Katie Osgood teaches children in a hospital setting in Chicago. Here she responds to a comment from a charter advocate who insists that charter schools are no different from magnet schools:
Osgood writes:
In regards to magnet schools, I have always believed that there are equity issues surrounding this practice. However, they were begun with integration in mind and do tend to be, at least in Chicago, our most integrated schools (but with an overrepresentation of white/middle class students). Most that I know of do not have tests to get in, they are random lotteries (Maybe you are thinking of selective enrollment??). Magnets are also unionized schools with local school councils (democratic voice in community school governance for parents, teachers, community members and in high school, students) and some do provide special education services similar to neighborhood schools. They are staffed with fully-certified, experienced teachers and use proven creative curriculum and specialty programs. Their demographics tend to look like this:
http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Pages/school.aspx?id=610363
Charters are another beast altogether. They are almost without exception highly-segregated schools that tend to look like this: http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Pages/school.aspx?id=400033 There is no democratic voice, the teachers are often not unionized (although this is changing in Chicago, one school at a time), and many use questionable practices like hiring many uncertified teachers, having scripted curriculum, and using cruel, borderline corporal punishment “no excuses” discipline.
I would love for ALL schools to look more like magnets. I do not want all schools to look like charters. Charters provide low-quality education for low-income students of color. And that is wrong.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
All public schools should be and can be good. The Fish Rots from The Head is the problem. Principals, board members and superintendents are the problem and when the district is large enough then the billionaires. This is the reason for the Parent Trigger laws. There is nothing wrong with the philosophy of the Parent Trigger solution. It is how it has been implemented up to this point. Now, maybe, as a result of Steve Zimmer’s resolution there will be following of the law as it currently is and he added the important factor of parent education so that they can be empowered. In the controlling MOU of 24th Street in one sentence it says “We love you parents” and in the very next sentence it says “And Parents will not be on the governing board.” Is that Parent Empowerment? Or are the promoters just empowering the parents without knowledge of their choices to disempower themselves as it states in the 24th Street MOU? CORE-CA will be there to support the Zimmer resolution.
Katie Osgood ~ “I would love for ALL schools to look more like magnets. I do not want all schools to look like charters. Charters provide low-quality education for low-income students of color. And that is wrong”
Although I am not a fan of Charter Schools for a number of reasons besides which they tend to take away from the public schools, I completely disagree with your statement above. First off in Northern CA where I am familiar with Charter Schools, a dear friend of mine taught in two of them and each were unique. One was in an affluent area, and one took up a Waldorf School curriculum, and both taught from high quality education
I agree with you. Some charters schools are staffed with highly qualified, certified teachers. The education offered in some charters schools is high-quality. I am a public school educator; therefore, I do not advocate for charter schools. There are many teachers who teach in charter schools who are former public school educators.
An overview of charters-in-practice should be created. There are indeed a huge number of charters providing “low-quality education for low-income students of color.” And then there seem as well to be select others providing — often whiter — far higher-quality education opportunities too. It is this *de facto* segregation that is some of the problem.
But the point is, the presence of a few instances of high-quality charters, usually in relatively privileged neighborhoods, should not be permitted to color understanding of the whole charter movement. There are currently at least 260 charter schools in operation within the borders of the second largest school district, LAUSD. The experience of an elite high-profile few should not overshadow that of the rest.
I was writing about charters in Chicago, and here they ARE almost all these low-quality, “no-excuses” prisons like I describe above The reality of charters under accountability and marketing pressures is that the “unique” Mom and Pop charters will likely all be destroyed by these big chain name brands (think Walmart, but a school). We have had charters for some time in Chicago, so may be a little farther ahead of other parts of the country. Charters are a failed experiment.
I work in the mental health field at a private for-profit hospital. Almost all psychiatric facilities in Illinois are now private institutions, and I have seen first-hand how destructive market forces can be when used in fields where all people should be receiving equal services like health or education. Institutions get by with as little care as still brings in the money, er patients. As long as all surrounding hospitals also are offering piss-poor services, they save money wherever they can to bring in more profit for the top executives. This is the future of education under charters and privatization.
I wish charters could be those places of innovation they were envisioned to be. I wish the “unique” ones could make it. But, with a small number of exceptions, I think charters have become a low-quality education on the cheap for other people’s children.
As you were writing about charter schools in Chicago, did you mean to say that charter schools in Chicago are a failed experiment rather than all charter schools in all places?
Without value added and other data, it’s hard to have a fact based discussion. I looked on google and found a variety of studies coming to different conclusions.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> ** > Katie Osgood (@KatieOsgood_) commented: “I was writing about charters > in Chicago, and here they ARE almost all these low-quality, “no-excuses” > prisons like I describe above The reality of charters under accountability > and marketing pressures is that the “unique” Mom and Pop charters will > likely”
Joe,
“Value added” is utter nonsense. Certainly not a good way to look at anything regarding public education.
I am no expert on magnet schools and cannot speak broadly on those. Charters, on the other hand, I have been following closely around the country, reading relevant literature as well hearing dozens, maybe hundreds of first-hand accounts from students and families. Value-added scores would add nothing to the conversation as what I consider success is not to be found in test scores, but in the quality of the educational experience. And with very very few exceptions, what charter schools nationwide offer is low-quality, prison-like schooling for the poor.
Can you give more information about “selective enrollment” public schools?
NYC has a lot of selective enrollment public schools. There are “gifted and talented” schools, which are generally K-5 but are sometimes K-8 or even K-12. There are also selective admissions middle schools and high schools. It almost seems normal in NYC, which operates almost entirely according to principles of competition and/or selectivity. But it’s not at all normal and it shouldn’t be.
“But it’s not at all normal and it shouldn’t be.”
Agree.
Do economies of scale play any role in public education?
We don’t often agree, but I’m with you here. Selective enrollment “public” schools (which aren’t really any more public than charters, since they’re not really open to the public) are an abomination.
And yet I’ll send my daughter to one.
Again, agreed.
Sorry, I was agreeing that selective public schools are an abomination…not that I would send a youngster to one.
Or put another way, should every high school be capable of teaching every course that every student who happens to be enrolled might find appropriate?
At the risk of upsetting Nancy, let me give an example. As a high school senior my son took a course where the major goal was to prove that every regular local ring is a unique factorization domain. Should we be able to teach that sort of class in every high school or does it make more sense to gather these type of students together in a single class? Actually there may be a third option: ignore what talented and gifted students are capable of and make them take whatever classes you offer.
Quite a difference, isn’t there, between an individual class and an entire school? Of course it makes sense to say a youngster should take algebra before calculus. That’s quite different, at least for me, to saying only students who score in the top x% of students as measured by (often unreliable) standardized tests are allowed in this school.
Do you think there is “quite a difference” between a school and the courses taught in the school? Certainly there are other, non-academic aspects to a school like the sports teams that are available to the student, but would not the academic component of the school arguably be the sore of the school?
Not sure what you mean by “sore of the school.” In part, this is a values question – do you think public schools should be open to all kinds of kids. No admissions test. I’d answer yes.
I blame Steve Jobs. Core, not score.
In the dual credit programs you work with, do the students get brought together from different public schools to take the college classes together or do they get taught in the public school building? Is there a minimum size class that is required for the subject to be taught?
“Charters provide low-quality education for low-income students of color. And that is wrong”
Where are you finding your stats? Charters here in NY are performing at, if not above, state standards and by no means, use “questionable” practices and uncertified teachers. I’ve worked in both settings and they both equally have their challenges. At least they can fire low performing teachers, unlike public schools who can have their hands tied because these teachers have tenure.
I’ve enjoyed your posts but your bias here is a huge turn off.
Why are you repeating the lie that a tenured teacher cannot be fired? That has never been true in any place in this country. A tenured teacher is simply entitled to due process, as are all Americans who face the criminal justice system, and which, unfortunately, is not the case for the vast majority of employees in this country. If the principal fails in her due diligence to make a case for firing that is another issue entirely.
When I was a UFT building rep in NYC I attended several hearing where tenured teachers were fired for various reasons. I also attended several hearing where tenured teachers were not fired because the principal showed up with nothing other than a dislike for the teacher and could not provide any documentation of poor performance, attempts to help the teacher improve, or any other proof.
I now teach in a “right to work” state where the union is powerless and tenure is now illegal yet I am aware of at least 4 tenured teachers that were fired before that law was passed by the legislature.
Tenured teachers have always been subject to firing after receiving a fair and impartial hearing. Charter school that aren’t unionized escape the burden of proving that a teacher is unable to do their job — they can fire whenever and for whatever reason they choose. Do you honestly think that is an improvement?
Many Americans are “at will” employees, not entitled to any due process rights when employment is concerned. You are correct that all citizens of the United States are entitled to due process in criminal matters.
What astounds me is how many people think that teachers having tenure is the problem rather than the problem being that most of us don’t have tenure. Rather than fighting for all of us to have basic due process rights before losing our livelihoods, let’s fight to strip teachers of theirs – yeah, that’ll show ’em.
Why should teachers have MORE due process rights than any other worker in the economy?
One reason might be to protect the local democracy from politicians using public school positions as patronage positions. In many places the local school district is the largest single employer in the town. A second reason might be that the local government is willing to trade off job security for lower rates of pay.
Those are real possibilities. If a board can direct a principal to fire at will to make room for a relative that would be an abuse, I suppose. Somehow I think tenure plus public sector unions are more politically corrupting and at a higher state level. Having never had tenure over a career of 42 years, I suppose I was somewhat isolated from the nitty gritty of local political machinations. Your observations suggest that the main purpose of political activity is to look out for one’s own.
Kristen, schools “performing at, if not above, state standards” is a function of test scores and those test scores are being manipulated by selective screening processes (difficult, time-consuming lottery applications, not recruiting non-English speaking students, not offering certain Sped services) as well as significantly high attrition rates without replacement of the student body. I have seen a small number of single-campus charters that aren’t “bad”, but never ones doing something truly innovation, progressive, exciting. And the trend in charters is toward “no excuses” large franchises.
Here in Chicago, the trend in charters is fill their schools with alternative certification teachers (meaning a large amount do NOT yet have certification) such as Teach for America provides. This practice is a gross inequality in our system. Most charters are highly-segregated, use significantly more inexperienced/uncertified teachers, have higher staff turnover, use harsher discipline strategies, do not offer democratic voice to stake-holders, tend to exploit workers (see Chicago Math and Science Academy debacle or recent UNO unionization efforts), pay their CEOs exorbitant salaries from the public coffer, and are partnered with corporations/foundations representing the interests of the wealthy, not the low-income communities of color which they serve. See here for an overview of “low-quality” schooling charters offer in Chicago: http://www.ctunet.com/root/text/CTU-black-and-white-of-chicago-education.pdf
I have heard very similar stories in New York in regards to charters.
And please stop the whole tenured teachers can’t be fired line. It is not only not true, it adds nothing to the conversation. I hear ideology in your words, not reality.
Dr. Ravitch has also argued that charter test scores are higher because of a positive peer effect on the students in the school. If that is true, wouldn’t putting those students who enjoyed this positive peer effect in a charter school back into neighborhood schools give those students a worse education than the charter?
Peer effects can be used to justify all kinds of exclusion, racist and classist policies, and inequality. If neighborhood schools were fully and equitably funded, with access to small classes where teachers could give individualized attention, with ample support services for kids who struggle OR soar with any given topic/task (that struggling learning may shine in a different subject area, after all), I think all students would benefit. In my hospital, where I have more support (still not enough) I am able to effectively work with a vast range of abilities and ages and all kids benefit (I have ages 12-17 in one room, from kids in AP classes to kids in therapeutic day schools). If we are looking to build a divided society like we have now, then separation and segregation is the way to go. If we want more inclusive places where all people are valued, then we need to rethink this practice.
Dr. Ravitch has used peer effects to cast doubt on recent studies in New York that show students in charter schools perform better than matched students in traditional public schools.
The most able high school students in my local high school are not in AP courses. They are taking graduate classes at the university while still in high school. We have had three such students from my local high school in the last 10 years. One was even admitted to a top graduate program straight out of high school. Would requiring these students to attend the classes offered in the high school be in these students best interests?
And I agree with Dr. Ravitch that peer effects matter immensely when the other option is large classes of wildly wide ranges of ability as found in our starving neighborhood schools with little to no support. When classes are small and there are sufficient support services so kids on all ends of the learning spectrum get individualized instruction ALL kids can succeed. Right now, there are ideologues who are purposefully sabotaging neighborhood schools, while offering a “lifeboat” strategy for a small number of charters (not ever all charters) to use as marketing tools. My point is simply that using the idea of peer effects as a way of justifying segregation and discrimination against those left behind is nothing to be celebrated.
I also agree that peer effects are important. This means that denying a student the benefit of these peer effects by eliminating the selective school he or she attends will make that student’s education worse. If peer effects are important, education policy may always have to decide between educations that are better for students of type A and educations that are better for students of type B.
Every three years or so there is a student at my local high school that takes graduate classes in mathematics. These typically need to be taught by research mathematicians. Making a high school math class smaller is not a substitute.
No, what I said was that peer effects matter greatly when learning cannot be individualized due to lack of resources. Charters do not help all kids (no miracle!), they simply throw away the kids who struggle. If only we could get targeted and equitable resources to those kids then there would not be a negative impact on other kids. And all would benefit from being a part of an inclusive community.
Struggling learners are being labeled as a liability, with some kids being worth more than others. Your “A” group of students are the students who live in less poverty, have less mental health issues, have more stable home lives. Your “B” group includes the sickest, the poorest, the most disabled. Group B would cost more to educate well. But we won’t provide that kind of educational experience to the poorest and sickest kids. No, we just shut their schools down.
“Choice” is making the quality of schooling for struggling students, students with disabilities, students still learning English worse. What about those children’s rights? Will we ever have schools where all learners are valued? Or will we continue to throw away a certain percentage of kids? What kind of society views children as disposable?
I have to watch, up close and personal, the impact of choice on the most fragile of our children. It is ugly and it is cruel. Leaving these kids behind in order to offer other kids “peer effects” in mediocre ‘no excuses’ charters is not a solution.
How will you individualize education when some in a class are doing graduate level mathematics and others are doing high school mathematics. Does it even make sense to call such a situation a class?
That is a really rare and specific example. The point of individualized instruction is to meet all kids’ needs. Schools given flexibility can find creative ways to do that, whether pulling kids out to a smaller setting for certain tasks/subjects, partnering with outside resources (colleges/community partners), utilizing flexible staffing and groupings, using technology, etc. But you don’t build a segregated school and give it more resources for only the kids performing well. This is a conversation about charter schools after all, and too many charters are not offering individualized learning, they are offering standardized/rote learning only for certain kids.
Three students in the last ten years at my local public high school (about 400 in a graduating class). Is that so rare that these students can be justifiably ignored?
If the ratio holds nationally, that should be about 2,500 student s a year in the US able to do graduate work while in high school.
I honestly have no idea how this scenario relates to the conversation about charter schools. As I said before, I think schools should be flexible in meeting any student’s needs and see no problem making exceptions to how and where students learn. Let kids take a class at the local college, why not? But don’t kick those kids out of the school just because there was a special need in one subject. That is what is happening in charters. Instead of bending to include all kids, they push out kids. We are not offering schools sufficient resources to become these kind of inclusive learning environments.
I think it is closely related because it is about the capacity of a local zoned neighborhood school to provide the appropriate education for all. I think we are in agreement that “When classes are small and there are sufficient support services so kids on all ends of the learning spectrum get individualized instruction ALL kids can succeed.” is not true for this group of students, and they need to be allowed to leave the neighborhood zoned school.
Now the hard work would have to start. 1) which student has such unique educational requirements that they are best off leaving even a well funded neighborhood school? 2) who gets to decide the answer to question 1? 3) where will the students be allowed to go? 4) who will pay for the cost of the alternative school?
Apparently Ms Osgood is not aware of the minimum test score or audition requirements for CPS Magnet high schools…
http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Pages/school.aspx?id=610363
—–
What are the requirements for students to be eligible to apply?
Eligibility is based on the student’s 2011-2012 ISAT national percentile rank in reading and math or, if the student did not take the ISAT, the 2011-2012 percentile rank in reading and math on a different nationally normed, standardized achievement test. For most schools, in order to be eligible for inclusion in the computerized lottery, students must have a minimum stanine of 5 in reading comprehension and a minimum stanine of 5 in total math. Students with an IEP or 504 Plan must have stanines in reading comprehension and total math that total at least 10 (e.g., 3 in reading, 7 in math; 9 in reading, 1 in math).
Note the following exceptions to these requirements:
•Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences: requires a minimum stanine of 5 in reading comprehension, 5 in total math, and 5 in science.
•Von Steuben: Science program requires a minimum stanine of 5 in reading comprehension, 5 in total math, and 5 in science.
•Von Steuben: Scholars program requires a minimum stanine of 7 in reading comprehension, 7 in total math, and 7 in science. In addition, eligible applicants for the Scholars program must submit teacher recommendations and an essay to their elementary school counselor. For additional information, see Von Steuben’s website, http://www.vonsteuben.org. If an applicant to the Scholars program does not qualify, he/she will automatically be included in the computerized lottery for the Von Steuben science program.
How are students selected?
For most magnet high schools and programs, students are selected through a computerized lottery and in accordance with the admissions policy for magnet, selective enrollment and other Options for Knowledge programs.
There are two exceptions:
•Senn: Eligible students are selected for the fine and performing arts program through an audition and/or portfolio process.
•Von Steuben Scholars Program: Eligible students are selected based on their standardized scores, teacher recommendations, and essay.
I am aware. I was speaking about Magnet elementary schools as I am an elementary school teacher. “Magnet elementary schools focus their curriculum on one particular subject area, such as math/science, humanities, Montessori, or world language. Most elementary magnet schools do not have attendance boundaries, and in most cases, they offer transportation to students who live more than 1.5 miles but less than 6 miles from the school. Contrary to widely held beliefs, magnet elementary schools do not provide an accelerated curriculum – they are designed for all students, and students are randomly selected through a computerized lottery. ”
But again, the issue for me is the EXPERIENCE of the children in the classrooms and access to educational opportunity. I believe ALL children should receive what the kids who get into magnets receive as a minimum. I would not foist what charter kids get-the abuses of ‘no excuses’ discipline especially-on any student, regardless of socio-economic status.
Perhaps the confusion arose from you leaving out that you were only speaking about elementary magnet schools in the original post.
As I state below, I wrote the original comment above hastily in a long string of comments on a different post. I am clarifying now.
It is a reflection of our slogan- and buzzword-driven era that both of these terms, “Magnet” and “Charter,” have so many different meanings and are manifested in so many different ways around the US that their use is counter-productive in most discussion. In California, where I teach, our magnet school programs (which were often excellent) are mostly gone, whereas charters, with wildly different-in fact, often opposite and competing-structures and missions have proliferated.
I taught for 10 years at Alianza Charter School, an elementary school, which began as a magnet school, with an ideal program of bilingual education with three full-time release teachers, allowing teachers at each grade level to have 45 minutes DAILY to collaborate, plan, and prepare as a team. Then, as Prop. 227 loomed in the late 1990’s, we became a Charter school only in order to preserve our bilingual program. The school is still a District school, we kept our Union representation, internal governance, and all District services unchanged-all we wanted was control of our curriculum.
I know of many other Charter schools in California which are progressive, unionized, and outstanding, like the Watsonville Charter School of the Arts. One must be specific and clear when using either of these terms.
Fred, that is true. Magnet and charter don’t have the same definitions across the nation. I teach in a public STEM magnet school. 90% of the student population receive free or reduced lunch, and 95% of the student population is black or Hispanic. Most of the teachers are first or second year teachers, and many or TFA corp members.
Diane, please document, if you are referring to me that I asserted, “charter schools are no different from magnet schools.” Thank you
Moreover as has been noted numerous times, I have advocated and in numerous ways helped support district public schools over the last 40 years.
Moreover, Diane, unlike you, our children all attended urban district public schools.
All of us are referring to you all the time Joe. You’re all we think about.
In the world of on line policy debate “some” seems to always morph into “all” or “none”.
CPS magnet high schools do indeed have minimum test scores requirements (if you do not have the required test, you must TAKE a test) and some have essay\audition\portfolio admission requirements….
http://www.cpsmagnet.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=72694&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=321918
“In order to be eligible to apply, students must pre-qualify, based on their standardized test scores from the 2011-2012 school year.”
…
“Eligible students are selected for the fine and performing arts program through an audition and/or portfolio process”
…
“Eligible students are selected based on their standardized scores, teacher recommendations, and essay.”
CPS Selective schools do require testing…
http://www.cpsmagnet.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=72695&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=121684
“Does my child have to take a test to get into these schools?
Yes. Admissions testing is required for these schools.”
And just like most charters CPS does not provide transportation for high school magnets…
“Is transportation provided?
Bus transportation is not generally provided for high school students. “
Magnet Schools are a very varied category and more commonly selective rather than lottery. But this selectivity is transparent and designed to attend special needs and interests or allow for offerring special curricula. They can be representative of their surrounding communities (e.g. Columbia Secondary School for Math, Science and Engineering), or mostly white and Asian – Bronx Science. This all depends on the selectivity screens used for admissions. Charters on the other hand, either by law or by self claim, are supposed to be lottery and supposed to be representative of public schools demographics (no cherry picking). Through various less than transparent admissions protocols, and biased attrition (and often combinations of both) charters result in student demographics that are not equivalent to that of surrounding schools. At this pt these somewhat underhanded ways of changing your student compositions are well documented. The question is no longer whether it is happening, but rather does it matter? What is best for the greatest number of children? Essentially screened charter schools (freed from many of the constraints of public schools) competing in an open market for families and students with public schools who are limited (or blessed depending on your view) with work agreements and bureacratized operational systems that limit what is possible in schooling.
Dr. Maldonado, I agree that some magnets are selective, others are not. Those that are selective were designed in part as a desperate attempt in some places to retain white and upper income students (and a few upper income students of color).
In many states district schools can and (in some cases have) converted to charters. Some charters practice questionable approaches to limiting enrollment.
Many public schools in exclusive, mostly white, mostly upper income suburbs have made it clear they have no interest in serving “all kids” – only those kids whose families can afford to live their. The suburbs are by far the largest publicly subsidized school choice plan in the country.
Again with the over-generalization, Dr. Maldonado: “work agreements and bureacratized operational systems that limit what is possible in schooling”–I would add, “in some cases”; more importantly, often “what is possible in schools” can be enhanced by union, teacher, administrator, and community working in cooperation within the system to the advantage of children, not for-profit corporations. Examples abound.
It sounds like magnet schools may mean different things in different parts of the country. I will try to only speak for Chicago.
Here is what magnets are according to Chicago Public Schools:
“A magnet school is a specialized school that focuses its curriculum on one particular subject area, such as math/science, humanities, Montessori, or world language.
Used as a primary tool for desegregation under the Desegregation Plan, magnet schools were first introduced in the Chicago Public Schools system in 1973, with the inception of Disney Magnet School. Within the next few years, three additional magnet schools were established, Black Magnet School, Whitney Young Magnet High School, and Chicago Metropolitan High School. Several additional magnet schools were established in the late 1970s as part of the onset of the system’s educational plan entitled Access to Excellence. With the implementation of the Student Desegregation Plan for the Chicago Public Schools in 1981, a total of 41 magnet schools were established. The system currently has a total of 52 magnet schools; 46 elementary and 6 high schools. (Some of these schools are also reported in other categories, such as Selective Enrollment Elementary Schools [formerly GEAP] or Selective Enrollment High Schools.)
Magnet Elementary Schools
Magnet elementary schools focus their curriculum on one particular subject area, such as math/science, humanities, Montessori, or world language. Most elementary magnet schools do not have attendance boundaries, and in most cases, they offer transportation to students who live more than 1.5 miles but less than 6 miles from the school. Contrary to widely held beliefs, magnet elementary schools do not provide an accelerated curriculum – they are designed for all students, and students are randomly selected through a computerized lottery.
Magnet High Schools
Magnet high schools offer one or more specialty programs, such as fine and performing arts, agrticultural sciences, or International Baccalaureate. With the exception of Curie, magnet high schools do not have an attendance boundary. Students are selected through a computerized lottery; minimum stanines are required for inclusion in the lottery. ”
From: http://www.cpsmagnet.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=72694&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=121685
That being said, the selection process does favor white, middle class students and they are over-represented in our magnets. And, in our highly racist society, schools with significant numbers of white, middle class children get more of that scarce funding. This is the gross inequality of these programs.
Magnets to me represent both the possibility of what public schools can be (successes that can happen with sufficient funding, racial and economic integration, full/rich program offerings, more stable staffs, parent involvement, etc) but also simultaneously represent the segregation and racism deep in the psyche of our society. I would like every child to have access to the types of learning happening in most magnets. So, as we having been saying for so long, the problem always come back to racism, poverty, and inequality.
I agree that magnets in Chicago, and in many cities vary. Some are selective, some not.
Our family has relatives in Chicago (where I was born) including a veteran public school teacher. Many of the Chicago public school teachers I have met with my relative and in numerous meetings in Chicago despise the exclusive magnets because they function essentially as private schools.
That’s fair. My point was simply that charters are being marketed as a solution to these equity problems. What actually happens in the magnet schools is quality education, but that quality education is not accessible to all students-revealing the racism/classism of our society. What happens in charters, in my opinion, is not quality education. It is education done on the cheap. It is punitive, and reinforces schools-as-prisons for low-income children of color. It is using more uncertified/inexperienced teachers, it is allowing highly-segregated schools, it is the use of cruel, inhumane ‘no excuses’ discipline, it is using entirely uninspiring/prescriptive classroom practices, it is the lack of democratic voice for parents, students, teachers, and community members.
I feel a little at a disadvantage, the original post above was pulled from a comment I wrote hastily between classes the other day. In that comment, I did not bother to specify my meaning, and honestly, maybe I am still not sure about my feelings towards magnets. People have written many good points. I do believe that magnets (as well as selective enrollments) have been used to increase the inequality of our systems-advantaging the privileged. (Of course, this happens without magnets/SE between districts.) I do think there are lessons to be learned about the magnet experiment, especially around the idea of integrated schools. Even the schools which use minimum test-scores to get in, still end up having some of the most racially integrated schools in our highly segregated system here in Chicago. Magnets bring up many questions in terms of funding, exclusion, “white flight”, racism, etc.
But I stand by the idea that charters are not the answer, do not improve overall educational opportunity, or that they are “beating the odds” The trends in the charter movement are clear. The possibility of truly innovative, unique, quality-educational experiences is being crushed by the market forces pushing for “high-test scores” and inexpensive, standardized, segregated, prison-like minimum-quality charter chains. Chicago has had charters almost since their inception, and you can see where this movement is heading very clearly here. It sounds like some still cling to the original, and understandably inspirational, vision of charters. Some areas of the country may have more of the “mom and pop” variety of charter school still in existence, but for how long?
At the end of the day, equity is what we need to fight for. Not to take away from some students, but to be sure ALL students have equitable resources/school experiences. As long as our neediest students are only offered the “choice” of crumbling, overwhelmed neighborhood schools starved of resources or the type of sub-par educational experiences charters are offering, that is not equity. I don’t think “choice” is the answer, whether charters, magnets, or selective enrollment (See my Living in Dialogue post here: “Choice or Equity — You Can’t Have Both” http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/01/katie_osgood_choice_or_equity_.html ) But I do think we need to make a distinction between what magnets offer and what charters (on the whole) offer. One we can aspire to, the other, I believe must be stopped.
Defining equity is important. If we give each student an equal opportunity to make the most of their individual talents and skills, we will end up with very different outcomes. If you want equal outcomes, you have to hold the most talented back.
Yes, equity to me means equitable opportunity. I disagree with the holding the “most talented” back line, I think it’s making sure the most privileged are not getting ahead simply by the accident of their birth. Which means proving extra resources for underprivileged. Of course, as schools alone cannot overcome inequality/poverty, we should not look for “equal outcomes” anyway. Let’s measure access to experienced teachers, small classes, stable school environments, books/libraries/librarians, art/music/world language, mental/physical health services per need, technology, deep and culturally-relevant curriculum, etc. Let’s focus on closing the opportunity gap, not the achievement gap. That is something schools CAN do.
For the gifted and talented student to be given the opportunity to take advantage of their gifts, they have to be allowed to take classes that less gifted students would not be able to usefully attend. It seems reasonable that society would want to group these students together to take advantage of scale economies in classes. It is also likely that the students themselves would gain simply from being around other gifted and talented students. Would you allow this to happen?
I think how we’ve defined “gifted and talented” is flawed, often falls along socio-economic boundaries. I also think giving MORE money to those programs is an example of inequality and ultimately classism and racism.
Nothing is “The answer.” But kids learn in different ways. A school that might be great for some would not well for others. Maybe there are some people in your hospital because they have been pushed to confirm to some “norm.” Having worked in and with alternative schools over 40 years I’ve witnessed some kids doing well in smaller, more personalized schools who hated being in a strict traditional school.
I agree 100% about not forcing kids to conform to some “norm. But charters are not offering an alternative. In the age of accountability based on very narrow measures, how can they? Charters in Chicago are even more “norm”-based than traditional schools. Giving classroom teachers real autonomy, giving all stakeholders voice in school decisions, building inclusive school communities is the vision I wish for my kids. Why go to an entirely different schools, why not let individual schools create spaces like that for all kids? Shouldn’t schools conform to the kids they serve rather that the kids conforming to the school?
Apparently some families in Chicago and other parts of the country disagree – and like having choices in education.
This isn’t a new debate – when a group of parents and teachers in St Paul Minnesota proposed a k-12 open school in 1970 – the same arguments were made – let’s just give everyone the same kind of school.
Fortunately the district (and the same) rejected that argument.
Are you opposed to letting some families live in Winnetka? Should they be forced to live in Chicago?
Are you opposed to allowing families to attend Montessori public schools?
Are you opposed to allowing families to have a Spanish, or French or Chinese language immersion option?
Are you opposed to allowing families to select a project based school?
Same question for teachers – should they all have to teach in a Montessori School? (or would you prohibit a Montessori public school?
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that schools build whatever unique program they wish and then kids “choose” the school that best fits them. I think that is backwards. That vision of “choice” is a static, top-down, adult-centered version of schooling. And charters abuse that “choice” option to exclude certain kids, saying the school is not a good “fit” for some children, often the students with the most intense needs.
Schools need to be flexible and fit whoever walks into the building, a fluid, ever-evolving, all-inclusive public space. They are not that now. In order to accomplish that, ALL schools need autonomy (not top-down accountability), real democratic voice (so schools are responsive to community/cultural/parent/student/and teacher needs), full and equitable funding (neighborhood schools are so ridiculously underfunded in Chicago, it is criminal), and relatively stable communities in order to build the social capital necessary to be this responsive. (Schools with large numbers of new teachers too often must focus on basic day-to-day survival instead of looking ahead to something bigger.) Given freedom, time, and resources, I believe experienced teams of educational professionals/parents/students can build beautiful learning experiences that meet all learners’ needs. Where are THOSE schools?
So you really don’t believe in democracy? You want all schools to be the same? Should all schools be Montessori? Should all schools be german Immersion? Should all schools be Core KNowledge? Should all schools be Chinese Immersion? Project Based?
I know people who HATED New Trier where you apparently went to high school and found it a terrible place to attend. Fortunately their parents helped them find options – but even super wealthy, affluent New Trier is not a great place for all.
Since you oppose giving families optins Please tell us why families in a democratic society who are not wealthy should not have options? Please tell us what the best philosophy for all schools? The best instructional strategy? The best language(s) to teach?
I am not sure what you are arguing. We were talking about charters and magnets, and now you seem to be questioning the purpose of education. That’s a totally different conversation. What I am saying is that we guarantee equity (the same opportunity/needs-based budgeting, access to services, ie counselors, librarians, art/music/world language) and then let school communities develop the types of programs which best fit those kids. I’m not saying it would be perfect, but it would be better. Why should that kid in Winnetka have the “choice” of a full arts program, music program, science labs, APs, clubs, sports that they get at New Trier (full disclosure, I graduated from New Trier) and the kid from Englewood doesn’t, whether attending a charter or neighborhood school? Why when I call New Trier through my job as a teacher at a psych hospital are there dozens of counselors, social workers, psychologists, nurses, support services for kids with frankly less severe mental health problems, but not for the kids in overwhelmed Chicago southside/westside neighborhood schools where there is ONE counselor for 1000+ students? THAT is the equity issue that “choice” will never fix.
We agree that choice will not fix all problems. The founders of the country did not think choice and democracy would fix all problems.
But they were convinced, as I am , that part of the solution is to empower people – rather than tell them – if you are poor, you have no choices.
“But they were convinced, as I am , that part of the solution is to empower people – rather than tell them – if you are poor, you have no choices.” And what good is the “choice” of underfunded, neglected neighborhood schools or undemocratic, test-centric, prison-like charter schools? Why can’t parents be given the option of fully-funded schools where they have democratic voice and their children are offered the same types of quality programs and services as the kids in affluent schools receive? #equity
It’s not either or, Katie. Or is – it – should families like yours have a choice of schools, but poor people have none?
Of course not. But your “choices” don’t offer that either. And thanks to charters skimming off students and resources, many parents in Chicago have less choice than ever. Especially for my students with disabilities and mental health issues. The “choice” movement has made these inequalities worse.
Here is the fundamental question: If low-income parents were offered fully-funded neighborhood schools with all kinds of “choice” offered within the schools like arts, music, sports, technology, supplemental services, libraries, world language, special education services, small classes, experienced/stable staff with low-turnover, etc (like what kids in Winnetka are offered)-would they EVER choose the charter school with inexperienced teachers, harsh discipline, long “rigorous” school days with little access to music/art, prescriptive curriculum, non-unionized/exploited and overworked staff–>high turnover? If the answer is “no” then what we need is equity, equal access to quality learning environments, and not “choice”.
As an aside, parents in Chicago came out by the thousands to beg, plead, yell, and protest to keep their underfunded neighborhoods schools open, but the school board still voted to close 50 of those schools. We don’t even have “choice” here, we have sabotage and a privatization agenda.
Ms Osgood – Your words bring goose bumps to my arms. So very well-stated, patiently-argued, spot-on fiercely understood. Thank you thank you thank you. Keep It Up Please!!!
Factually, Katie, there are a number of public school choices in Chicago…if you can do very well on standardized tests. I’ve cited the selective admission magnet schools in Chicago before so I won’t do it again.
Many public school teachers and low income families resent them…but they are there.
Yes, many Chicago parents came out to protest the closing of schools in their neighborhoods. We agree that they have done that.
Minneapolis low income families also have a number of options – which include being bused to wealthy suburban public schools with many of the things you suggest. Some opt for the suburbs, and some stay in Minneapolis to attend either district schools or charter public schools.
Katie O wins!
Actually, the kids are winning because all over the country more districts are offering options within the district, and more states are offering charters.
Tell that to the kids in NOLA, Philly, Chicago…go ahead Joe..meet with them and their families and tell them how they are “winning”…put your blabber in their faces and tell them how great they got it. Are you paid to shill here, too?
In schools where I worked, and schools with which we’ve worked, we’ve agreed that there will be no name-calling. We also believe that adult modeling is important.
Clearly there’s no such agreement here.
Nope, no one pays me to present other ideas here.
Make trips to the cities closing schools this summer Joe and tell them how great they have it…..since you speak for all.
Those cities have been badly managed for many years – well prior to the charter movement. There have been terrific district options in each of those cities that have been wiped out by bureaucracy
…as Shanker noted in 1988, long before the charter movement began, teachers who tried to create new options within many districts “were treated like traitors or outlaws for daring to move outside the lockstep.”
Joe, you re suggesting that kids win when their neighborhood school is closed and turned over to a private coloration? Sorry, I don’t follow your logic. The destruction of public education is good, if there are corporate charters ready to step in and train the kids to walk a straight line, and obey the rules or get out?
Still waiting for an answer to the question about your school choice.
Sometimes closing a school makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t.
Really? That’s interesting because Paul Vallas claims to have reformed all three and Arne reformed Chicago after Paul and now Rahm is reforming Chicago again. The vultures just keep circling. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
EdReformers pushing choice have abandoned the fight for integration and equity. This article outlines how the Chicago Public Schools is becoming more segregated through expansion of charters and CPS has no plan to create integrated schools: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/segregated-schools-desegregation-city-suburbs-history-solutions/Content?oid=9992386#.Ub24O0klGbg.twitter “A spokesperson for CPS said the board is not looking into such magnet schools. CPS has instead supported the development of charter schools during the last decade, saying they give parents more choice. The choice is between yet more racially isolated schools: the combined enrollment of Chicago’s 96 charters is 95 percent African-American and Hispanic, and less than 2 percent white.”
Perhaps some, but not others. Some of the charters created in Minneapolis St. Paul do a great job of bringing urban and suburban kids together in the city.
Examples:
St. Paul Conservatory for Performing Arts (downtown arts high school…no admissions tests, no auditions for admission)
Great River Montessori (Junior/senior high school)
Nova Classical
Three different charters, 3 different approaches, all bring together students from urban and suburban areas.
Why can’t a “neighborhood” school be just as high quality as a charter school? They can. They could be. There are diverse people in every neighborhood. However, for whatever reason public schools don’t want to fund the public schools the same way by have smaller class sizes to meet the actual needs of the students. They’d rather force an attempt at differentiation, which is good if it works, but depending on the make up of a class that a teacher is given, it may be skewed in a way that makes excellent differentiation impossible and good differentiation only a possibilty. People need to take a deep breath and an honest look to see what the students actually need.
Agree that a neighborhood school can be a strong, high quality option.
However, neighborhoods vary Some are, as you note, diverse. But how about affluent suburbs where the price of admission to the “public schools” is the ability to buy a very expensive home? How about inner city neighborhoods that are virtually all low income and families of color? How about a rural community which is virtually all white? (I’ve worked with college students who have not seen a person of color until they arrived on the college campus)
So yes, a neighborhood school can be a good option. But some neighborhoods are substantially more diverse than others.
The potential advantage that choice schools (I include any school without geographically definitive admission requirements) is that a choice school can specialize where a traditional public school can not. Many seem to value a Montessori education, for example, but no neighborhood school can be a Montessori school because not family in the catchment area will will be willing to send their children to such a school. The same for language immersion schools, etc.