Newark Superintendent Cami Anderson has proposed the end of neighborhood schools.
All district schools and charter schools will be part of a pool. Or something.
Reformers don’t like neighborhood schools. They like a free market where everyone chooses and no one has any loyalties.
Michigan has abolished district lines and schools advertise for students. They waste money on radio and TV ads, trying to poach students from each other.
This is the business approach. Typically, what happens is that students apply, but schools choose.
Karran Harper Royal, a parent in New Orleans, said this about the Newark plan:
“No assigned neighborhood school can be restated as no guaranteed right to the school closest to your home if that is indeed your choice. Parents should push back on this plan to ensure that they retain the right of first refusal to the school nearest their home. This is not a positive innovative practice, it is a way to segregate children by ability, income and parental motivation. Despite the claims in the article, this is not successfully implemented in New Orleans. The children with the highest needs now face chronic instability in their school placement.”
About 40,000 children attend public schools in Newark. About 12,000 are in charters. Charters are clearly favored. Parents get that. “Reform” means get rid of public education.
An interesting comment at the end of the article:
“Anderson also said she hopes the district and charter schools can pool their resources and work together to renovate aging district-owned facilities with financing only charter schools can currently access.”
Wait a minute: “financing only charter schools can obtain.” Why are charters co-located in public schools if they have easy access to facilities financing? Why are district-owned facilities “aging”? Couldn’t some of Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million fixed up the schools?
And by the way, how will it improve education if neighborhood schools are wiped out?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The last section about construction costs is key: Newark has scores of schools that require millions of dollars in renovations and upgrades and that bill falls on the State who does not see school construction as a priority. By shifting the cost of renovation costs to charters or opening charters in new facilities that enable the closure of crumbling public schools the district is able to address this problem. Oh, and it might be possible for a PRIVATE enterprise to sidestep the requirement that union labor build or renovate the PUBLIC schools.
And a word on construction costs: seven years ago it cost roughly $45 million to upgrade one 700 pupil HS and build a 450 pupil MS in the NH district where I worked…. and NH does not have nearly the costs for construction that NJ faces. I would guess that Zuckerberg’s $100 million would fix two large HSs in Newark and maybe build one HS. $100,000,000 is a lot of money, but it doesn’t go far when you are fixing or building schools… and it can only be spent once.
LikeLike
I’ve made the point on here before that the $100 million is more flashy than substantive, but no one seems to believe it/care. You’re absolutely right about the construction costs. Exhibit A: Newark’s Central High School, cost well North of $100 million and took about 10 years to build (because of bureaucratic inefficiencies, lack of political will, and, frankly, organized crime). So the Zuckerberg $ wouldn’t be able to build one high school. Sure it could buy a lot of paint and refinish a lot of floors, but people who think that’s what these schools need have clearly never been in a Newark public school. Many are Reconstruction era buildings, with old gas lighting fixtures sticking out of the walls. They’re charming, but require things like asbestos removal, mold cleanup, and substantial structural/code renovations (you, know, things that cost millions of dollars).
Not that I agree with the Supe’s decision. I like neighborhood schools and think the State should make them habitable. I just want to de-mystify the Zuckerberg donation a little while lending some perspective to just how much public education costs.
The only positive I can see coming from this decision is the desegregation of Newark schools. It’s a problem in Newark. Almost every K-8 school is either 90+% African American, or 90+% Hispanic/Latino. There’s also a good deal of economic segregation. Segregated neighborhoods lead to segregated neighborhood schools. I think one of the greatest values of public education is exposing children to cultural customs and values not their own.
LikeLike
Diane, I think that is the plan for NYC too. Once again the DOE is pushing dezoning in districts 5 (Harlem) and 6 (Washington Heights/Inwood) http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2013/06/tory-frye-on-real-motive-behind-does.html
In addition, a 6-12 Charter school in district 15 has been given the green light to open a K-5 elementary feeder school in district 13 this September. How does that work? What does the director of this charter school know that the rest of don’t?
Parents need to start paying attention before it is too late.
LikeLike
This is ironic. Neighborhood schools in the South were destroyed decades ago. Wake County had a mandate by the people to restore them a few years ago, and the NAACP came in and basically over-ruled the voting public. Everyone knows families are more invested in their child’s education when meetings, conferences, activities are local and they don’t have to drive 30 minutes or more to attend. The North is behind the South by about 40 years in doing away with neighborhood schools.
LikeLike
Karen, are you saying that the NAACP supported the destruction of public schools?
LikeLike
You miss the point. Neighborhood zones were created to segregate students–often by income and race. The system itself is anachronistic and has much more on common with redlining and jim crow than developing a sense of community. Neighborhood zoned schools reinforce economic isolation.
LikeLike
“Neighborhood zoned schools” were established hundreds of years ago to make a community or neighborhood a good place to live. Too many politicians equate the mobility of our culture to applicable to the part of our lives that are to be stable such as a neighborhood. If the community is not stable, if there is a decline in the quality of life then people leave and never come back. I believe that most policy makers do not want to invest the money and effort into maintaining education – it is much easier to pass if off onto a private company or school.
LikeLike
Who pays for transportation? Time and money that could be spent on education goes to gas, drivers, and children sitting in vehicles. Gigantic waste if you ask me.
LikeLike
This is financial and educational insanity. Charter schools receive less than normal schools. Where are they getting the financing? How much interest and who holds the bag if the loan goes upside down, the charter or whatever or the school district or state? In D.C. charters receive $13,000/student less than the regular schools. How does this put them in a better financial place and to borrow large sums of money to be paid back with interest? Obviously, no one knows how to balance their books just like the new proposed school funding formula in California AB 91. What a mess we are creating in order to destroy the only thing that can save a society and that is a good education. Purposeful destruction for terrible purposes.
LikeLike
These people must have shares in the busing market or friends who will benifit. Follow the money.
LikeLike
How would you propose to limit free speech then?
LikeLike