those who point to their test scores also point to their teachers, their programs and the things that students experience daily.
5) Some people cite the popularity of charter schools with parents. If you think that that is a good measure of a school’s suitability for your child, you should also look at non-charter public schools that parents think highly. As charter schools are such a small fraction of the schools available to your child, you’ll find just as many non-charter schools of equal popularity with parents.
************************
So, what are charter schools?
* They are public schools, in that they are paid for by the government.
* They generally are not part of the local school district. That means that Bloomberg and Klein cannot set policy or curriculum there. They are on their own — for better and for worse.
* They often are not unionized, though that is not true across the board.
* Like other small and young schools — and there are just as many non-charter small and young public schools in the city — their faculties tend to be younger, I think.
* Charter schools tend to have fewer programs for English language learners and special education students — not surprising given their size. This has led them to have signficantly fewer ELL and special education students.
There have not been any high quality rigorous studies that show that charterness actually makes schools better. In fact, the most recent big high quality study showed the opposite. But, again, that’s about averages and overall. There is nothing in the charterness of school that keeps it from being a good school or ensures that it will be a good school.
There are charter issues that might make a school more or less likely to be a good or great school — and this is a lot of what people debate about. But these issues are for policy people who are figuring out whether to expand or contract the number of charter schools, and what to do about failing schools of all sorts. They are not of concern to you in the same, a parent choosing a school for a child. You need to figure out the best school available to your child, and you’ll do that by looking at the particulars of each school — not whether it is a charter school or not.
Of course, if it is important to you to support the labor movement, you might find a local charter school with unionized teachers.
However, if you concerned about charter schools’ impact on the wider system of schools and the larger population of students which they all serve, that’ll take you quite deeply into the debate.
-
July 14th, 2009 8:03 pm
To Pogue:
>In essence, this whole topic has to be addressed as…”Would you like your children to go to private school for free?”
Instead of me just harrumphing loudly that “public schools ARE charter schools”, let’s actually look at the comparison with a more critical eye. Want to try?
I think a good place to start is: Why do parents send their kids to private schools? What would make a parent spend their own money, often in very large amounts, to send their students to a private institution when their tax dollars fund a free public education?
While some would never send their kids to public schools out of class bias or because of the desire for an elite pedigree, most parents who send their kids to private schools do so because they think it’s the best option available. Pretty simple, right? Pick the best school available, send your kid there.
When we look at private schools, however, there is incredible variance. A Catholic School is different from a Sudbury school, a boarding school like Choate, a democratic school like the Albany Free School, an online school like Penn Foster high or an established day school like Horace Mann. Saying, “I want to send my kid to a private school” really speaks more to dissatisfaction to the public system, rather than any particular statement about the nature of private schooling.
As for charters, you know, those ones authorized by the New York State Education Department or the State University of New York’s Charter School Institute, approved by the New York State Board of Regents and legally established by New York State Education Law Article 56, I’ll leave it to you to decide whether they are “public” or not.
Best,
Nicholas Tishuk
Director of Programs and Accountability
The Renaissance Charter School
teach11372 @ gmail.com -
July 14th, 2009 9:31 pm
Um, er… “charter schools ARE public schools.” There. Fixed it for ya, NT.
For my money, which I’m not only saving on private school, but that as a taxpayer I wish I were saving on charters as well, Pogue nailed it on lap one… “essense” to me being twelve words or fewer.
-
July 15th, 2009 12:36 pm
(Attempt #2)
Interested Parent,
Rather than tell you all about charter schools, I’m going to address how charter schools are different than non-charter public schools.
The big issue — and really the only really important difference — is on the governance level. That means that classrooms are the same, teachers are the same, methods are the same. And by “same” I mean “quite varied among both charter schools and non-charter public schools.” There is so-oooo much variance among non-charter public schools and comparable variable among charter schools.
So, what is governance? Governance is about who is in charge of the school. For non-charter public schools (i.e. those organizaed into school districts), we look generally have schools board and superintendents. In NYC, we a Chancellor and the Mayor. Whomever is in charge runs the central offices and/which sets all kinds of policy. The odd things about schooling, however, is how hard it is to get the bottom line workers (i.e. teachers) to follow central policy. That’s part of why you see such variance across schools and even within schools.
Charter schools are not part of districts, and so their leaders (i.e. usually a board of some sort that provides a little oversight and assistance to the school’s administrators) are free to do what they wish — within the confines of state law. Charter schools ARE public schools, and therefore must follow state laws on education in ways that private schools do not.
And so, we see great variance among charter schools, and expect to see more than among non-charter public schools. As ineffectual as centralized policy and control of district schools might be, it is has a greater impact than the intentional lack of such centralized control and policy among charter schools. Of course, the kinds of variance we see within non-charter public schools is also found within charter schools, and its due the same internal dynamics.
Is this lack centralized policy, expertise, support and control good? Or is it bad? Well, it’s both. There are positive impacts and negative impacts. There are days when principals at each want centralized support, and days when they don’t. There are days when the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, and days when it does not.
When it comes to your child, however, we are not talking about averages and overalls. Rather, we are talking about particular schools and particular teachers. You need to visit schools and talk to parents of children at those schools to find out about those matters. And do not take the word of people about a schools whose children do not go to that school.
There are larger questions about charter schools that you might not care about. There are debates about the impact on other schools, on the surrounding districts, on the children who do not attend them. There are debates about the impacts of charter schools on the strong voices in our policy and political debates. And there are debates about overall or average performance of charter schools generally.
But if you are just focused on finding the right school for your child, those larger debates are probably not of interest to you. Most parents just focus on the local decision that they are most invested in, that of find the best school they can for their child. And that answer is really about looking at each school, knowing that their charterness is probably not one of the top 100 things to factor in.
However, if you are invested in those larger question, I’d have a lot more to tell you. This discussion gets a lots more contentious, with questions about what constitutes valid evidence, the motivations of different players, the nature of communities and the social compacts. There are questions about private good vs. public school, the individual vs. the group and much much more. For some people, these questions are really the most important thing, whereas for most pople the most important thing is the short term and personal question of finding the right school for their child, regardless of those other questions. I’m a member of that smaller group, but I recognize that you probably are not. Let me know if you are, and then we talk about those other things.
-
July 15th, 2009 3:04 pm
Ceolaf: great post about governance. I would add it to it the difference in accountability, specifically that charter schools are granted time-limited permission to operate by their authorizers. In New York they can only get charters, their contract to operate, for up to five years. At the end of each charter term they must re-apply for their charter, and at that time are supposed to be held accountable for student achievement, organizational viability, and fiscal soundness. Now whether the authorizers do a good job of holding their charter schools accountable is another question, but the process is very different from district schools, which are rarely closed. That said, all public schools, district and charter, are held to the same federal standards under NCLB, i.e., must make “adequate yearly progress,” hire “highly qualified teachers,” etc. So in looking at specific charter schools for your kids, an interested parent might want to look at the track record of the school’s authorizer, and ask whether it is holding the schools in its portfolio to high standards (and what those standards might be). I’ve been impressed by how thoroughly some authorizers evaluate their schools, not just looking at test scores, but regularly sending teams into the schools to see the programs in action.
-
July 15th, 2009 3:47 pm
G et al:
Great string, it turns out.Questions (loaded, I freely admit):
1) You refer to district schools “which are rarely closed.” How often do charters get closed?
2) If charters perform no better than non-charters, should they be closed?
3) What of the impact a charter might have to the detriment of the non-charters around it, or the non-charter it shares a building with?In short, if charters do not clearly outperform non-charters, what then is their justification for re-authorization?
-
July 15th, 2009 6:22 pm
Gideon,
It is not clear to me that here in NYC charters are closed with notably more frequency that non-charter public schools. And the closely of charter schools is actually quite a contested issue. Sure, there’s the theory, but an interested parent is probably not going to be concerned with a theory.
I just saw a news headline that FL was closing two charter schools? When was the last time that we saw a headline about a charter school opening in FL? The fact is that charter schools are rarely closed, and when they are it is more likely to be for reasons of financial management than academic performance. But the big point is that neither charter nor non-charter are often closed, so I wouldn’t put it in the top ten or twenty issues for a parent to consider.
-
July 15th, 2009 6:29 pm
I am struck by the nature of the comments in this thread.
People are arguing for and against charter schools — an argument I’ve taken part in on other occasions.
I’m generally against charter schools (because they take reform attention away from other ideas, and as a group have not delivered on their promises), but I understand that most of my arguments against charter schools are simply not going to be of interest to a parent trying to choose a school for his/her child.
How many of the rest of the commenters — Peter, Caroline, KitchenSink, Dissenter, Michael M., Pogue, teach11372 — also considered the parent’s view and needs when writing your comments? I’m curious if there are some arguments you generally make in this forum, and some your use in other forum? Do you always present the same arguments? How many of you think that a person’s perspective and needs really does change their views on this issue, or their timing?
-
July 15th, 2009 6:45 pm
C,
Why just yesterday at 2:59p, I put up a comment to the effect that individual parent choices are not synonymous with good public policy.Just to bang the dichotomy home: Who amongst us would have a parent turn down a seat for their child on one of the Titanic’s lifeboats?
Many of the best points were made by others, but in sum: ask parents in all schools under consideration, don’t under-weight distance and hassle, individual attention matters more if your kid has individual or a-typical needs, etc. Same as per any school, regardless of charter or non. What are the after-school, intervention, and enrichment options. Also, given the age of the kids, whether the school is a K-8 and how important it is the two kids (nominally Kindergarten and 6th grade) be in the same school. I would caution against “Progress Report” shopping.
As to the value of all the above “advice” (cough) to “reader,” I’d be interested in seeing if Elizabeth can reach that (grand)parent and invite that reader’s feedback on this string. I got a buck that says feedback includes we could all use some editing and restraint.
-
July 15th, 2009 8:07 pm
Michael M.,
I didn’t realize that that was what you were getting at. Rather, I thought that you were positing that parental satisfaction is not necessarily a good guide for policy. (A different idea than good parental choices being distinct from good policy choices, because parents can be happy with what was actually a poor choice.)
-
July 17th, 2009 11:03 am
Ceola basically wants to know what we would say to the parent/grandparent asking whether a charter is a good choice for her child.
I do face this question in real life sometimes, and my answer is that the charter may be a good choice (though I would add a caution not to fall for the hype that might lead the unskeptical to believe that all charters are magically wonderful).
My biggest issue is that charters cream — they exclude the most challenging, high-need students. And they and their supporters often deny that. Putting aside the denial part, the fact that charters cream is bad for public education overall but good for the individual charter school and its students. So that might well make a charter an excellent choice in some circumstances. I don’t necessarily expect a parent looking for a good school to share my concerns about the policy implications.
-
July 17th, 2009 12:02 pm
Caroline,
Thank for you responding to my question.
Can I push you a little bit on your answer? (I’m going to assume that you’re thinking “Yes.”)
I agree with you about creaming concerns 100%. It’s a major issue. And it is quite problematic from a policy perspective, from a community perspective, and from a democratic perspective.
But….
We all know that peer effects matter, right? The research has show our intuitive sense on this to be correct. Put a kid in a room full of hard working bright kids, and the kid will do better. Put the same kid in a room full of lazy dumb kids, and s/he will do worse. Put a kid in a room full of kids with greater school readiness and access to greater cultural capital, how will s/he do?
So, if a grand/parent asks about which school his/her kid will do best in, how do you respond? If we believe in peer effects — and the peer effect impact on the schools the charter kids would otherwise go to — what do you tell that parent? You, Caroline, are 100% that charters cream, right? Well, as bad as that might be from a policy perspective, doesn’t that help those kids who are creamed together? Do you buy this?
So, if a grand/parent asked you, would you explain peer effects to them and how charters using creaming and peer effects to help the students they enroll? Or would you leave it out? Would you mention the impact that peer effects and creaming have on other schools? Or would you leave that out?
-
July 17th, 2009 1:22 pm
Either charters ARE creaming — and should brag about it, or they’re not creaming (as charters and supporters previously protested) — so what’s to brag about?
Other than than conundrum, I agree, peer effects would seem to matter.
All the more reason to fight for integration by all definitions.
-
July 17th, 2009 2:02 pm
Michael M.,
I don’t follow your reasoning. If charters want to claim that it is their methods, organization, personnel and governance structure that make a difference, they would not want to brag about creaming. If charters want to argue that they are good for the entire system, not just for their own students, then they would not want to brag about creaming.
-
July 17th, 2009 2:54 pm
I would tell the grandma — and have told people — that the environment may well be beneficial for their kids BECAUSE of the creaming.
Charter schools would presumably benefit from talking out of both sides of their mouths (and they may do that): Tell the prospective applicants that they accept only the “deserving poor” and screen out the troublemakers (in the case of those charters that serve largely low-income populations), while announcing to the rest of the education world that they don’t cream.
As I’ve said, here is the discussion I’ve had quite often with charter school advocates, including on this listserve — I seem to have it regularly with the poster known as Kitchen Sink:
Me: Charter schools have an advantage because they cream.
Charter supporter: They do not.
Me: (Explain why and how charter schools cream in a manner that isn’t really subject to dispute, since it’s so obvious.)
Charter supporter: What’s wrong with creaming?So, to clarify, my summary would be that it’s presumably a benefit to the students in the charter school that the charter school creams, but it harms other schools (and their students) and public education overall. How an applicant feels about that information depends on the applicant’s mindset — a lot of people wouldn’t be deterred; others might feel they were being guilt-tripped and be resentful.
-
July 17th, 2009 3:32 pm
Caroline,
I think your arguments would be strengthened the occasional use of the word “some”. *Some* charters cream, *some* KIPP schools have high attrition, *some* charter proponents lie. When you omit that one word, it makes you seem like a zealot who turns a blind eye to nuance and to the facts. One might even speculate that said blind eye is intentional.
If you were to include that one word, I would likely agree with many of your points.
To the point of this post: Grand/ma/pa, go visit the schools. That’s the only way you or anyone else will be able to cut through the claims of the hypers and the haters.
-
July 17th, 2009 3:41 pm
No, Socrates, because charter schools INHERENTLY cream. It’s part of the process; it happens even if they don’t intend it. There are outlier exceptions that don’t, but all regular charter schools do cream. That’s simply part of the process. Do we have to go through the script yet again, till you get to “what’s wrong with creaming?”
Outlier exceptions would be:
– Charter schools that specifically serve certain sub-subgroups, like one in my city that’s in the county jail specifically for inmates.
– Apparently, Locke High School in Los Angeles, a long-troubled Watts high school that was turned over to charter operator Green Dot, with part of the arrangement being that the school serves the neighborhood students by default. Otherwise, charter schools are attended only by students who specifically request the school.I do say that “some” KIPP schools have high attrition, because I don’t know the attrition figures for all KIPP schools.
Why does it matter what people think of me anyway — why would you care, Socrates? However, I do object to being called a “hater.”
-
July 17th, 2009 3:45 pm
Socrates,
I’m not sure that Caroline needs to add the word “some.”
We are not necessary talking about intentional creaming, or even knowing creaming. But simply by the fact that charter schools are a little harder to get into (e.g. families need to find out about them, apply for them, etc.) they are creaming at least a little.
The kinds of things that Skoolboy/Aaron wrote about about happen, too. But even if that stuff goes away, until it is as mindlessly simple to send your child to a charter schools as to a non-charter public school, they are creaming to at least some degree.
-
July 17th, 2009 3:52 pm
I would say that until students are assigned to charter schools by default, charter schools are inherently creaming. (With the exception of the outliers I mentioned.)
The intent of those who originally conceived charter schools was that that would be a voluntary option, entirely by choice, so of course no one would be assigned by default. This effect, and its harmful impact on public schools, apparently didn’t occur to them.
-
July 17th, 2009 4:05 pm
So, if someone asks you about charter schools, because they have a kid they need to find a school for, are you morally obliged to make sure they understand the impact on the community/wider system?
How hard do you try to make sure that they get it? Or do you not even bother?
When people ask me about private vs. public schools, I really try to convince them to choose public. (To the extent that they tell my spouse to tell me when they choose public.) But asked about charters I don’t feel the same obligation, even though they feel more like private schools than public schools to me.
(I know, they are paid for by the public and are therefore public schools.)
I’m second guessing myself here, but rather than explaining what I’ve come up with, I’m curious how others would respond.
-
July 17th, 2009 5:12 pm
I’m still waiting for a charter school dedicated exclusively to Special Ed kids.
Given the inherent challenges involved, and the current stats, beating the DOE scores shouldn’t be too hard.
Further, given a recent Supreme Court decision socking school districts with the bill when parents choose private schools — without any obligation to even give the public school services a try — there’s a huge potential upside here for the neediest of children, let alone all of us Joe and Jane Taxpayers.
-
July 17th, 2009 5:20 pm
I’d say I decide how to phrase it on a case-by-case basis.
If the person I’m talking to is asking about a charter school that (in a vaccum) seems like it might be potentially a good choice, and isn’t someone who follows education policy, I guess I’m likely to say: “I have some issues with charter schools, but …” and give my opinion (that the school is worth checking out as a promising option). That leaves an opening for them to ask what my issues are if they want, but they can comfortably ignore the opening if they prefer.
If I’m talking to someone I know is a public-school supporter and is likely to be interested in education policy, then I might go into some detail about why I view charter schools as problematic.
It has happened that I was talking to someone who knew very little and wasn’t informed about specific schools, but just had bought into the general assumption that charter schools were superior, from the massive free-floating hype — someone saying “I want to find a charter school for my kid! I hear charter schools are better!” In those cases, I’ve at least tried to make it clear that there’s a huge amount of unwarranted hype coming from powerful and wealthy forces promoting charter schools as superior and that in real life that isn’t true, even though a particular school might work well for their particular kid. In my district I can confidently tell them that most of the charter schools are outperformed by a significant number of public schools. How I said this and how much detail I gave would depend on lots of variables.
There’s one charter school in my district that used to get a lot of glowing press, but that I know is now troubled. I really don’t know if the previous glowing press was unwarranted or if they school had those problems all along. Sometimes parents who heard the past glowing press ask about that school, in which case I’ll give my informed opinion and take the opportunity to make some points about charter schools in general, including the all-important “don’t believe the hype” warning.
If they were asking about KIPP schools and didn’t appear to be familiar with KIPP’s distinctive practices, I might give some details. Some parents find the program appealing and some horrifying.
In general I guess I assume that the priority is the best interests of the child in those conversations, and just try to touch on the greater issues with charter schools, or at least mention in passing that there ARE greater issues with charter schools.
…Michael, I have been told that there are some charter schools that specialize in disabled students, or one particular disability, but I don’t specifically know of any. In my district, the most activist parents of disabled students are the ones fighting for their students to be mainstreamed in the “least restrictive environment.” So a specialized charter school for disabled students wouldn’t be what they want — they would want one that willingly welcomes disabled kids to be mainstreamed in regular ed classes. Dream on…
-
July 17th, 2009 5:21 pm
Also, Ceola, in my opinion charter schools are private schools funded with public money. I refuse to call them public schools.
-
July 17th, 2009 5:35 pm
They are PRIVATIZED public schools. But that’s another story for another day.
-
July 17th, 2009 5:45 pm
C,
I’m a strong proponent of mainstreaming (based on family experience I won’t bore you with). And I agree that parents tend to prefer mainstreaming over “warehousing.” But moreover, special needs kids need special services. No family I know of wants their special needs child mainstreamed… if they’re dying of thirst mid-stream. Hence the case that reached the Supremes.
In light of the SCOTUS decision, school districts throughout the land need to come up with creative ways to retain — make that recruit — special needs Special Ed kids… or go broke. They just put all the power in the parents’ hands — and cut the school boards out of the loop. Until the invoice shows up.
Let’s bear in mind there’s a huge spectrum of kids and needs, but ferrexample, as I understand, NYC doesn’t even recognize Dyslexia!
-
July 17th, 2009 5:52 pm
Special education is its own field, with a tiny bit of nebulous overlap with the charter school controversy. The Examiner’s Special Education blogger (based in San Francisco but covering general issues) is the informed source in that area:
-
July 17th, 2009 5:58 pm
Michael:
There some excellent inclusionary models in NYC … the Brooklyn Secondary Studion Schools is fine example …http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/21/K690/AboutUs/Overview/Special+Programs.htm
Inclusionary programs cost more and require special expertise … you are correct, the schools are too few … BTW there are a few charter schools devoted to Sped Ed kids …
-
July 17th, 2009 6:53 pm
M,
the recent supreme court Case did not say that parents are free to send their kids to private schools for thei children with special needs just because they want to. It was not that revolutionary a case.
In fact, it was a fairly narrow case. It was just about whether the simple fact that their child had not been enrolled in in-district options was an automatic bar to getting the district to pay for it.
Districts are still just as free to argue in the same old procedings that they can meet the child’s needs. The only difference, as I understand it, it thAt they can no longer say, How would they know? They haven’t even tried us, yet.”
-
July 17th, 2009 7:02 pm
> I’m still waiting for a charter school dedicated exclusively to Special Ed kids.
Michael,
Read up on the New York Center for Autism Charter School in Harlem, it has exclusively served students with autism and PDD-NOS. It has been serving the community since 2006.
www(dot)newyorkcenterforautism(dot)com
Best,
Nicholas Tishuk
Director of Programs and Accountability
The Renaissance Charter School
teach11372 @ gmail.com -
July 17th, 2009 7:26 pm
Michael: The Child Development Center of the Hamptons http://www.cdch.org/
-
July 17th, 2009 8:26 pm
Thank you all for the links and feedback. (I know I tend to shoot from the lip.)
-
July 20th, 2009 9:44 am
The argument that any school a parent has to choose for their child is creaming doesn’t make sense. Creaming to me is defined as a school being able to select children who are more prepared or at a higher level. Just because a parent has the wherewithal to enter their child into a charter school lottery does not necessarily mean their children are better students or easier to teach. It may be that parents with children who are not succeeding in traditional schools choose to send their kids to charter schools, giving the charter school more, not less, challenging students to teach. Similarly, using choice as a definition of creaming, most high schools in NYC would be considered to be creaming since most students choose which one they attend, though they don’t all get their first choice. Also, to argue that zone schools don’t cream ignores the fact that many parents choose where to live, thereby choosing their children’s schools. Many charter schools are created to serve students in low-income neighborhoods where parents cannot afford to choose the better schools in more expensive neighborhoods.
With regards to charter school accountability, it is true nationally that most charter schools are closed for financial reasons or mismanagment. 5250 charter schools have been opened since 1992, and 657 have closed, and only 14% for academic reasons. However, in New York 80% of the closed charter schools were for failing to meet academic standards. New York City is rather unique in that it is closing district schools as well, but nationally very few traditional district schools are ever closed. Why is this pertinent to a grandmother seeking a charter school for her kids: because even if parents and guardians are uniformly happy with a charter school, that does not guarantee its existence. She should look at each schools performance and whether it is meeting the standards set by its authorizer for getting its charter renewed.
-
July 20th, 2009 10:37 am
Some responses to Gideon:
He says: “Just because a parent has the wherewithal to enter their child into a charter school lottery does not necessarily mean their children are better students or easier to teach.”
Response: Any veteran educator who has worked with inner-city children would disagree with you. Of course this isn’t true in every single case — there are exceptions, aka outliers. But overall, parents who care about their kids’ education are likely to have children who are better students and easier to teach than do parents who don’t have the wherewithal to care about their kids’ education (let alone kids without stable home situations and, thus, parents). It would seem rather absurd to stubbornly insist otherwise.
Gideon says: “It may be that parents with children who are not succeeding in traditional schools choose to send their kids to charter schools, giving the charter school more, not less, challenging students to teach.”
Response: This is a valid point, but these would still be children who had parents who cared and made efforts in support of their education. Meanwhile, the children who are not succeeding in traditional schools and who don’t have parental support stay in the traditional schools, while the charter schools proclaim themselves superior.
Gideon says: “…using choice as a definition of creaming, most high schools in NYC would be considered to be creaming since most students choose which one they attend, though they don’t all get their first choice.”
Response: I’m not in New York so I have to speculate a bit, but I believe that most of those schools get students assigned by default — am I correct? My district, San Francisco Unified, is an all-choice district, but except for the two magnet high schools, all the high schools get students assigned by default.
Gideon says: “…to argue that zone schools don’t cream ignores the fact that many parents choose where to live, thereby choosing their children’s schools.”
Response: Yes, it’s obviously the case that schools in higher-income areas overwhelmingly tend to be more successful. (Here in California, the state’s accountability system is called the API, the Academic Performance Index. Wags refer to it as the Affluent Parent Index.) But those higher-income schools really aren’t part of this discussion. The issue here is the fact that charter schools cream for students who are predisposed to be higher-functioning, leaving the more-challenging students to the non-charter schools that serve low-income, at-risk, high-need students. Again, the non-charter schools that serve more-privileged students aren’t relevant to this discussion.
As far as the grandma who asked the question is concerned, this creaming effect is a positive attribute in a school, I realize. But in the big picture, it’s damaging to public education overall.
-
July 21st, 2009 1:17 pm
Gideon,
I think that there are some aspects to creaming that we can agree on. For example, it does not have to be intentional or even done consciously to be a reality. I think that we might also agree that creaming entails taking a disproportionate share of the “cream” of students and/or families.
Where we might disagree is in what constitutes the cream of the students and/or families, and what actions or structures might lead to creaming.
Luckily, there is a lot of research out there as to what factors are associated with greater student success. SES, parental education level, speaking English in the home, parental involvement and a whole host of others. You’re right that the suburbs effectively cream, by this definition, relative to urban or rural schools. Heck, some neighborhoods effectively cream, relative to other nearby neighborhoods.
I think that Caroline and I are talking about an additional dimension to this issue. Suburban districts or the right neighborhood schools don’t claim to be serving a larger population. I think that she and I are both concerned about claims — either by charter schools or their proponents, though not always both — that they serve a wider and more diverse or representative population than they actually do. While it is often is theoretically possible for them to serve such a population, there are a whole host of reasons as to why they serve a disproportionate portions of the “cream” of such populations.
Why does this matter? Why is this a different issue than suburban creaming or the creaming done by neighborhoods? Well, it’s the disconnect between the claims or perception of the populations and the reality. This leads to unsupportable claims about charter schools and the impacts they can have on children, families and communities. So long as the kinds of creaming that charters do — either intentionally or not — are recognized, this will be no greater an issue than those other kinds of creaming. As when those other kinds of creaming are acknowledged, we understand the basis for the Broader, Bolder Coalition.
-
July 21st, 2009 3:24 pm
Ceolaf makes an important point:
“Why is this a different issue than suburban creaming or the creaming done by neighborhoods? Well, it’s the disconnect between the claims or perception of the populations and the reality.”That’s why it’s really, really wrong and harmful for charter school folks to claim that this doesn’t happen. Perhaps these false claims are made in true innocence, perhaps denial, perhaps deliberate dishonesty — we have no way of knowing. But they need to be aggressively refuted — and the charter folks really need to stop making them if they truly aren’t aiming to harm public education.
-
July 27th, 2009 2:51 pm
Great conversation here and I wish I had joined it earlier.
“Response: I’m not in New York so I have to speculate a bit, but I believe that most of those schools get students assigned by default — am I correct? My district, San Francisco Unified, is an all-choice district, but except for the two magnet high schools, all the high schools get students assigned by default.”
This is not the case in NYC. There are many high schools that screen, in addition to the highly successful specialized high schools such as Stuyvesant, Laguardia, etc.. Are there similar concerns regarding these schools, or are they excused simply because they are run by the DOE? How about New Vision schools and new, small DOE schools which have a special application process?
I agree that for a parent, the primary concern in school choice is the benefit of the school for their own child rather than policy implications. As such, schools should be evaluated on their own merit. The benefit of the charter in this situation is that you can make that choice regardless of where the school is. Parents need to be aware though that there are much fewer seats in charter schools that there are applications, so even if you choose an ideal school you are far from guaranteed to have you child placed there. Have many positive alternatives.
There are also DOE run New Visions schools which receive special
-
July 27th, 2009 4:06 pm
Brooklynder
Students apply for up to twelve high schools and are assigned by a complex algorithm … all schools, except for the schools requiring examinations (only a handful), receive a range of ability groups … the goal is a level playing field. Some schools receive far more applicants than others skewing the entering classes … there are over 200 small high schools. Of the 1450 schools in NYC about 200 receive “support” from not-for-profits called Partnership Support Organizations … the two largest with about 75 schools each are CEI-PEA and New Visions. Support means instructional support and principal mentoring. All 1450 school must select a School Support Organization … and the school pays a fee established by the Central Board.
The letter Report Card grade is primarily based achievement and progress compared to peer schools, schools with similar student bodies.
An excellent analysis with a range of recommendations in a recent Report by the Center for NYC Affairs.
http://www.newschool.edu/milano/nycaffairs/publications_schools_thenewmarketplace.aspx
Leave a Reply
Mapping the Budget Cuts
50 Comments
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack