This is an excellent letter to the editor that asks the right questions about charters:
Why do they get public money yet refuse to submit to public audits?
Why do they enroll fewer children in poverty?
Why do their leaders refuse to aid struggling public schools?
Why do they claim that the only way to help poor children is to move them to their privately managed schools?
Why do they refuse to acknowledge that public magnet schools outperform charter schools?
Why are charters the preferred “reform” of some of the state’s wealthiest citizens?
Why do charter advocates slander our public schools?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I am a teacher in public education in Michigan. I am also working toward my doctorate degree in education. There are a couple of charter school administrators in my doctorate cohort. I can attest that the charter schools in my area do not cater to the more wealthy; on the contrary, they serve the most poverty stricken in our urban centers. With that comes a lot of tough demands to provide a quality learning environment. The staff gets paid much less than us public school staff and they are also at-will employees. Although I am not an advocate of charter schools, I do think your information is biased.
Tammi.
Michigan has had charter schools for two decades. I think you might get a view of the state-wide performance beyond your “area” and reports from your fellow doctoral students who are charter school administrators by studying the following article.
http://www.freep.com/article/20140626/NEWS06/306260052/charter-schools-michigan-performance-academics
You might want to look at this list. They may not “cater to the wealthy” but I don’t know that “most poverty stricken in our urban centers” is accurate either. Dearborn Heights, Holland, Grand Rapids. There are a lot of charter schools in Michigan.
http://www.charterschooltools.org/charterSchools.cfm?stateID=22
“I can attest that the charter schools in my area do not cater to the more wealthy;”
No where in the article or the summary here does it say anything about charter schools catering to the wealthy. I’ll chalk that mistake up to not having been brought up under the CCSS close reading standards.
“I do think your information is biased.” Re read, thinking it through this time.
By the way, where it it you are getting your degree, Tammi?
The author of this piece is not suggesting the wealthy want the charters for their children, just the opposite. The uber wealthy in the CT Gold Coast, Fairfield County/Greenwich hedgeucators want to bankroll the charterization and privatization of the CT cities: Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, etc. They would never mess with the wealthy towns of New Canaan, Darien, Wilton, Greenwich, etc.
It’s their hobby to experiment on poor children and they pretend it’s philanthropy.
Duane Swacker and Linda: what y’all said.
It still surprises me—and a doctoral candidate no less—that people cannot understand straightforward expressions of opinion. Agree or disagree, but inventing opinions out of whole cloth—and then “correcting” the record—is a poor way to win people to one’s POV.
I would add that a google search of this blog alone for the owner’s opinions about the charterite/privatizer drive to create a two-tiered education system would clear up much of the confusion reigning in a pro-charter supporter’s mind.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
😎
“Why do they refuse to acknowledge that public magnet schools outperform charter schools?”
Not just the magnet schools – all schools.
Dienne, in Bridgeport, CT, charter schools do perform better than most of our traditional public schools, however our traditional public schools serve significantly higher student populations that qualify as free/reduced priced lunch, English language learners and special education. In other words, it is not a fair comparison.
I personally think t it is important to compare charter schools vs. magnet schools because they both require admission through a lottery and their student demographics are much more similar. It is a fair and equitable comparison.
And why do “reformers” who are parents not send their kids to charter schools?
Wouldn’t wealthy suburbs be replacing public schools with charters if charters were as wonderful as claimed?
Actually there are charters in a variety of suburbs around the country.
What percentage of charter schools are in wealthy suburbs?
Fair question. I don’t know the answer. I know that there are strong charters in wealthy suburbs of for example, Arizona, California, Georgia, Minnesota and New Jersey.
Also, I think that there are great district public schools too. But I think we’ve learned that there is no single best kind of school for all students.
Which whealthy suburbs in New Jersey have charters??
Here’s a link to where charters are located in New Jersey:
http://njcharters.org/index.php/find-a-charter-school
Three examples of suburban charters are Lake Como, Princeton and Bergen. There are others.
Efforts to bring charters to wealthy suburbs have led to massive protests by parents in those suburbs. Urban districts are easier. In NJ, most are under state control, and Christie ignores their protests. He doesn’t care about their voters.
Efforts to set up charters in some suburbs have led to protests. Efforts to set up charters in some suburbs have been welcomed by some families and not produced protests.
Thanks for the list Joe. The wealthiest towns in NJ do not have the benefit of charter schools. As you may have noted, most of the NJ charter schools are in Newark. No surprises here. Nice try Joe!
The question was whether there are charters in suburbs, including wealthy suburbs. There are.
Yes, the majority of NJ charters are in urban areas. But there are charters in wealthy suburbs because a growing number of suburban families are not satisfied with the large traditional schools, though in many cases they are extremely well funded.
There also are families who are very pleased by the programs in traditional district schools.
Why aren’t charters in the suburbs?
There are. Please see note immediately above.
In CT, there is not a single charter school located in any suburb, certainly not in a single “wealthy suburb.” In fact, I have no knowledge of even an attempt to even open a charter school in a suburb or wealthy suburb. If a charter was attempted in an affluent suburb, there would be such backlash that the millionaires would have to be whisked out of town by there limousine drivers asap.
It would seem that not a single ed reformer will honestly answer the posed question. Ed Reformers have nothing to gain by answering those questions. It’s like getting Michelle Rhee Johnson to meet Diane Ravitch in an open debate. You can wait until the cows come home. Regardless, the questions posed go to the heart of the issues;
I am the author of this letter. My point is that the wealthy supporters of charter schools do NOT send their children to charter schools, however they repeatedly try to tell those in impoverished communities that parents should send their children to charter schools. These millionaires and billionaires send their children to elite private schools. The reason that there is no effort to open charter schools is the suburbs is because one of the requirements for the federal tax credit is the charter school must be located in poor communities. There isn’t any money to be made in the suburbs.
Maria, I can’t speak for Connecticut, which is where I think you live. There are charters in suburbs of a number of states. There certainly are wealthy people who send their children to charters in those states.
Name the schools and the suburbs.
More fallout from the EAA in MI:
“In an Ann Arbor steakhouse more than three years ago, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s top policy advisers pitched Eastern Michigan University regents on a plan to remake education in Michigan.
Those regents had reasons to be excited about the plan for a new statewide district that would take over Michigan’s worst performing schools. They thought the university’s involvement would offer Eastern a toehold in recruiting new students; allow their college of education faculty and students to have a real-life lab to work in; and even give them some political capital with the governor, something Eastern had been struggling to rebuild following a series of scandals.
“None of this happened,” Eastern regent Jim Stapleton said Monday at the tail end of an informal meeting between regents and Eastern faculty.”
“Faculty said that in the early days of the EAA, they repeatedly offered to help the EAA form and to bring the latest in teaching methods into the system.
“We were basically told, ‘Don’t call us, we’ll call you,'” said professor Rebecca Martusewicz. “We never were called.”
5 of the 8 regents are Snyder appointees, so I don’t think Eastern Michigan will be getting out of the bad deal that they made.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2014/09/22/emu-eaa-board-review-contract/16049809/
Do the children who attend Connecticut’s charter schools have equal access to the state’s better-performing districts or magnet schools?
Why have white residents from all corners of the state and across the socioeconomic spectrum tolerated some of the nation’s worst, most extreme hypersegregation for decades now? Why were so many of Connecticut’s citizens supportive of Norwalk’s decision to prosecute a homeless woman who wanted a better education for her child than the one available to him in her hometown for something called “theft of educational services”?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/rally-prosecuted-homeless-mom-sent-son-better-school-212503805.html
Why hasn’t Connecticut consolidated school districts, reformed anti-democratic zoning laws, and made more than a token effort (if that) to build affordable housing in better-performing districts?
Would the Connecticut residents who are opposed to charters but do not live in a district served by one ever in a million years send their child to a traditional public school in Hartford, New Haven, or Bridgeport?
Why do so many teachers working in traditional public schools in those communities send their own children to schools in other districts?
Would the Connecticut residents who are opposed to charters but do not live in a district served by one ever in a million years send their child to a traditional public school in Hartford, New Haven, or Bridgeport?
Why do so many teachers working in traditional public schools in those communities send their own children to schools in other districts?
Would these same people ever in a million years send their children to the charters in Hartford, Bridgeport or New Haven? My guess is they would not. I wonder why?
Up to SPEDUCATOR–those charters may soon be coming to a neighborhood near you. Here in ILL-Annoy, the various suburban League of Women Voters chapters are hosting a series of meetings about charters. I had received a rather ominous e-mail from a west suburban friend of mine that he’s been focusing on his areas LWV charter meetings, leading me to believe that the LWV is leaning pro-charter. Can any of you readers in other states tell me if this is happening with the LWV in your states? It’s important that we all keep informed as to what this all indicates if this is, indeed, going on in the LWVs all across America. Readers, please respond, & thank you in advance. If this would turn out to be something anti-public schools, then where was the seed planted within the LWVs chapters? And–even more importantly–we need to staunch any suburban charter support (versus keeping suburban public schools PUBLIC), else we have an ALEC-like, cancerous situation on our hands.
Last, but certainly not least, K-12 Virtual Charters attempted to infiltrate 18 ILL-Annoy suburban school districts (many who had ratings of excellent). ALL 18 denied K-12’s charter applications, which snowballed into legislative sponsorship of a bill (which passed both chambers) imposing a one-year moratorium on virtual charter schools in ILL-Annoy. This then resulted in the resignation of a major K-12 regional executive, which first (before the bill passed), withdrew its appeal to the ILL-Annoy Charter Commission. Guess what? More than a year has gone by, and there have been no further attempts by K-12–or any other virtual charter chain (if there are, indeed, any) to even attempt another infiltration–in even ONE school district!
As cities are tapped out and bled dry (such as NOLA), the vampires must find new blood to survive, so, sadly, I predict that there is something rotten in Denmark (or in suburbs near you), and that these LWV “charter meetings” be attended by those who support real public schools. Take heed, friends, and action BEFORE something happens.
Or, some families decide that the traditional large high suburban high school is not a great place for their youngsters. So they decide to help start a project based school that works closely with the community (Northwest Passages in a suburb of Minneapolis), or they decide a small, family oriented arts high school is right for their youngsters, rather than a large traditional high school, so they help create Main Street School of Performing Arts in Hopkins, Mn, or they decide that they really like the Montessori approach to elementary education, and create a Montessori charter. (World Learner Charter in Chaska, Mn)
Or, they decide they’d really like their suburban district to offer a Montessori option, and the district board says “no, we believe in equal educational opportunity” but what they really mean is identical opportunity – all elementary schools pretty much the same, which means some youngsters “fit” and others don’t. Faced with reluctance of the board, the parents who like Montessori (some of whom have been driving their kids into St Paul which has 2 Montessori elementary district schools), decide to create a Montessori charter.
The local board changes its mind. It says, that yes, they can offer a Montessori option in the district. Fine, say the parents, we’ll work with you to create a Montessori district option. And they do. (Forest Lake).
These scenarios are repeated in a number of Minneapolis St Paul suburbs. Sometimes the result is a new charter. Sometimes it’s a new district option. Faculty like the chance to create distinctive schools they think make sense. Students and families like having options.
Yes that is true: most white and wealthy parents DO often get to have a large voice in special program schools and they do get THEIR options: could anyone give me an example of special program school-like an IB public school- where MINORITY families were able to drive and influence the creation of it, in a similar manner that wealthy white enclaves have historically?
Please, show me it in a link.
Tim, I believe it is fair to say that you are not a Bridgeport resident and never have been.
There are currently 8 magnet schools in Bridgeport. Three are inter-district and 5 are not.
The magnet schools located in Bridgeport perform on par with the suburban communities surrounding Bridgeport.
Voices for Children issued a report this past April that not only described the charter schools as the most segregated choice schools in CT, they were described as “hyper segregated.”
The woman from Norwalk had significant support in the beginning, Then it was discovered she had been arrested for drug dealing and was being prosecuted at the same time this school fraud issue was in the media.
Building affordable housing in the suburbs requires political will by elected officials. The chances of suburban politicians promoting affordable housing in their communities is highly unlikely.
Frankly, I don’t think outsiders should have a say with what happens in Bridgeport. Bridgeport residents should decide what is best for our community. Only teachers that reside in Bridgeport can send their children to traditional Bridgeport Public Schools. There are 500 public school teachers that reside in Bridgeport. Not only do I know teachers that have sent their children and grandchildren to Bridgeport Public Schools, I know principals that do or have as well.
this discussion about charter schools in suburbs is puzzling to me……in St. Louis, for example, after a law was quietly passed to allow charters in areas other than St. Louis city or Kansas City, eyes have been on some suburban schools……Normandy, which is now state run after being bankrupted by a transfer law, had a 7 percent test passing rate….which will make virtually anything the state does look wise by comparison….there will be pushes for charters in other poverty areas in st. Louis county…..maybe in Ferguson, for example. It is not significant that charters exist in suburbs….Joe Nathan would have more of a point if he talked about wealthy areas of suburbs being enthused about them……..as opposed to suburban areas of poverty.
Mr. Prichard – I gave examples of wealthy suburban areas. Hopkins, Minnesota, Princeton, New Jersey. There are many others.
One of the most obscenely wealthy women in America, Eva Moskowitz, sends two of her three children to charter schools, as do at least two grotesquely wealthy Success board members who work on Wall Street.
There are a variety of socioeconomically diverse charter schools in New York City that attract families from the upper middle class and above: Community Roots, Brooklyn Prospect, BUGS, and the Success schools in Cobble Hill, the Upper West Side, and Union Square.
Tim, you list the exceptions not the rule.
The rule is that the elites prefer to be with the elites, and they prefer progressive education, not standardized testing
Eva Moskowitz is one of the most obscenely wealthy women in America?
Flerp, she makes a boatload, I hear.
Ah, I get it.
In order to be in the top 5% of households ranked by income in Manhattan, the household must have an income of at least $864,394.
More about income levels and distribution here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/nyregion/gap-between-manhattans-rich-and-poor-is-greatest-in-us-census-finds.html?_r=0