By Rob
Tom has written some thoughtful posts (here, here, and here) about charter schools. When I read about charter schools with a cohesive staff, a common vision, and high standards for all I’m excited about the possibilities for their use in education reform. I am also a firm believer that the same reforms are possible for public schools.
If charter schools take hold then resources will shift towards making them viable. Who provides the transportation? Who maintains the facilities? Who provides the special education services in the least restrictive environment? Who provides the oversight? Undoubtedly answers to these questions are possible. But what if the resources used to address these questions were invested in local school improvement?
With some factors in their favor (more autonomy, less regulation, streamlined governance, and a market based approach to managing staff) charter schools do not outperform non-charter schools (link). Still their numbers are growing.
In response to a $327 million deficit Detroit will close nearly half of its 142 public schools and turn 41 into charter schools. Students forced to endure longer bus rides to public schools as their neighborhood schools close may enroll in geographically closer charter schools. This loss of enrollment further undermines funding. Given this trajectory Detroit could be the first district to entrust the majority of its schooling to private organizations. Is this the objective of market based education reformers?
Given that charter school performance is on par with public schools and the innovations that charter schools tout can be implemented in public schools why allow public money to pay for private for-profit companies? Why the continued push? Could the purpose of the charter school movement be to eventually privatize education?
I can’t prove it is but I can’t prove it isn’t.
I too am joining the conversation late. Sorry.
We can’t assume that charter schools mean privatization. Charter schools can be whatever we want, depending on the law we approve.
Charter schools don’t have to be run by a for-profit CMO. We can put in our law that they’re run by non-profit CMOs. We can put in the law that charter school teachers are unionized, like Green Dot teachers.
Frankly, as a member of SEA, WNEA and NEA, I get a little frustrated when I’m told that these are my only options OR ELSE. What if I want to join a Green Dot union? Is some SEA thug going to break my knee caps and force me to continue to pay my dues? Please.
My professional goals are in this order:
Love what I do
Be good at what I do
Be compensated well for what I do.
The charter schools I toured in LA had a higher percentage (100%) of teachers who said those three goals were met than I’ve seen here in Washington. Here, I meet teachers who feel good at what they do, but who don’t love it and who don’t feel compensated well for it. The teachers I met in three LA charters (one of which was Green Dot, and so unionized) said yes to all three requirements.
Rob: thank you, that is exactly my concern.
I do not believe that equity (true equity, as in for ALL) and choice/competition can co-exist in our system. Choice requires a disparity or difference. Competition requires a loser. Both are inherently unequal.
As for the fallacy of choice regarding charters: choice implies a decision between two equally viable alternatives–however the implication is that the charter public school is the “better” choice, so why would anyone chose the traditional public school? What does that suggest about those choosers and their choice?
Tom and I think Travis have both identified that traditional public schools ought to (can and should) try to do some of the things that successful charters do. Absolutely.
Mark- (from the Civil Rights Project at UCLA: Choice Without Equity)
“Decades of social science studies find important benefits associated with attending diverse schools, and, conversely, related educational harms in schools where poor and minority students are concentrated. In the recent State of the Union address, the President recognized the persistent link between segregated neighborhoods and schools, saying “In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.”4 Ironically, charter schools held an early promise of becoming more integrated than regular public schools because they were not constrained by racially isolating school district boundary lines. This report shows instead that charter schools make up a separate, segregated sector of our already deeply stratified public school system.”
I can’t argue with providing underserved communities with quality schools. But I can point to charter schools that aren’t fulfilling their promise. I can also point to public schools that have succeeded beyond expectations.
Continuing your analogy, replacing sinking ships with lifeboats is short sighted. What replaces the lifeboats as they sink? More lifeboats. The lifeboat construction industry is growing at the expense of the navy.
Michigan just lifted its cap on charter schools (300 in 2012, 500 through 2014, and unlimited in 2015). Those 500 schools are not providing service where public schools failed. Their scope is far wider.
Michigan charter schools serve 102,000 students and receive $11,987 per student. That $1.2 billion in funding was once directed towards public schools. This amount could rise to $2.4 billion if charter schools reach their 2012 cap.
We are all too aware of the painful impacts of Washington’s cuts to education. Being forced to make cuts because funds are not available is a difficult reality. But being forced to make cuts because your funding is being directed towards another agency that provides duplicate service: that seems like an unnecessary and avoidable tragedy.
Sorry to join this conversation so late. (Christmas, etc.) The charter schools I observed in New York were outstanding. They were outstanding in a place where most schools are horrible. Let’s start there.
Charter schools, in my opinion, are a viable alternative for families trapped by circumstances in an area with poor schools. You and I – and most other middle-class parents – have the wherewithal to pack up and move to a different neighborhood if the schools are bad enough. Families living in poverty aren’t able to do that. Hence charter schools.
That’s not to say that building charter schools is the final answer. The real solution is obviously to improve those “lousy schools” or perhaps to improve the poor neighborhoods in which those schools reside. But that’s not gonna happen anytime soon. So in the meantime: charter schools. Think of them as lifeboats for a sinking ship. Building lifeboats is not a sustainable proxy for sound naval architecture, but it’s still good to have a few lifeboats around, just in case.
You may also want to look at Diane Ravitch’s most recent book too.
Ahhh, sorry. The link did not show up on my phone. 🙂
Check out the Stanford study. It is the most cited and most credible study out there right now.
I tend to be skeptical lately about Gates-funded studies since they don’t look always comprehensively at issues (like only looking at eight states here), and Gates has been decidedly pro-charter as of late.
drpezz-
from the post (3rd paragraph) “charter schools do not outperform non-charter schools (link).”
The link goes to the study I was referring to- By the Rand Corporation’s study of charter schools in 8 states. (funded, interestingly, by the Gates Foundation)
I have not seen the Stanford study. It seems I have some holiday reading to catch up on.
“Given that charter school performance is on par with public schools”
The Stanford study–the most comprehensive look at charter schools–refutes this. Where do you find that charters are on par with public schools?
I have not seen anyone saying this outside of charter school officials, so I’m curious.
More control in a charter school by the school. That makes a difference. Same outcome expectation, but they are, in essence, their own district. That has got to be a powerful feature.
I was reading recently (somewhere, I cannot seem to find it again) that some successful charters also rely upon private contributions of technology, infrastructure, etc… do you (or Tom) know if this is true? The same reading also indicated that the per-pupil investment therefore was in some cases 150%-200+% the per-pupil expenditure of non-charter public schools. I want to say that this was New Jersey? Perhaps someone else saw this (or can locate it) and has information with more reliability. If this stuff is true, it makes me wonder about funding sustainability and what obligations come into play when private monies make up such a large proportion of a school’s budget.
I have fundamental reservations about privatization of education. First off, whoever believes that this will provide a “more equal playing field” is off their rocker. I see no way at all that privatization will better serve the populations presently not being “well served” by public education. If anything, it will become de facto economic segregation once again (as if the public schools are not that already, privatization will take this to an exponential degree).