Katie Osgood has a terrific blog. She works with children with high needs. I learn a lot from Ms. Katie whenever I read her writings:
What If Charter Schools Did What They Were Intended to Do?
And I wonder, instead of skimming away these high-performing students, what if charter schools had followed the original intention of their creation? What if these schools had targeted not the best test-takers, or kids who with just a little push could be great test-takers (since test-taking is the only metric anyone seems to care about these days), but instead focused on the ones who were about to dropout, the ones who had a history of behavior problems, the ones who disrupted the learning of all the other students and took up the time of the teachers, the ones who are over-represented in Special Education, the ones who were truly struggling in the public schools?
And I imagine the charters as using flexibility in curriculum, staffing, and the use of funds to create truly innovative places of learning. They would be schools with various extra-curriculars to keep kids engaged, extra staff support to reach this tougher group of kids, innovative use of technology, services to reach out to kids already involved with gangs or with substance abuse issues, special programs for kids in the juvenile justice system or even the foster care system, flexible start and end times to encourage students to actually attend school regularly, vocational training opportunities including partnerships with local businesses and industries, and more. Charters could become an alternative to oppressive alternative schools.
In the meantime, the neighborhood school would feel supported and be better able to do a job educating the students who could succeed under a more traditional version of school. There are plenty of children living in low-income neighborhoods who have supportive home lives and who are ready to be challenged academically. But thanks to the effects of poverty, there are MORE students who suffer from debilitating behavior and learning challenges. It matters that some children are not receiving proper nutrition. It matters that more children are being exposed to substances in utero. It matters that children are growing up watching extreme violence on their streets and experiencing post-traumatic stress as a result. It matters that families cannot find employment and children suffer from the daily stress of unstable living conditions. It matters that children are being thrust into bouts of homelessness and the chaotic lives that ensue. If charter schools stepped up to help THESE kids, they ones I meet every day at my work—the ones who are difficult even for a staff of highly-trained professionals– they would be doing a huge service to communities and public schools. Charter schools would be SUPPORTING neighborhood schools by focusing attention and resources on the kids who truly needed it.
Somehow, the vast majority of charter schools (with some exceptions, no doubt) focus all their attention on kids who already can “cut it”. They claim they have solved the puzzle of low-income schools. I’m sorry, but just because your student population is made up of children from low-income backgrounds and students of color, does NOT mean they are the struggling students. Poverty does matter, but it impacts families and individuals differently.
I look at my students at the hospital. The neighborhood schools are truly working with a tougher bunch of kids. Some of them will eventually be transferred (after many meetings, a whole lot of paperwork, and a lot of pushing and advocating) to therapeutic day schools or alternative schools. But there are not nearly enough schools like this to accommodate all the children with significant problems in school. And unlike the successful charters, the neighborhood schools don’t get two teachers and an aide in a class of under 20 kids (See Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academies.) In fact, as their stronger performers are siphoned away to the charters along with their funding, they will have even less to offer the students left behind.
Charters could’ve really helped my toughest kids. These kids deserve a fighting chance at a good education. Instead, somewhere in the twisted logic of current education reform, they are being given less than ever before. And it makes me ill.
I still don’t believe charters would be a panacea even if they took up their original mission. And I worry about segregating out students with greater needs and not addressing the funding inequalities and racial isolation of these schools and communities, but at least they would not be making things WORSE for the neighborhood schools. I truly believe many charter school teachers and even some leaders think they are doing something good. But I tell you, from where I stand, charter schools are taking part in denying the most fragile children quality education. If only charters could reclaim the mission of helping the kids that need it the most. If only charters weren’t “in competition” for the strongest students and best test scores. If only charters weren’t dividing communities and parents who now need to fight for ever dwindling resources. Perhaps then, in solidarity, all educators and parents—charter and neighborhood alike–could continue the fight together for true equity for ALL children.

As I read your story Katie I personally feel your frustration. I am reminded of the ten or so high need students here at my school of 600 high poverty students (94% F/R lunch). The ten students who take up about 95% of my administrative time. The 5 who spent time in mental hospitals during the school year. A couple of them more than one trip there. The two whose parents moved for the third time in a school year. The one with the probation officer who was sent to a juvenile detention home. The one who went on homebound by doctors order. The others who eventually were sent to the alternative school only to return several weeks later just in time for the state test. Most of them were two years older than their grade level peers due to the effects of poverty, including transiency, truancy, apathy, hunger, etc., etc., etc.
I never gave up on any of them. We worked hard as a team to help them function in our school setting, even though it became more difficult each passing week. We adjusted schedules, accommodated, modified, counseled, met with parents, consulted with social workers, referred to community agencies, had meetings to adjust their plans, etc. You name it, we tried it. By January many of them were no longer on my campus, but most eventually returned. I didn’t feel like I failed them because I knew we did all we could. I wonder though about the other students who were forced to endure their existence on our campus, even though we did our best to keep them safe.
I wish I could open my own charter school for these students. One where we could try to meet their needs without the having to follow the NCLB rules. But it wouldn’t last because eventually someone would come and close us down because their only measure of success would be test scores. Those of us who know these kids understand that their success would need to be measured in other ways. When will the deformers start talking to real educators to find out what really works in real schools with real students? Until that day comes we will continue to do more with less and hang on for dear life. For the life of our students, because I know a charter school would not have fought as hard for those high risk kids. They are OUR kids, from our neighborhoods. They are not disposable.
LikeLike
In NJ they close the charter schools that help those children that need it most (Emily Fisher Charter School) and they replace it with one that will skim the high performing children. They claim this is because the charter school (Emily Fisher) wasn’t getting the test scores it should. This makes the administration look “tough” on charters and they use it as an example for all other charters.
LikeLike
The focus on test scores, and the push to close those charter schools that do not have very high test scores because they educate the most challenging students, actually increases segregation by encouraging charter schools to cream skim out the easiest to educate students for fear of being closed if they do not. More ed deform destruction!
LikeLike