Charter schools were supposed to be creative sources of innovation. They were supposed to show what could be accomplished when government got out of the way. The newcomers would give lessons to the professionals, who couldn’t be trusted.
But it hasn’t worked out that way. In Ohio, charter schools are some of the worst schools in the state. 83 of the lowest performing 84 schools in the state are charters.
Guido H. Stempel III, a distinguished professor emeritus in the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, says that the people of Ohio have been cheated.
Stempl says the driving force behind charters is greed.
He writes:
“There are 27 organizations, and 25 of those are for-profit. One of those, with 17 schools, is run by an Islamic minister.
We have a double standard. There are 200 state laws that apply to public schools and not to charter schools Qualifications of teachers are not checked as they are for public school teachers. Auditing of finances does not occur as often.
The names of public school board members are public and listed in a state directory. There is no record of who the members of school boards for charter schools are or how they are chosen. Public school boards must have a regular meeting schedule, and if they schedule additional meetings they must notify local media. The public does not know when charter school boards meet.
There is, in short, a lack of oversight.”
When the state ordered the state’s largest charter operator, David Brennan, to close two of his low-performing schools, “One reopened in the same place with a new name and the same staff. The other was the same story except that they replaced 30 percent of the staff.
“The charter schools are getting almost a billion dollars from the state. This year charter schools got bigger increases in state funding that the public schools did. Money was taken from appropriations for districts. More that a million dollars was taken from the five districts in Athens County.
Why do the legislature and governor protect charters from accountability?
Simple.
Charter school owners contribute generously to political candidates.
This may very well be the case in Ohio, but there are several charter networks in Denver that are absolutely an asset to the community here. I’d urge folks not to use this post as justification for a negative generalization about charter schools across the country. There’s definitely a wide spectrum of quality to be found! Thanks for the info, Diane.
Have you worked in one or do you own one? Are you an education profiteer?
He works for TFA as a video (read propaganda) producer.
QED
Dear Diane,
I do not know if you will get this or not; however, I am so grateful to receive this particular communication. You have done an excellent job of explaining the purpose of charter schools.
I am writing from Spark, NV, where the school shooting took place yesterday. All 3 of my kids attended this middle school. I am a former elementary, middle and high school principal in (Washoe County) NV and I am in awe of what is taking place in education.
As for a young student coming onto a campus with a gun, I feel that he must have been bullied and set-out for revenge. Additionally, I feel that given the relentless, inflexible and unyielding focus on “test-taking” and school rankings and scores, etc., could have possibly contributed to this horrible school shooting.
When teachers and counselors are spending an inordinate amount of time preparing, worrying and focused on test results, their time to connect with students is limited and scarce. (By the way, I hired this teacher who was killed and I guess I am upset and needed to vent). If one teacher, counselor or administrator had had a few extra minutes to look into this student’s eyes and possibly connected with him in a meaningful way, maybe this catastrophe could have been averted.
I just want to express my deep appreciation for your daily communications about what is going on in education. I am a huge fan of yours. Keep up the great work and the communication.
All the best,
Dr. Debra A. Feemster
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:00:33 +0000 To: dsmithfeemster@hotmail.com
Aren’t most Ohio Charter schools mostly limited to low SES urban areas? Seems like all schools in these area are likely to be rated low. I thought poverty matters.
Isn’t the question how are they performing against their peers not how many fall into the bottom? NPR said this…
“Ohio charter schools in the state’s “Big 8″ urban districts perform about the same as other public schools in those districts — at about three-fourths of the cost.”
Cynthia, didn’t I hear again and again that poverty is just an excuse? And that charter schools work miracles? Or are you making excuses?
You said poverty matters. Why do you ignore it when you darn well know that Ohio schools are limited to urban areas, yet you pointed out that many charters are in the bottom in Ohio without mentioning this fact.
So what is your bar, that charter schools are only successful if they perform miracles?
So how does it feel, Cynthia?
Public schools in low-income neighborhoods have been incessantly ridiculed and labeled “ghetto schools” and “drop out factories” because they don’t regularly work miracles. Then they are judged even more harshly when scores drop because charter schools have skimmed off the few high performing students in the school, as parents rush to a vain.
Aren’t charters suppose to not accept poverty as an excuse? Isn’t that what they brag about all the time?
Sorry to be harsh, but your response indicates that you’re feeling what many public school teachers feel when they’re ripped to pieces in the media for not miraculously overcoming the damages of poverty.
Sorry…”as parents rush to a desperate and misleading offer of exclusivity” is what I meant to say. I went to edit and got distracted.
Cynthia, you’re making Diane’s argument for her. She has always said that poverty matters. And these charters prove that, I guess.
The issue is that charters are always promoting themselves as the “better alternative” and insist that poverty doesn’t matter. So charters should be measured by the standard (or mythology) they have created for themselves. They (and you) can’t say “poverty doesn’t matter” and then insist that it does.
Whenever charters in Michigan fall under criticism for low test scores, they do the same thing. They say “test scores don’t tell the whole story.” Yet they insist they’re better because of test scores, when it’s convenient.
If charters don’t provide a better education when compared to neighborhood schools, then what is the point of funding a parallel system of equal efficiency? I think we know the answer to that question.
Why should they be making money off of school children???? Have you ever worked in a school operated by Brennan? What about an urban charter. How do you justify the staff turnover? Why do teachers of urban children deserve such low salaries and poor working environment? Why don’t urban children deserve to have a stable staff? I’ve seen 6 Science teachers in one room in a year. I’ve seen a Physics class with an uncertified teacher for at least half of a year. I’ve seen numerous foreign language teachers in one classroom in a year. How on earth do you justify any of this nonsense? Would you send your child to a school like this???
The charter school sector in Ohio is interesting, perhaps as a “good, bad example” for other states, but I would like to see is some attention paid to how Ohio’s reforms have affected existing public schools.
There was a “common public school system” in place in Ohio when the current reforms were initiated more than a decade ago. In fact, we were sold reform on the grounds that it would improve existing public schools. No one would have ever gone along with it without that sales pitch, because of course MOST children attend public schools that existed prior to reform.
One of the things I find bewildering is how “reform” leaders at both the state and federal level never seem to analyze this from the other direction: what has reform done to existing public schools?
Based on my experience in one local district, I’m afraid they don’t mention that because the answer would be “no benefit to existing public schools”, at best.
Ohio and Michigan are not only neighboring states, they both have turned “public education” into big business that has nothing to do with educating children and preparing them for the global workforce. When will We the People recognize that “private” and “public” are incongruent and don’t belong in the same sentence or sentiment as they apply to Public Education. Charters have been a national wrong turn from their inception. Innovation and excellent teaching could have. And still can, be achieved in our nation’s Public Schools. Americans need to step back from the disingenuous awe of the Gates, Broads. Waltons and Zuckerberg, and tell them to keep their millions and destructive opinions and donation attached-mandates to themselves. America and Americans, need to reinvest, revitalize and elect only those legislators at the State and Federal level who are willing to sign a pledge of unrelenting commitment to building globally enviable Public Education for EVERY child.
Most people have no idea what is going on in the charters. They are awful places to work and do not provide a better education for children. They provide much less than a regular public school. I find it sad that so many people have jumped on this bandwagon when they really don’t know what these schools are like. I can’t believe America has sunk this low.
There may be good reasons that there are more regulations applied to public schools than charter schools. Public school districts are often the single largest employer in a town and giving politicians unregulated control of that many jobs and that large a budget may be detrimental to the local democracy. This is less of a concern if the charter school is a much smaller part of the local economy. In addition the ability to choose a school can act as a substitute for regulation.
“In addition the ability to choose a school can act as a substitute for regulation.”
This is a totally preposterous statement, absurd on its face.
First, it flies in the face of common sense, since the use of public dollars requires oversight.
Second, it ignores the facts of Diane’s post, which is that charter schools are a billion-dollar business, expanding rapidly on the basis of political, not pedagogical decisions.
If this is how you reason and teach, and the above statement is typical of your your comments here, that more often than not are distractions and misdirections, then I fear for your students.
Michael,
Think about price regulation, for example. I think it is very reasonable that my state government regulates the price I pay and level of service I receive for natural gas and electricity because I have no choice in which company provides those services to my home. I do not feel the same need that the state government regulates price and service levels for local grocery stores because I can choose where to shop for food.
To use anther example, suppose you were assigned to use a particular plumber or electric ion for all work on your home. What regulations would you want about the level of service you received? I would like some regulations that specified a maximum time between calling the plumber and receiving service, a maximum size for the service window, a designation of what must be carried on the truck so a trip back to the warehouse is not necessary, and, of course, strict regulations on prices for every conceivable repair or installation.
Public regulation of how public funds are spent is certainly appropriate, but the degree of regulation depends on the specific goals of the spending and the conditions under which it is spent.
My second point is that regulation of public schools protects the local community from the local elected officials that run the school system. School systems are typically the largest employer in a town and the local politician may try to leverage that control over so many jobs and such a large budget into political power. This is much less of a concern if the organization is smaller and the local community can limit the influence of the organization through choice.
You are essentially making the self-regulating markets argument, which was permanently and rightly discredited by the financial crisis of 2008.
That aside, your analogies are false: how much does your ability to select grocery stores really matter when the price of staples is essentially determined by Finance – via futures markets – and oligopolistic (and the charter realm is largely an oligopoly) suppliers?
Michael,
I think it is better to take a more nuanced view of decentralized markets. There are some situations where decentralized markets work better than an alternative centralized mechanism, times when decentralized markets will not work as well as an alternative centralized mechanism, and times where adding more or less regulation to decentralized markets is superior to both an unregulated market and a centralized mechanism. Much depends on the nature of the good or service being produced and allocated.
I typically use two different grocery stores for my weekly shopping. The local cooperative tends to have much higher quality fish (and a corresponding higher price) and meat, a much stronger bulk section, and a variety of cheeses than my chain grocery. The chain grocery generally offers lower prices. Would you require that I pick one store and only shop there?
I believe you are making a false analogy here.
Schools are charged with facilitating the intellectual, social and emotional development of young, vulnerable human beings. This is a totally different project from selling food or electricity, and one that society at- large has a deeply vested interest in.
To suggest that glib, frequently manipulated terms like “choice” are able to override that interest, in service of those who seek to replace it with temporary, constantly churned “ventures” of dubious and often fraudulent quality, is an abuse of language.
It seems to me that you are correct that schools play an important role in “facilitating the intellectual, social and emotional development of young vulnerable human beings”.
Do you think that the Chicago Lab Schools or Sidwell Friends does a poor job of this because they are not as heavily regulated as traditional public schools?
A red herring: Sidwell Friends and Chicago Lab are private, not public schools, and receive no taxpayer dollars.
I am not sure why the source of the money has an impact on how nurturing a school might be. Perhaps you could flesh out your position a little more.
Was it not you who said that “choice” overrides the need for regulation of charter schools, thus implying that regulation is unnecessary?
I have no doubt that Sidwell Friends and Chicago Lab are excellent schools. Indeed, the people who own and run this country wouldn’t send their children to them if that was not the case. However, since they don’t receive public money, their quality is not my concern.
What is my concern as a teacher and citizen is how public institutions, especially the public schools, are managed and run, and how buzz words like “choice” are used and abused to undermine public education, my working conditions, and my students’ futures.
Another red herring on your part, TE.
I am not the one who said choice overrides the need for regulation, I am the one that said choice can serve as a substitute for some regulations and that is why a school that students must go to might reasonably be more regulated than a school that students might choose or not choose to go to.
Regulations are important even when individuals get to choose. It is a good idea to regulate goods and service providers even when individuals get to choose 1) when there are aspects about the good or service provider that the individual has difficulty observing, 2) when the cost of making a poor choice is very high, and 3) when there is general agreement about the merit of the actions the regulation is meant to require. Thus even though I can choose the restaurant in which I eat, I think it is a good idea that the sanitary conditions in the kitchen are subject to regulation (that would qualify under all three of my suggested conditions), but I think a regulation that called for good tasting food would be misplaced (that fails under all three conditions). Obviously there are things that will satisfy some but not all conditions that we might want to talk about.
If the individual does not get to choose, I think the state is obligated to protect the individual because the state has taken away the most basic defense an individual has to protect themselves against poor service or shoddy goods. The regulation of things that the individual can easily observe and might choose to avoid if given the choice, must be done. Things that have little consequence if they only occur once and can be avoided in the future must be regulated if the individual is not allowed to avoid them in the future. I think this is a fairly obvious point and it is why we apply different regulations to different types of organizations.
I hope this makes my position clearer.
“Regulations are important even when individuals get to choose. It is a good idea to regulate goods and service providers even when individuals get to choose 1) when there are aspects about the good or service provider that the individual has difficulty observing, 2) when the cost of making a poor choice is very high…”
TE,
I would argue that points 1 and 2 you provided could easily apply to charter schools and regulation is needed. I believe it is the pro-charter groups that claims the quality of the school is the reason for many of society’s problems. If that is true, I don’t see how allowing a parent to choose a school solves these issues if the school is of poor quality.
I would also argue that is wrong to assume that parents don’t choose assigned schools. I did my research and “chose” my child’s assigned school and my town has a considerable number of charter and magnet schools.
Does anyone know if the parents in OH are removing their children from the low preforming OH charters and what new choices they have made?
You’re not being honest: your first comment did not have the important qualifier “some” in regard to regulation of charter schools, which you now try to insert. You made a blanket statement that choice “…can act as substitute for regulation,” a blanket statement that reveals your free market fundamentalism and use of this site to obscure and distract.
Or did you not say that?
Michael,
You might remember the first sentence of my original post:
“There may be good reasons that there are more regulations applied to public schools than charter schools.”
“More regulations applied to public schools” does not mean no regulations applied to charter schools.
Concerned Mom,
I certainly agree that people choose public schools when deciding on a place to live. Every “fact sheet” that a real estate agent passes out in my town lists which elementary, middle, and high school catchment area the property lies in. This sort of choice is available to those of sufficient means to move when school conditions warrant it. As for the lottery, I would think that some chance of getting into a highly desirable school is better than no chance of getting into a highly desirable school. It does not matter if we are talking about charter schools, public magnet programs that use a lottery, or magnet programs that use standardized tests as part of their admission requirements.
TE,
My question for you is, should regulations be equal for all if there are sufficient choices within a community?
Do you agree that the cost could be high for making the wrong school choice? Is the exposure to quality teaching any less important than safe food handling practices?
You made a big assumption that people only choose school that are rated well. My child attends a title 1 school with a Great School rating of 3. I love this school and my child is thriving there. I did not enter any lotteries for the so-called better charters in my town.
I could move or send my child to a private school like several of my peers and, just like them, I would have zero savings. So just like there is a social cost attached to a failing school, I think we will see as my generation ages, there will be a social cost for those who feared schools within their means.
For your first question, I would say yes, that from the perspective of the household choice would allow any school to have the same set of regulations. There might be an issue about allowing politicians to have free reign over what is often the largest employer in a town or city. If meaningful decisions were always made at the building level, I would see no reason why there should be different levels of regulation.
I think the costs of choosing the wrong school might be high over time, but could easily be limited. The alternative is to design a school system that does not greatly disadvantage anyone, but is also not the best for anyone. There is a reason that high school lunches taste the way they do, and a reason that no restaurant advertises that it serves “high school cafeteria” cuisine.
On your third point, it seems to me that people may well evaluate school quality differently. Some parents in my town send their students to a Waldorf school, some send their students to a progressive school, some to a parochial school, most to the traditional public school. I don’t think there is a meaningful way to judge which school is best, just which school is best for the individual student.
Can you give some examples of regulations that public schools need that charters do not?
Are you assuming that the parent is going to remove their child from the school if the child is not learning? Has that happened in Ohio?
Also, people don’t actually have the ability to choose a school, they do have the option to enter a lottery and, if the schools are highly desirable, (this is true for any lottery school, a public magnet or charter) the odds of winning a seat are against them.
Concernedmom,
You might look at my comment above for some general examples. In education, it seems perfectly reasonable to require uniformity across schools when students are assigned to a school based on geographic location rather than allowing individuals to choose schools. Let’s take something as simple as class size. Parents and students can easily observe the size of classes offered by a school and could choose a school based on class size among other considerations. There is no need for a regulation in that case. If your student is required to go to a particular school, a regulation specifying a maximin class size in that school might well be required to replace the ability of the student to leave a school if the class size becomes to large.
There are several charters in my town that have small class sizes (15 – with an TA in each class). It is extremely hard to win a seat at these schools. One school opened up K-5, the first year they had class sizes of 20, the next year they reduced the incoming K class size to 15. A traditional public school does not have that freedom (in my child’s school, new students are still registering – 10 weeks after class started).
In NC there is a bill that would eliminate class size. Note that the spin is they are giving is that schools the option to use money for technology, etc.
The very real possibility is many parents try to win a seat at a a lottery school with 15 students per class and they lose (or as the contests usually state, they will not be a winner.
Does anyone know if the parents of students in low performing OH charters are leaving the schools and where they are going?