If you spend time reviewing current news about public education in general and charter schools in particular, you must be confused. Are charter schools public? Do they hand pick their students? Are they high achieving or mediocre? Are they criminals skimming money and abusing the system? Are they education entrepreneurs?
Look at the headlines.
CREDO Study finds Charter Schools Might Not Be Better (US News, June 2009)
The Charter School Threat to American Society (Diane Ravitch Blog, Aug. 12, 2012)
A Dozen Problems with Charter Schools (Washington Post, May 20, 2014)
The Charter School Threat to American Society (Diane Ravitch Blog, Aug. 12, 2012)
A Dozen Problems with Charter Schools (Washington Post, May 20, 2014)
Charters More Segregated than Public Schools in Pennsylvania (WESA, March 16, 2015)
Pretty bad. Yet look at this most recent headline.
What is going on? Why is so much of this information dissonant. The discourse about charter schools in the newspaper, on the blogs, in the media appears to be dependent upon who the source is. We are not getting accurate or objective reporting. The reporting is not about new school models, or lessons learned or achievement that is far above the norm. The stories tend not to provide an in depth understanding of how these new schools are addressing the needs of students. They don't focus on school culture or proven models for student support. Nor do they highlight the possible value of allowing educators to be flexible and entrepreneurial in their approach to their craft.
Frankly, the discourse has nothing to do with education. There is an elephant in the classroom that is dominating the discussion. The elephant in the classroom, that no one wants to admit, but everyone is paying attention to is the struggle over money, control and power in public education. It is about the rights of adults versus the rights of children. It is about the rights of those with a vested interest in the status quo versus the rights of the poor. It is about the haves versus the have nots. It is about marginalizing the needs of poor, urban students of color. Let's call it what it is... the new Jim Crow. This is why you see a headline such as "The Charter School Threat to American Society."
Please STOP.
Until we are willing to look at this from the point of view of the student, of all students, and why some students attend charter schools, we will get nowhere. So let's look the elephant in the eye and try to answer the fundamental charter school question:
 |
| Ted Kolderie's Seminal Paper on Charter Schools |
"Since it was rekindled by the 1983 Nation at Risk report, the national debate over education reform has advanced in progressively more radical stages. First came the traditional calls for more school spending, higher standards, and better teachers. Then came more novel proposals for school restructuring -- greater autonomy for individual schools, professional status for teachers, and real accountability for student performance" (Kolderie, Executive Summary.)
In retrospect, we can see that the Nation at Risk report, published in 1983, was the demarcation between the analog age and the digital age, the age of working with your body and the age of working with your mind, the age of working with objects and the age of working with information. The report made clear that our public education delivery system was built for a different time and different set of circumstances. A time when it was not necessary for all students to graduate or go to college in order to earn a living wage. The report stated that the post-industrial world we live in demands that all students become educated at a pre-college level. It stated that current school models were not aligned with the skill sets necessary to succeed in information age careers. Nor do they provide student support systems necessary to move all of our children toward success.
Here is what Kolderie had to say in the year 1990.
 |
| Executive Summary - Kolderie Report |
Kolderie points out that due to changing demographics, and a drop in the quality of urban schools, families were desperate for school choice options that would provide quality education for their children.
 |
| Kolderie Report - Page 5 |
Note that the constituencies with the highest desire for school choice were parents with children in public schools, families in big cities, people of color and young parents who were starting families. This is significant. Basically people with limited financial resources want expanded public school options. A testimony to the concept of public school choice was the success of Pittsburgh's Magnet Schools. In 1990, the magnets were thriving, voluntarily integrated and high achieving. A certain degree of this success was due to it being a school of choice. One wonders why the school district did not scale up and create more magnet schools. When Homewood Montessori School had a huge waiting list, it was baffling that the district would not create a second Montessori School.
The Pennsylvania Legislature and Governor would not have considered charter schools if the public schools were achieving across the board. Unfortunately, in the 1990's that was not the case. School districts were slow to respond to the The Nation at Risk imperative. So as middle class families left the city, and the remaining students were pressured to take a college prep program of study (e.g. Algebra, Geometry, Biology, Chemistry), the district struggled to both manage and educate a student population that was at risk, ill prepared for school and had fewer resources at home.
In lieu of any significant structural changes in public education, the Pennsylvania Legislature, with the Governor's approval, passed a Charter School Law in 1997. And thus began the era of charter schools in Pennsylvania and with it, the rhetoric about charter schools attempting to destroy public education, to steal tax dollars, resegregate our schools, break the unions, etc. There was only one charter school authorized in Pittsburgh prior to 2000. Charter Schools were immediately blamed for drawing funds from districts, drawing students from districts and not achieving. And yet, there were very few charter schools in existence. Figure 1 below, using census information from 2012, shows that only 3% of Allegheny County students attend charter schools.
- Most are not helping kids.
- Some are actually hurting kids.
- Far too many are cash cows.
- The industry is rife with fraud and corruption.
- Lack of transparency and accountability.
- Skimming and weed-out strategies.
- Contribute to the re-segregation of U.S. education.
- Drain resources from struggling districts.
- Closing traditional public schools.
- Lack of innovation.
- Hard to get rid of the bad ones.
- Charters promote “choice” as solution.
6) Skimming and Weed-out Strategies.
Critics claim that because parents have to actively choose a charter school, the school is getting a "better" student. They don't mention that PPS Magnets such as CAPA, Sci-Tech and Obama High Schools all have academic entry requirements that take only the best students. Nor do they tell you that these PPS Magnets have created an untenable situation for feeder pattern comprehensive high schools such as Perry, Allderdice, Westinghouse, Brashear and Carrick. Nor do they tell you that the charter school demographics in Pittsburgh look more like the feeder schools and less like the Magnet Schools. And they never tell you that the charter schools have a lottery with no entrance requirements. Who's skimming who?
7. Contribute to the re-segregation of U.S. education.
A recent NPR report of a 2015 Penn State study on charter schools, segregation and school finance continues the constant criticisms of charter schools.
... it’s a different story in a number of the city’s other charter schools. Among Pittsburgh’s seven brick-and-mortar charters, four of them have an African-American enrollment of more than 90 percent. Pittsburgh Public Schools at large has a split of 56 percent black, 34 percent white and 13 percent other races. According to the charter school trends study from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, regardless of region, charter schools are disproportionately enrolling students of color. (WESA-FM, March 16, 2015)This is terrible reporting. The reporter compared single segregated charter schools to the District at large. The Pittsburgh Public Schools is a segregated school district. Many schools are all black... some are nearly all white. However, when you look at the district at large, it looks integrated. The district is integrated, but the schools are not.
Pennsylvania Districts and schools are segregated as well, many are all white... some are all black. And the same is true for our country. Charter Schools are schools of choice. Should they be blamed because poor students of color are looking for a quality education? Why is the Center for Rural Pennsylvania attacking charter schools regarding diversity or lack thereof and not looking at the public schools with the same issue? The answer lies deeper in the report. It's about the money. It's always about the money.
The growing financial impact on local taxpayers of the increasing number of students attending charter schools and the current funding system that places the full responsibility for charter school costs on school districts is clear. While the rapid expansion of charter schools, especially cyber charter schools, may provide some parents with more school choices, policy makers need to be cognizant of the financial impact that state mandates place on traditional schools and districts. (Assessing the Enrollment Trends and Financial Impacts of Charter Schools on Rural and Non-Rural School Districts in Pennsylvania, pg ii.)If they would think this through, they would find their complaint is with the Cyber Charter Schools not the bricks and mortar charters. I agree with the complaint about Cyber Charters. Cyber Charters have a record of low achievement, working with populations not in need and excess funds due to their cost efficiency. Take note of the differences between the students at brick and mortar versus cyber charters.
"Two types of charter schools are authorized in Pennsylvania: physical brick and mortar schools and cyber, or virtual, schools. The student populations at the two types of schools differ. The typical cyber charter student is white and ineligible for subsidized meals, while the typical brick and mortar charter student is black and receiving free or reduced-priced lunches. Furthermore, the starting score for cyber students is significantly higher than for brick and mortar charter students in both reading and math. Additionally, cyber students are more likely to be repeating a grade than brick and mortar charter students." (2011 Credo Report, Pg. 8)This is not about resegregation... if it was, and the media cared, they would be talking about the resegregation of American schools in general. This is about the financial crisis occurring in Pennsylvania public schools. Critics take their anger about inadequate funding out on charter schools. But the simple fact is that whether charter schools existed or not, the funding crisis has to do with lower taxes and diminishing state support for all education from pre-schools through state supported Universities.
11) Hard to get rid of the bad ones.
When I read this list of 12 problems with charter schools my first reaction was the author must be talking about the majority of urban and poor public school districts such as Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Boston, New York and even Pittsburgh. Apply these accusations to Westinghouse HS, Perry HS, Wilkinsburg HS, Clairton HS, Sto-Rox HS, McKeesport HS, Carrick HS, Woodland Hills HS, Penn Hills HS and Brashear HS and see if they ring true. These urban schools are segregated and produce abysmal results. There is never any thought towards closing them. Yet, when applied to local Charter Schools, Career Connections comes to mind. The point of charters was they would be held accountable for high achievement and their charter could be revoked if they were mediocre. And that's what happened to Career Connections. It was closed.
Charter schools are reviewed annually and only receive a charter for five years. At the end of five years the district has to determine whether they are doing a good job and whether they should be rechartered.
This is the law. If the school district does not follow through and determine whether the charter is fulfilling the requirements of the law, than they are to blame.
There is an elephant in the classroom. And it has nothing to do with education. The elephant is about money, control and power.
Here are some facts.
This is about money, control and power. Federal monies via Title I and Special Education have funneled through the state and focused on needy populations since the mid 1960's. However, for the first time in our country's history, local monies, via charter schools, are going specifically to the "have-nots". One would guess that the outcry over funding would come from the local taxpayers. But that is not where the outcry is coming from. It is coming from "public school advocates". University professors, labor unionists, liberals, progressives and the like are outraged because funding is leaving the local districts (which are doing a terrible job in their segregated schools) and going to charter schools. One would think that the political left would want to provide quality educational alternatives to at-risk students. Not the case.
I am appalled at the behavior of these so called progressive thinkers. They want to help students, while defending the traditional public school enterprise, but can't seem to find a way to succeed at educating these children in the traditional education system. And in their effort to maintain the traditional model, they are willing to deny alternatives to the students in need. When they talk about charter school accountability they are disingenuous. I have yet to hear a single critic apply their criteria for measuring success to the public feeder pattern school. And if you really want to understand where the progressives are coming from, take a look at where they send their own children to school. If they attend public schools, they will always be magnet schools (a.k.a. schools of choice.) They don't go to the feeder pattern schools because the achievement is too low.
- Seventy-eight percent of the Pennsylvania’s public charters were located in non suburban areas in 2011–12 as compared to 59 percent of traditional public schools.
- Only 5 percent of the state’s public schools were charters in 2013–14.
- Only three communities in the state had more than 10 percent of public school students in charters in 2012–13.
- The state’s public charter schools served a significantly higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (33 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools in 2012–13.
It is clear that the majority of people who attend Pittsburgh brick and mortar charter schools are poor and African-American. Let's take a look at these schools and their feeder pattern counterparts.
Urban Pathways and Manchester Academic charter schools provide an education alternative to Northside public school students that are among the lowest achieving in the city and the state.
The Academy Charter School was started at the request of juvenile court judges who were seeking a healthy alternative to the institutionalization of Allegheny County juvenile offenders.
City Charter High School is a high achieving, integrated, centrally located high school that provides students from all neighborhoods of Pittsburgh with an alternative to local, segregated, extremely low achieving feeder pattern schools.
Urban League Charter School is an alternative to low achieving segregated black schools in Pittsburgh's Hill District and Homewood neighborhoods.
Environmental Charter School is an integrated school in the Regent Square area where the district closed both public schools leaving students without a neighborhood feeder school. Environmental Charter School has come under criticism for not being "integrated enough". That is because it has a majority white population. That criticism is never focused on the Urban League or Urban Pathways charter schools, although they are almost exclusively black. As stated, Environmental Charter School started in two empty public school buildings after they were closed. They have a waiting list that has hundreds of families desperately wanting to attend quality public schools.
Urban Pathways and Manchester Academic charter schools provide an education alternative to Northside public school students that are among the lowest achieving in the city and the state.
The Academy Charter School was started at the request of juvenile court judges who were seeking a healthy alternative to the institutionalization of Allegheny County juvenile offenders.
City Charter High School is a high achieving, integrated, centrally located high school that provides students from all neighborhoods of Pittsburgh with an alternative to local, segregated, extremely low achieving feeder pattern schools.
Urban League Charter School is an alternative to low achieving segregated black schools in Pittsburgh's Hill District and Homewood neighborhoods.
Environmental Charter School is an integrated school in the Regent Square area where the district closed both public schools leaving students without a neighborhood feeder school. Environmental Charter School has come under criticism for not being "integrated enough". That is because it has a majority white population. That criticism is never focused on the Urban League or Urban Pathways charter schools, although they are almost exclusively black. As stated, Environmental Charter School started in two empty public school buildings after they were closed. They have a waiting list that has hundreds of families desperately wanting to attend quality public schools.
When a neighborhood's public schools are mediocre or non-existent, there are no alternatives for residents of that neighborhood. Charter Schools can provide that alternative.
This is about money, control and power. Federal monies via Title I and Special Education have funneled through the state and focused on needy populations since the mid 1960's. However, for the first time in our country's history, local monies, via charter schools, are going specifically to the "have-nots". One would guess that the outcry over funding would come from the local taxpayers. But that is not where the outcry is coming from. It is coming from "public school advocates". University professors, labor unionists, liberals, progressives and the like are outraged because funding is leaving the local districts (which are doing a terrible job in their segregated schools) and going to charter schools. One would think that the political left would want to provide quality educational alternatives to at-risk students. Not the case.
I am appalled at the behavior of these so called progressive thinkers. They want to help students, while defending the traditional public school enterprise, but can't seem to find a way to succeed at educating these children in the traditional education system. And in their effort to maintain the traditional model, they are willing to deny alternatives to the students in need. When they talk about charter school accountability they are disingenuous. I have yet to hear a single critic apply their criteria for measuring success to the public feeder pattern school. And if you really want to understand where the progressives are coming from, take a look at where they send their own children to school. If they attend public schools, they will always be magnet schools (a.k.a. schools of choice.) They don't go to the feeder pattern schools because the achievement is too low.
So let's get back to the original question.
Do charter schools represent a civil rights imperative or are they an attempt to dismantle public education, get rid of teachers unions and work with only the best students?
I would suggest that if Thurgood Marshall was alive, the great Supreme Court Justice and the lawyer from the NAACP who fought the Brown vs. Board of Education case and won, would state that charter schools represent a choice option which considers quality public schools a civil right. He would be appalled that the issue of segregation still remains. But he would demand quality schools for all children in our society. That's why he fought and won the case.
I can hear the critics getting upset... "All charter schools are not great. Some are terrible". This refrain has been used to damn charter schools in mass. Quit being so naive, so simple minded. Some charter schools are extraordinary, some are plain good and some are terrible. That is the nature of life. In theory, the terrible ones should go out of business either for lack of students or through rigorous oversight. Get rid of the bad ones. And increase the number of extraordinary ones. Or really go out on a limb and begin changing some of the district schools using lessons learned from quality charter schools.
One final comment. As a 25 year veteran of urban public schools, a ten year veteran of public charter schools and once a member of the Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers and the Pennsylvania State Education Association, I am a proud public education advocate and have greatly benefited from union representation. Yet I am often accused of having a hidden agenda. What are my real intentions? I deeply believe in public education, and have no desire to propagate private schools or for-profit schools or cyber schools.
My greatest hope and desire is for the public education enterprise - the school boards, the teachers, the unions, the administrators - to get their house in order in terms of quality and put the charters out of business. But until they put in place a quality system of education, I will fight for the right of poor and needy students to get a quality education wherever they can - public, private, charter. And if the public schools are incapable of educating poor, at risk students of color in a quality way, then just like charter schools they should be closed.
There are people in the "Choice Movement" who want to dismantle public education. They are my adversaries. But I can tell you this much. In Pittsburgh Pennsylvania there are six charter schools (more including Propel) that believe that their existence is a civil rights imperative. Ask their students and parents what they think.
No comments:
Post a Comment