The Washington Post reports what many people suspected: the charters in the District expel many more students than the public schools. The higher expulsion rate allows the charters to get rid of behavior problems and students with low test scores. This makes charters appear more successful than they are. The expelled students, of course, return to the public schools.
“D.C. charter schools expelled 676 students in the past three years, while the city’s traditional public schools expelled 24, according to a Washington Post review of school data. During the 2011-12 school year, when charters enrolled 41 percent of the city’s students, they removed 227 children for discipline violations and had an expulsion rate of 72 per 10,000 students; the District school system removed three and had an expulsion rate of less than 1 per 10,000 students.”
Folks, this is not education reform. This is a dual school system. It’s also a mighty hoax. Public dollars are going to schools that skim the able and kick out the less able. Where is this heading?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’m going to disagree a bit here, because I read the article closely and also examined the data. First, DCPS overuses long-term suspensions, which also do not serve the children well. Second, DCPS moves students from one school to another, effectively “expelling” them from one school setting and placing them in another. Academically that is little different than a student being expelled from a public charter and re-enrolling in a traditional public school. We do need a serious reexamination of discipline in all schools receiving public funds, and I would extend that argument to schools receiving voucher funds, which is still marginally true in DC for students who were already in the opportunity scholarship program that the current administration ended for new students. The issues are not just a problem with charters and with DC. Public schools with selective admission policies have the ability to remove students. I taught for 13 years at Eleanor Roosevelt High School in Greenbelt MD. Students in our Science and Technology Program (admission to which was by competitive examination) could be removed from the program for failure to maintain academic standards. If they were from outside our attendance area they could be sent back to their home school. We also once had an incident with a number of students caught in a computer lab hacking into the personal information of teachers. A number were put up for expulsions – it was, after all, a criminal offense. Eventually all except one withdrew while on long-term suspension to avoid being expelled. The other was a gifted student who also had an IEP and being classified special education made it difficult to expel him. He was banned from using computers at the school for the rest of the year, at the end of which he entered an early admissions college program (after his sophomore year of high school) where they were aware of the incident but where he thrived.
What IS clearly not acceptable is to allow a school to keep ALL of the public funds designated for a students merely because that student is on their roles as of the Census on October 5. That is a problem, because the funds should follow the student, and when that student goes to a traditional public school, not transferring some portion of the funding for her education to the school which she now attends unfairly burdens the receiving school.
Clearly the issue of how discipline is used and in too many cases misused is a serious issue. It is not however merely an issue for charter schools, although there are some that the data indicates take advantage of their ability to remove students to boost test scores or to financially advantage their operators.
I would make a comparison of sorts – the so-called Texas miracle, where scores on the state tests given in 10th grade began to drastically improve, was an example of another kind of mistreatment. Students who were believed to be at risk of not passing were held back in 9th grade, sometimes more than once. If they dropped out they were encouraged to say they would pursue a GED and therefore not marked as dropouts. In some cases, students after being retained in 9th grade were told they had made so much progress in the 2nd year they were skipped to 11th grade – and thus not subject to the test. In both of these cases I think we can see examples of Campbell’s Law in action.
“What IS clearly not acceptable is to allow a school to keep ALL of the public funds designated for a students merely because that student is on their roles as of the Census on October 5. That is a problem, because the funds should follow the student, and when that student goes to a traditional public school, not transferring some portion of the funding for her education to the school which she now attends unfairly burdens the receiving school.”
I heartily disagree that the funds should follow the student to charters in the first place. That money belongs to the community, not individual families within the community. If the funds should always follow the students, then childless taxpayers should not pay any school taxes, parents with one child should pay less than parents with 2 or more, etc., etc. Obviously all of that is ridiculous, but the fact that people are still touting the “funds follow child” argument, to me, is just as preposterous. Tax money to educate the public is for the good of the community, not for the whims or choices of individual families.
The poster open2ideas submitted comments to the article. Most interesting is this:
“The truth is that there are more kids in the DC public school system who have committed murder (and gotten away with it!) than were expelled last year. Isn’t that a much bigger scandal than the different expulsion rates in the charter schools and DC public schools?”
Also, here’s a link to the crime statistics collected by the DC Metropolitan Police Department:
Click to access jvarrests_jan_jun_2012.pdf
[end comment]
“…although there are some that the data indicates take advantage of their ability to remove students to boost test scores or to financially advantage their operators”.
It’s a little more than “some of that data”, it’s the compelling reason!! It’s about profits. And scores equals profits. To compare what public schools do is totally unfair because a school could be closed or a teacher fired simply based on scores in the public schools. And yet these students are returned to the public school, and as always, teachers bear the blame. Many charters are exempt from the same regulations as public schools, including using VAM as a way to judge teachers. Charters are a business first and a school second.
I have always maintained that if every school in America was converted into a charter, nothing would change. The same problems that follow public schools will now follow charters. Charters should not have the right to counsel out students if they accept public funds.
In fact, charters should not be getting any public funds if they can’t be subject to the same regulations as public schools. But they are given a pass.
Charters are also expelling students with learning disabilities by claiming they don’t have the resources to meet IEP’s, Maybe that’s because the CEO needs those resources to line his/her pockets.
Perhaps I do not fully understand your comment, but I do not think you are disagreeing with Diane’s main points. At the very least, I think that you and the commenters on your posting make excellent points.
An additional thought. We expect—and sometimes get—transparency with public schools. This expectation is often at odds with the charterites/privatizers because private entities who are engaged [overtly or covertly] in making a profit frequently feel the need to keep their edubusiness practices as secret as possible in order to sell their eduproducts and beat the competition. What business person in his/her right mind wants bad publicity? So when ‘no-excuses’ charters use selective admissions, retention, and expulsion practices, they are often genuinely outraged when some naive but caring person asks them for hard data on such things as “how many kids who started your program actually go on to graduate x number of years later?” or “how many financially strapped parents are paying fines [and how much!] to your school so their kids don’t get expelled?” or the like. Very occasionally such info comes out, and it ain’t pretty.
In my experience the people who often initiate the exposure of inconvenient truths about public schools are school staff. This can make them very unpopular with administrators [who have to answer to their bosses’ outrage over the embarrassing details] but not much can be done to punish such whistleblowers when they have the right to due process guaranteed by a union contract. So many charters have non-union employees—who would risk a job, however low paying, in this economy, just for the “sake of the kids”? Especially when some of them have their own kids to support. It happens, and I applaud their courage, but they shouldn’t be in that position to begin with.
Again, thanks for your posting. It provoked some great comments.
🙂
There are those (our good friend Harlan, I believe, for one) who would say that high expulsion rates are good because it separates out the “bad kids” from the “good kids” and the “good kids” will thereby not be distracted in their education by the “bad kids”. In fact, outside this and similar blogs, I might go out on a limb and suggest that that’s the majority opinion, which is why “reform” remains relatively popular.
I’m hesitant to call it a majority opinion, but it’s there. Anthony Cody just pulled an example out of the discussion of his Reform Dichotomy column, and has started a separate discussion of the issue.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/
““My goal is zero” expulsions, said Shawn Hardnett, an administrator for Friendship Public Charter School, which last year expelled 70 students across its six campuses, which are located in some of the city’s neediest neighborhoods.”
Ok, Pinnochio,
“ ‘At the same time, I have to be reasonable and wise about the fact that there are kids who are coming to our schools with behaviors that are very simply unacceptable and unsafe,’ Hardnett said.”
Welcome to the world of educating the public.
“The District’s Office of the State Superintendent of Education in August proposed rules that would govern discipline policies at all public schools, including charters. They called for minimizing suspension and expulsion of children 13 and younger and outlined due process rights for students. Charter leaders mounted a vigorous opposition, saying the federal law that established D.C. charters frees them from such local mandates.”
Should we be surprised to learn there was “vigorous opposition?”
“And, under current city rules, schools that expel students after Oct. 5 — the city’s official school census date — get to keep the thousands of dollars in funding they receive for each student.”
Time to go to court and correct these rules.
“The school system’s numbers also do not include “’nvoluntary transfers’ prompted by safety concerns such as fighting. Like expulsions, involuntary transfer cases are heard by an administrative judge. The school system said involuntary transfers are not tracked at the elementary level and were not tracked centrally at the secondary level until this year; there have been 12 so far this school year.”
This is an example of “school choice” that so many choice advocates seem to ignore.
“Charter school leaders said they don’t have the same ability to transfer students to another school or an alternative setting, which might be one reason for their elevated expulsion rates.”
Is it possible that charter school leaders are looking for sympathy now?
LG, many thanks for your postings.
Two minor points, followed by a major one.
First, you might consider apologizing to Pinocchio. If he is reading this blog, he is undoubtedly mortified that you compared him to Shawn Hardnett.
🙂
Second, what you called “looking for sympathy” might be better expressed in an English-to-English translation [remember the Woody Allen movie?] as “advocates of no-excuses schools looking for any excuse, however implausible, so they can distance themselves from their own self-inflicted failures.”
Of course, I would not be surprised if you come up with a better rendition of this sort of edudoublespeak. Feel free. I will read.
🙂
Posters on this blog often write “follow the money” when trying to explain why the charterites/privatizers engage in blatantly destructive behavior. The Oct. 5th rule allows them to both take money for doing nothing with those students for most of the school and to steal that money from the public schools that then have to work harder with fewer resources. It may not be illegal, but it is immoral and shameful.
Of course nobody speaks plainly about this when edupreneurs get together in their behind-closed-doors investor confabs and talk about how they can get a high ROI while at the same time helping deprived $tudent$ get a twenty first century education.
You’re absolutely right! Someone must have directed Geppetto to my comments because I certainly got my bottom handed to me offline by the doting father. I humbly withdraw my regretful Hardnett comparison to the helpless wooden boy with sincerest apologies. Even Gollum would have been offended.
Alas, I have no singlet for the “edu-accountably excused” among the “reform” movement. Will work on it.
I think any policy-maker with integrity and some level of intelligence would be willing to right the “Oct. 5th” wrongs thus making such practices of stealing the public’s funds illegal. Maybe a savvy journalist can provide a little exposure?
Bad kids need education too. The Good kids still in Public Non-Charter schools need education too. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that it seems highly unlikely that you have a dog in either fight. I don’t either as I am here in Detroit area where they are doing the opposite, setting up a shadow state wide system to warehouse the “Worst and the Dumbest” as a separate but unequal system entirety in the name of reform but in reality to speed up privatization of for profit schools, to make big bucks for the future owners who are polishing up their computerized learning systems so they can eliminate educated teachers and replace them with Armed Security guards as part of the fast track “School to Prison” train. I bet you think this is some wild conspiracy theory. Sadly, it is not and if you search “EAA” and “Michigan Schools” you will see that it is true.
Bigger question
How are we helping kids that get expelled in any school? Do they have support or the mental support they may need? Sounds like a mess!
That is the real crux of the issue. School-readiness is almost never addressed in terms of school success. Blame is placed on teachers, principals, unions, etc.
LG
You are so right on. We don’t want to talk about poor kids getting arrested for serious offenses and then we sadly blame schools for expelling them. Suburbs would expell kids too if they did the stuff kids get expelled for. In fact they pay lots to not have them in their town. Mo one wants our tough kids. People who never worked in a inner city don’t have a clue. Someone needs to write an article about the crimes kids are involved in each major city and compare to suburbs and see the serious shit they are being charged with. Gun charges is a serious offense. So is rape. School to prison pipeline is what we are really talking here and this charter school public school debate is the red herring. Poor parents just want their kids to have a fighting chance. Wake up America because that expelled kid may one day rob U if we dont provide intervention now. Right?
I don’t want to be seen as a nutty conspiracy theorist, but as a master observer of group dynamics for the better part of my career, I noticed that the new formula in education breaks down to level:
Suburbs equal excellence and any expulsions happen with social pressure from parents an unwritten agreement between administration and parents. Best performers are considered at a magnet for excellence, so any problems are effectively squelched through that pressure.
Mixed communities equal good education, and any problems are relegated to lower-performing contained “groups” that are encouraged socially by parents and administrators to behave to the norm or find a “better fit.” Teachers know to quickly pass them through, and that is done – again, with little to no communication. It is known from day one.
Low-income cottage communities (nearer to cities but with less than 25% transience) have a lower expectation, but maintain energy into higher-performing students so that they provide a chance for opportunity. Poor behavior is relegated to cluster containment and easier objectives through “basic skills” programs which are funded.
Urban areas are under state and federal law to maintain a high attendance rate until mid-high school, so that worst behavior is contained building-wide, and best-performing students are encouraged by social parental and administrative suggestions to move up and out of the area to find better academic opportunities in the levels above.
It’s a swap-meet. And it’s been going on since I was going to school in an affluent suburb in New York. Is anyone here really surprised at the fact that we are incensed that charter schools, under direction from big business influence, are allowed to “fire” their students for not performing to their job expectations? Are we so surprised that parents are being “fired” for not keeping their children well behaved enough to not be distractions to others – in spite of their intelligence level?
Diane, you posted an interview with Barbara Corcoran in where she spoke about being a “D” student and what made her so successful was her ability to follow her gut and her willpower to know that she deserved success. Don’t we think that many of our children feel the same way? So that’s what we need to do in order to make success happen in the school system. We need to have tracks of interest and true cross-topic study to cover education that fits the deep desire to learn how to get done, what our students want to get done.
They KNOW they can’t succeed without knowledge. But their early exposure through media and technology has switched on their motivated passions early – and we need to be able to re-facilitate them toward a successful outcome. We need to differentiate whole schools to become magnets of study within districts themselves. Math & Science; Humanities & Arts; Social Studies & History; Athletic Excellence; Innovation and Technology. If we each created a 4-8 school under these themes. Then we created curriculum to match, we would move incredibly ahead of the curve. Or maybe even Finland 🙂
Are there no prisons?
Looking at the numbers in the article, I notice that there may be a MAJOR problem that should be dealt with immediately. That is, according to the article, “D.C. officials said they track only expulsions that they are required to report to the federal government, which include those due to violence, weapons, alcohol or drugs.” The article goes on to state that “one-quarter of charter school expulsions — 68 of 263 — fell into those categories” and “Of the 68 students expelled from charter schools that year for violence, weapons, alcohol or drugs, Noel said nearly half enrolled in a traditional public school, about one-fifth enrolled in a charter school and one-third did not immediately re-enroll in any public school.”
I read this as saying that there are 195 ex-charter school students that they have no idea where they are since the federal government does not require tracking of these expelled students. Is anyone tracking these students? Shouldn’t someone be helping these students and making sure they continue their education? One may assume we have a network in place to catch these students, but do we?
Charter schools may be the best thing since sliced bread! Many sure claim to be, but if they are, why do they have to be so “private” with their information?
It’s telling, I think, that there is more worry for what will happen to the expelled students than what was happening to the ‘good’ and motivated students when they were stuck in school with the thugs. If we started to educate parents in poor communities that they have a right for their children to go to school in a safe environment, urban districts would not continue to warehouse dangerous and distracting students.
I have yet to meet anyone who wasn’t directly affected by the suspension/expulsion numbers who thought that pretending that violations didn’t exist or not intervening was a good idea. How many urban districts have made it a huge burden to even send a student out of a classroom in order to force teachers and students to deal with what administration cannot? My current school has gone off of the far deep end. Detentions aren’t good for student motivation, so we don’t have them. We just talk about the problems with the students. Anyone who works with kids knows that the first thought in a student’s mind is the question, ‘or what?’ We don’t have an ‘or what’ so behavior stays the same or gets worse. But, our numbers look good to district admin.
I do have a dog in this fight. I believe in living in the same place that I work (same neighborhood, not just city). My children will be forced to sit in school with children who aren’t held to the same behavior standards as the students in ‘good’ schools. Until this problem, which has been going on for decades, is dealt with, and the burden is removed from parents and children who are trying to better their lives, the reform movement is going to continue to have traction.
This is one of the reasons parents send their children to Private schools. If charters (for monetary purposes) are going to claim to be Public then they have to share in the many problems faced by the Public schools not just make their own rules to provide their superiority!
So, until someone decides to take on this decades-long problem, then all students who live in certain zip codes are required to suffer under a different set of rules than students who attend schools that have a higher standard for behavior?
This seems very wrong on a few levels. Where is the fight against this injustice?
That question should be asked of organizations such as studentsfirst. They should be using their political influence and money to work with public schools and departments of education instead of segregating students in different schools and taking money from education in order to make profits.
I’d say that it should have been taken up by all of us a long time ago. To concede the point that there are behavior problems to the reformers is silly. Why aren’t unions fighting for safer schools? Why are students who sexually harass younger students allowed to stay in school as predators.
I’m not, and never have, been an advocate for counseling out students based on academics. But it isn’t ok that we have two separate measures of behavior. One for other peoples kids and one for communities that expect more than having to send their kids to school with sociopaths. Why give that issue up to reformers? Why should any student be allowed to hijack another student’s education?
When it is painted as a purely poverty issue, then we do a disservice to all of the hard working parents who struggle and still manage to raise respectful kids who aren’t destroying others opportunities.
Instead, we act like the kid who has been suspended 15 times is the victim instead of all of the kids that he kept from learning. We shouldn’t be letting sociopaths slide because it makes our numbers look better. The numbers don’t look so good for the kids and families forced to put up with it.
Sociopaths exist in all types of environments–yes even at Sidwell Friends and other “elite” schools. This pathology does not discriminate based on demographic. Not all disruptive behaviors are sociopathic, although if left untreated, many mental afflications can be difficult to conquer.
With the exception of schizophrenia, behavioral therapy can help troubled students cope in society. Schizophrenia is unique in that those afflicted with the disease cannot practice any measure of self-control. They have a chemical disposition, and their brains cannot be re-wired. Unfortunately, these folks must be on medication for the safety of themselves and those around them. All other conditions are treatable.
I can understand frustration with those students who constantly engage in power struggles with others, but to simply write off these young citizens as “sociopaths” is to avoid these issues as “other people’s problems.” We as a society can and must do better not to abandon our responsibilities to each other. Intervention through early identification and treatment is the way to keep schools, and our society, safer.
Further, for unions to take on this responsibility, the public must enter into a partnership with local associations to bring these services to our schools. The mantras “what’s in it for me?” and “not MY problem” have permeated education in this society giving way to the governance of segregating ideals. This way of thinking creates the perfect environment for the exploitation of private interests that benefit “some” of the public. We can and need to change this destructive trend.
If there are any doubts in your minds that charter schools are selective AFTER accepting students, as well as beforehand, read this and doubt no more:
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130102/chicago/charters-ring-up-fines-along-with-additional-public-funding
Is the mother guilty for failing to adequately discipline her son? Maybe. We can’t know without knowing whether or not the boy has any outstanding mental issues, etc. But that’s not the point. The point is that soon, the Chicago Bulls Charter School will no longer have to deal with him causing trouble in its classrooms and bringing down the averages on its standardized test scores (assuming it even has to deal with those — the latest charter scandals seem to involve charters wriggling out of the same sort of “accountability” measures advocated by the same people who push for more charters). When that day comes, the school can put on a look of doe-eyed innocence and assert that it didn’t kick the boy out, his mother CHOSE to withdraw him — and it was powerless to stop her!
I read the link. It confirms what I have been saying and thinking for some time: the main thrust of the charterites/privatizers with their so-called ‘no-excuses’ charters has been and is to go after not only teachers and their unions but all school staff [certificated and non-certificated] as well as the majority of parents and students.
Going after the wallets of poor people in order to fatten their own? I would ask if they had no shame but I’m afraid I already know the answer to that question.
Anyone that has worked in a charter knows this is super common. Students are suspended and expelled at high rates. They don’t really provide education during that time either. Students who are kicked out during the year try to get into any school that will accept them. (Usually a public school) Children will get kicked out and go without schooling for weeks and months.
What percent of students are expelled from Charter schools?
25% to 33% don’t complete once entered (according to one
article) — is that what you read?
Would you sacrifice the success of the other 75% to 67% for the unruly/unprepared?
I wouldn’t. As the articles admit, they aren’t expelled, they are demoted into
schools who can handle unruly kids. I think that is a form of diversification
that helps — especially if the kid goes to a school that can handle the behavior
issues the kid demonstrates. Specialization is what created the economic
success of America and specialization in education sounds like an excellent idea.
I don’t want two classes of school (charter and not-charter), I want a dozen or more.
The most difficult issue for politicians to accept is acknowledging that
one size does not fit all in education. Once that hurdle is jumped, amazing things
in education for the smart, ordinary, mis-behaving, challenged and all others
can be achieved.
Cling to one size fits all and all kids in America suffer.
Charters – OK, but
Charters for
a. smart
b. mis-behaving
c. autistic
d. ordinary
e. blind
f. deaf
g. intellectually challenged
h. …
Once kids in any of the above are able to move into “normal schools”,
move them. Grow kids from underachievers to
overachievers. That should be the goal.
I never met a kid who would not eagerly go that path.