A comment by a reader responds to the question of whether charters schools are public schools:
The use of the terms “government schools” and “public charter schools” are equally egregious. On June 14th the LA Times informed the public: “Charters are independently operated, free public schools.” The term”public charter school is becoming common usage. There Is No Such Thing as a “Public Charter School.”
***
Charters are not public schools. The term “public charter school” was developed by a PR firm to reframe the way we understand schooling in relationship to “public” and to democracy. Any public institution—school, library, zoo—is, at least in theory, funded by taxes from all the people in its jurisdiction—local, state and national—and is accountable to those who pay the taxes.
Most public schools are accountable to an elected school board made up of community members. Residents of that community have the right to be present at Board meetings, weigh in on votes and debates, and access public financial documents.
Charter schools are run by executive boards, committees or corporations whose members often live outside the community in which they are located and are not accountable to parents or the taxpayers/community members who fund them.
If you don’t like what your traditional public school is doing, you can make your voice heard by addressing administrators, voting for new leadership or taking a leadership role yourself. If you don’t like what your child’s charter school is doing and you express yourself, you may be asked to leave. There is no democratic mechanism for spearheading policy change.
Public institutions are the motors of democracy. Their purpose is to promote and preserve the fundamental values of a democratic society: liberty, equality and the public welfare or common good.
Public schools recognize that the welfare of everyone’s children and grandchildren is intimately linked to the welfare of all. Through support and oversight by the communigy, public schooling is intended to serve the common good and preserve fundamental qualities that sustain democracy beyond getting students “college and career ready.” If public schools have not always lived up to their promise then it is necessary to redouble our efforts to have them do so, not to abandon them.
When students leave public schools for charter schools they take their per pupil expenditures –which in California averaged $9, 794 last year–with them, leaving public schools with less revenue but the same overhead. The federal government also spends millions on charters at the expense of public schools. Taxpayers paid one consulting firm nearly $10 million to the U.S. Department of Education Charter Schools. That’s $10 million fewer federal dollars for public schools. The law forbids local districts, which in California are the main authorizers for new charters, from taking into account the potentially crippling impact of new charters on district financing when considering approving new schools. So even if you find an excellent charter to send your own child to, you are reducing the chances of every student remaining in the public school having their own excellent education.
Charter schools’ claim they enhance democracy is disingenuous. The highly touted freedom of individual parents to choose their child’s school comes at the heavy price of reducing two other essential functions of democracy: providing for the general welfare of a society that requires well funded public schools and insuring equal opportunity for all children. Competing with traditional public schools for space and funding reduces the quality of the remaining public schools, and ignores patterns of clear advantage for the children of savvy parents, thus assuring that some children will be better schooled than others.
Being publicly funded, charters cannot be considered private. However, their private governance and their marginalization of fundamental democratic values disqualifies them as public.
The most accurate label for charters is “Publicly–funded private schools.” Don’t let them abscond with our language. There is no such thing as a public charter school.
Suppose a charter did all the things you lust? Would we support it? Are there some like that?
Sent from my iPhone
>
By definition, no. “Charters” equal public money for private schools. The point of the post was to show, once again, what a sham the notion of a “public charter” is. There existence violates a core principle of representative government.
If a charter did all those things, it would be a “choice” school operated by the same Board of Education that oversees neighborhood schools.
The bottom line is if someone other than the BOE has direct oversight of a charter school, it is not public anymore.
“Charters are independently operated, free public schools.”
Free in what way? Amok?
Which public schools that they compete against charge tuition?
The LA Times is an independently operated ad rag that should be free in piles at various intersections where the remains can easily be gathered by machine vehicles and recycled.
Choosing a Charter over a Public School is as if a parent raises their middle finger and shouts “I’ve got mine! Suckers!”. Heaven help that parent if their child has any educational issues and they find their “golden” child getting kicked out into the main stream and back into the public school system they personally ransacked (unless they can afford a private school). Or perhaps that “elite” charter is not quite what the parent envisioned (or was promised). Either way, who’s the sucker now?
What you just described is a feature of charter schools, not a bug.
It is part of the right wing’s desire to make sure every American is out for themselves. No more public goods. No more public institutions. Why pay money for a public school where “those” kids (and we all know who “those” kids are) are unworthy. There are some strivers who can go to charters and the rest of the kids should be someone else’s problem, but not yours.
“If you don’t like what your child’s charter school is doing and you express yourself, you may be asked to leave. There is no democratic mechanism for spearheading policy change. ”
This actually happened to me at my son’s public school, if “receive a suggestion that there might be another school that was a better fit” were substituted for “be asked.” Luckily, I was able to quit my job and focus my time on lobbying candidates for the 2017 school board elections.
FLERP!, if you really believe that a “suggestion” that your child might be happier in another school is the same as “suspend a child over and over again, humiliate him, force his parents to come every day to pick him up early, fail him, and do anything else necessary to get him out of our hair because there is no one the parent can complain to”, then you are either ignorant or lying.
There is NO public school that readily “asks” a child to leave. Where do you think your child would go? The SYSTEM is still responsible for your child which is why one principal can’t use unethical tactics to get you out. The system that oversees that principal still has the responsibility for your child. If you take it to the Superintendent who oversee the principal, she isn’t going to be delighted to think that she will now have to figure out how to educate your child. There is an entire system of appeals to see to your child’s legal right to an education. That’s the expensive public school “bureaucracy” that charters despise. To a charter, a child who is shown the door should have no recourse because the charters know best and we should just trust them to know that your child just isn’t up to snuff and is undeserving of their school. But at your public school, that cannot happen. You would be able to fight it and for that reason few principals would try underhanded tactics in the first place. Public school principals aren’t rewarded by their bosses for getting rid of expensive kids because that kid is still in the system.
It works exactly the opposite with charters. The more a principal can get rid of a kid they don’t want, the more the people who oversee that principal reward him! Because once out of the school, their responsibility to the child ends. Period. He is someone else’s problem and the faster the principals get rid of those kids, the more they help the charter school network’s bottom line.
I know you understand “market” incentives enough to know the difference.
Thanks for your concern, as always, NYCPSP.
You are welcome. I DO have concern for any child who is being ill-treated, included in public schools. I am not kidding when I tell you that you need to document issues. I know plenty of parents who have fought for things the principal didn’t want, but they didn’t feel that they were being asked to leave the school. If that is happening to you, it is wrong and needs to be addressed. If you were in a private school, you would have no recourse because it is my way or the highway. The same is true, unfortunately, in charter schools whose overseers enable any practice that gets rid of kids and results in high test scores.
I hope your issue was settled without you having to pull your child from his school and having to find another school willing to take him at short notice. If you managed to find one, you obviously have some kind of pull that most parents don’t have. But it is important to fight for the things you want. Unfortunately, that is only possible in public schools without endangering your child’s spot in the school.
My issue was settled by silently seething and resisting the urge to defenestrate the person who said it.
I do not know with what school district you are affiliated, but in LAUSD your son would have been offered an opportunity transfer to another public school which you would choose from those available to accept a new student. Students are also, though not often, expelled from district public schools and must find another district or a private school that will accept them. In a public setting, you of course had an option to make your voice heard. It appears you took a political stance and did not sue the district. I sense law suits are the more typical stance.
Law suits are probably not uncommon at charters, but I doubt anyone is keeping tabs on those. Disgruntled parents threaten suits against the charter at which I assist, but so far unsuccessfully, even with a good case. Some parents can not really afford to do so, the suing lawyers have not really been competent, and some parents are not sophisticated enough to support the case. Parents threaten to pull their student from the school, so the principal hands them the “dis-enroll” document. Generally these are parents of students other charters will not enroll. They are also parents of students the public school is probably hopeful will not return as their scores are low.
Even though I am an American, I wouldn’t say that I was taking a “political position” by not filing a lawsuit. I’m just trying to make it through the day. If I sued everybody who pi$$ed me off, I wouldn’t have time to go to the bathroom.
I like the term “taxpayer-funded private schools”. That lets everyone know quite clearly who is funding these schools.
“Publicly–funded private schools.” and “taxpayer-funded private schools”
Both need to be turned around so that the private school is emphasized. In other words: Charters are private schools that are publicly funded or Charters are private schools that are taxpayer funded.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé.
We don’t have to invent a whole new category. We already have one.
Charter schools are government contractors.
This is the definition:
“A government contractor is a private company — either for profit or non-profit — that produces goods or services under contract for the government.”
LIKE!
Exactly. Our nation’s biggest expenditures on government contracts are for the Department of Defense, with Lockheed Martin and Boeing taking in billions of dollars from the government every year. They don’t call themselves public corporations; they remain private companies that do work for our country and they are subject to regulatory oversight by our government.
http://time.com/2917578/government-contractors-lockheed/
Why on earth did people ever think that schools for children, our most vulnerable and most promising population, should be allowed to circumvent regulatory oversight? Barbers and beauticians are regulated better than charter schools –and most likely your hair will grow back if someone botches it, but children could be damaged for life by unscrupulous non-educator “social entrepreneurs” who seek their fortunes without accountability from tax dollars at “no excuses” military style, boot camp charter schools with ill-prepared, non-union teachers.
Democrats have become just as deeply entrenched in this capitalist “free” market scheme as Republicans are. The fact that Democrats sponsor the aspirations of the Gordon Gekkos of America, who believe “greed is good,” demonstrates they are clearly no longer the party that cares more about people and the common good than they care about money, corporations, banks, Wall Street and those who inherited their wealth. They are Bill Clinton’s “New Democrats” and Hillary was right by his side throughout that era. One can only hope that, since becoming a grandmother, she has softened and is prepared to take the party in a direction which protects common people from predatory capitalists who aim to stamp out the last vestiges of labor unions.
The public/private distinction won’t matter in a decade anyway, if ed reform proceeds at the pace they’re now setting. They’re pushing vouchers all over the country.
In ten years they’ll all be supporting vouchers and in 20 years they’ll all be supporting “backpack vouchers”.
There’s no commitment or value assigned to “public schools” in ed reform. President Obama said the only reason he doesn’t support vouchers is they don’t “work”, whatever that means.
It’s complete privatization, and it’s moving very quickly. This whole notion of “public” doesn’t matter at all to them.
Yes, “taxpayer-funded private schools”.
I don’t think it’s possible to win the argument by disparaging the notion of parental choice or how charter schools drain money from public schools. The former is a myth, but it but sounds good. The latter is directed at public-school haters who delight in the idea of less funding.
Corruption is the winning argument.
Taxpayers who don’t like their money wasted are starting to get the picture. What’s happening with for-profit colleges is trickling down to K12 charters. Without public oversight or accountability, it will get worse as charter networks grow.
And grow they must. A very appropriate term might be “government-backed pyramid schemes”. Charters rely on growth to hold on to employees, as their 1- or 2-year teachers won’t stick around unless they’re being trained to open other charters and move into executive positions. As with other multi-tier marketing schemes (think: nutritional supplements), teachers do better by getting other teachers to work under them. Their goal is *not* a quality product. Their goal is growth, plain and simple. And it’s unsustainable, as demonstrated in Nashville, Detroit, New Orleans and elsewhere.
The argument has to be about money. Parental rights, quality education, effects of poverty, etc., are too hard to distill down to bullet points. What taxpayers hate most are people who game the system. They don’t like private operators taking over buildings that were taxpayer funded—and which taxpayers may possibly have to pay for again! They also don’t like credit card theft, embezzlement, kickbacks and cronyism. And they’re sick about companies like K12 Inc. stealing from public coffers. What’s next: the realization that charters are spending taxpayer money on marketing gimmicks (e.g., candy bar and toys in Detroit), or they are secretive organizations run by foreign nationals (e.g., Gulen).
For now, some charter networks are trying to keep up an air of respectability and trying to stay out of the cesspool. But that can’t last. They’re all playing the same game and keeping their practices closely guarded. As they grow, they can’t avoid leaks. Poor curriculum and instruction, low teacher retention, worse-than-stated graduation rates, overpayment of executives—all of this can be covered up for only so long by secretive boards, “counseling out” of students, and turning away parents they don’t want to deal with.
As long as the focus is on corrupt practices, the public will understand why accountability matters. That’s what makes schools “public”, not their funding source and not because the education is free. The idea of oversight goes back nearly 400 years!
From Online Etymology Dictionary:
public (adj.) late 14c., “open to general observation,” from Old French public (c. 1300) and directly from Latin publicus “of the people; of the state; done for the state,” …from Old Latin poplicus “pertaining to the people,” from populus “people” (see people (n.)).
Public school is from 1570s, originally, in Britain, a grammar school endowed for the benefit of the public… The main modern meaning in U.S., “school (usually free) provided at public expense and run by local authorities,” is attested from 1640s.
Only put the private schools first: “Charter schools are private schools funded by taxpayers like you and me without our consent and no transparency of operations like community public schools”
All together, now…
There… is… no… such… thing… as… a… public… charter… school!!
Again!…
There… is… no… such… thing… as… a… public… charter… school!!
Once more!…
There… is… no… such… thing… as… a… public… charter… school!!
And let’s avoid playing into the PR that there is such a thing by speaking “traditional public school.”
The qualifier “traditional” begs asking, ok, what other qualifiers? Answer: Oh, yes, “charter.”
It is public school, at that’s it.
Duane Swacker and Chiara:
Well put.
I now await the rebuttal by Non Sequitur and Non Sequitur Jr.
Their silence would mean compliance aka agreement.
😎
This is from the former Obama staffers charter site:
“Los Angeles just added a student to their school board”
Why does the Obama Administration care who is seated on a school board? They oppose the continued existence of public school boards. If they oppose the whole concept of “public schools” why don’t they just butt out of our school governance?
“Negotiators inched toward an agreement Tuesday that would impose new taxes on cigarettes and digital downloads in Pennsylvania, but a proposal to loosen caps on charter-school enrollment emerged as a sticking point in striking a budget deal, top senators said.
Critics of the proposed changes say they would leave Philadelphia and other cash-strapped school districts with little say in managing the surge of charters within their borders – and the added costs they can bring”
Once again ed reformers hold public school funding hostage to their ideological agenda.
Who cares if the public schools open, right? The important thing is the charter lobby gets everything they demand.
Can we pay an outside party to advocate on behalf of public schools? No one in government seems interested in doing that part of their job.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160713_Make-or-break_moment_looms_in_Pa__budget_talks.html
I can tell you exactly what would happen if they privatized schools where I live- the community would fragment into individual parents and children and no one would have any leverage at all as far as “publicly funded schools” because it would be a series of individual complaints. Most people wouldn’t complain at all- they would simply switch schools. All the various schools would become little islands where people had to “fit in” or leave and the whole concept of public responsibility and buy-in would vanish.
They should listen to someone outside the echo chamber before privatizing schools. It will end badly. If they don’t value the “public” in public schools inside the echo chamber they should seek the advice of at least one person who does.
A reader asserts: “The term “public charter school” was developed by a PR firm to reframe the way we understand schooling in relationship to “public” and to democracy.”
I disagree. The term “charter” or “chartered” public school was developed in Minnesota by public (district) school educators and community activists who convinced the 1991 state legislature to adopt the idea.
Al Shanker also talked about charter schools, although what he had in mind was similar to what had been happening in East Harlem. Deborah Meier, who commented earlier today, was one of the people who made a proposal to a district office and was allowed to create new district options.
The current definition of “public schools” includes those (district) schools supported by taxes that are controlled by people who are appointed by mayors. That includes, according to Wikipedia, 2 of America’s 3 largest cities, and about 20 urban districts around the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoral_control_of_schools
And we should all know to be very wary of our modern-day Magic Mayors.
That means all the charter networks in NYC are NOT “public” schools. The Mayor has no say in their oversight at all.
FYI — there are plenty of “choice” and “lottery” schools in NYC that are REAL public schools. There are two in Brooklyn — Brooklyn New School and The Children’s School. Both of those are overseen by the DOE. They don’t have a separate board who rewards the principal for getting high scores and punishes the principal for not getting rid of more low-scoring students faster. That is a special privilege reserved for the charter schools whose only so-called “oversight” is by an entity that has no time nor concern for anything but high scores and keeping private donors happy.
I was not referring to the origins of the term “charter school” I was referring to the term “Public charter school.” Joe, did I not make that clear?
Yes you were clear, Ann.
I also was trying to be clear. We referred to charter public schools in Minnesota when the first charter was opened in St Paul, Mn, in 1992. It was City Academy, a charter public school created by a local teacher who worked with students with whom traditional district schools had not succeeded.
Some of the people involved in creating the concept of “chartering” and in specific charter public schools had been involved in creating alternative (district) public schools and magnet public schools.
The term “charter public school” was created by inner city public school educators and people trying to improve the life experience of students from low income families. It was not created by a pr firm.
Some of those people, in organizations like the Urban Coalition, were working on other issues such as poverty, racism, poor quality medical care, lack of good housing for low income people, etc. that make it more difficult for students from these families to succeed.
Actually, in Richmond we have one public charter school, though you do get in by lottery and waiting list. It is still under the guidelines of RPS, but has a really good parent base and volunteer requirements, as well as uniforms. It is Patrick Henry charter School. It is saving a school building that had been closed and focuses on science and art. I have friends whose children attend and they absolutely love it!
The current setup allows for some “successful” charters to serve as decoys, diverting our attention from the real issues.
So this school has “volunteer requirements”? Has it occurred to you that this requirement is discriminatory? What happens to kids who have parents for whatever reasons, are not able to volunteer?
I’ll note that no one in Richmond has to do anything extra, like volunteer, to benefit from other public goods, such as roads, fire protection, health department inspections of restaurants, etc.
This is not necessarily true. Though I don’t doubt it’s mostly true. Sheboygan Area School District in Sheboyga, WI (as I explained in a comment on an earlier story) has several charter schools as part of the district. They were started by district employees, and there is no private entity associated with them in any way.
So it is incorrect to say that there is no such thing as a public charter school.
Corey Anderson,
The public charter schools you describe are part of the district, subject to democratic control. They can be audited and held accountable. Are they unionized? They are not typical of the aggressive movement that seeks to replace public schools.
The problem is that the few “public” charters like you describe will eventually be driven out by the bad actors who have far more resources and money.
It’s like the mom and pop store. A big charter chain comes in and offers all the bells and whistles. The chain accepts any child whose parents are motivated enough to sign up for the lottery (which eliminates the worst off kids), and it is free to use whatever methods necessary to remove all children they decide are too much bother to teach. Backed up by tens of millions in donations from donors who are delighted to undermine public education, it doesn’t need those kids and wants them gone.
Then – with the low-scoring kids out the door – that chain compares their scores to your mom and pop charter and convinces even more parents to go to their chain. And your charter gets their leftovers — the most expensive and hard to teach kids. Eventually, no parent who doesn’t have an expensive kid wants to be in your school anymore, since your charter has classes with 90% difficult kids. Your charter’s funding is cut since their scores are so bad that no one thinks it deserves to exist anyway. And your charter disappears into the night.
After all competition is decimated, the charter chains do whatever they want since there is no longer any publicly-elected board to make sure they don’t.
Mom and pop stores disappear if a big chain with the money to undercut them in price appears.
The mom and pop who used to own the stores on Main Street become greeters at Walmart, making less than minimum wage.
*Sheboygan, WI
When will all the waste and fraud with charters end? I just heard on the news a charter in a neighboring school district was raided by the FBI. Charters are in need of oversight and accountability. This is a contractor that was subcontracted by the Okaloosa, FL school district to serve special needs students.http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20160712/fbi-executes-search-warrant-at-fwb-school-for-at-risk-students
Corey Andreasen, Mary Horsley, and Joe Nathan (hope all is well, Joe!) point out an important concept: Fidelity to truth, i.e., the need for complete accuracy in our descriptions of the various school types and how they operate. For inaccurate generalities/descriptions in our condemnations of private schools that are taxpayer funded but not accountable to the taxpayers can only serve to weaken our arguments. “Oh, look they can’t even get it straight, why should we believe them on. . . . ?
Keep it accurate, folks!
Tell this to some of the delegates at this year’s NEA RA…it was disheartening to witness teachers defending charter schools.
That is the problem with unionizing charter schools. Those inside the tent advocate for the anti-union charters outside the tent. 90% of charter schools are non-union, and if it is left to the Waltons, it would be 99%.
“private schools that are taxpayer funded but not accountable to the taxpayers,” and which have appointed school boards with members who may be from out of the district and/or state, who represent a corporate management firm and wealthy donors, not democratically elected school boards with members who represent the local community.
In my state we do have some small local charter schools authorized and governed by local district school boards.
Our inability to clearly define what a charter school is–causes confusion which undermines our arguments against school privatization. My suggestion is that when we report problems with charters, we clearly define the attributes of the charter school with a statement such as, “This charter school was set up as a non-profit organization, authorized by a local school board, but governed by a private board of directors made up of many members with out-of-state addresses. This charter school is one of 10 charter schools run by this organization, which operates charter schools in 5 states. This school is fully/partially funded with Ohio tax-payer dollars. The employees of this school are not state/district employees and do not qualify for the due process rights of state/district employees.
We could even add a statement such as “This school claims to be a “public charter school” pursuant to state statute because it is funded by the state. However, it does not meet the definition of a “public charter school” as defined the Network for Public Education (or other cited definition.)”
The new thing in my state is not to call these schools charter schools at all, but to rather call them public-private partnerships. They are established by agreements with funders. They are governed by private boards on which the superintendent and a district representative hold seats, but do not make up a majority. These partnership agreements also abrogate many due process rights of the school’s employees. The school district also kicks in more than the per-pupil amount provided to other district-run schools. There is not clear financial transparency. They promise two teachers in each classroom and wrap around services for a small number of children that will attend this particular school while other children in the district are losing essential intervention services due to an unexplained budget deficits from previous administrations.
Also, funding for some state authorized charters and opportunity scholarships come from a separate line items in a State’s budget — as opposed to the per pupil amount following the student. Though certainly this money in these budgeted line items could have been apportioned to the state’s public schools.
In my opinion, you left out the most important distinction.
It isn’t just that charter schools have no due process rights for employees.
Charter schools lack due process rights for the CHILDREN.
That expensive public school bureaucracy that privatizers hate is the thing that provides the safety net for children who aren’t wanted because they cost far more to teach than students who will perform well on tests with nothing much more than lessons that can be delivered by a computer.
Everyone hates lawyers until suddenly they need one. Everyone hates expensive bureaucracies until it is your child being shown the door and out on the streets. Everyone hates due process until your child is suddenly accused of stealing or violence or some other infraction and asked to leave.
Just like everyone hates high health insurance costs until your child is the one who gets cancer and you find out your family is no longer covered and you better pray you can find a charity hospital to treat your child with understaffed, overworked health care providers.
Privates count on most people believing that will never be them. But as soon as it is them, those very same people who hate the “government” are screaming for their “rights”.
You could certainly add this as an attribute when you define the particular charter school that is the subject of the post. It would however be important to document how you drew this particular conclusion for the particular charter school that is the subject of the posting. You could look to records of suspensions and expulsions, reports of the numbers or percentages of special education students, etc if published on the school’s report card, other governmental record, or other public record. You could also publish withdrawals. I do however think it is important to include a clear citation to factual information used to draw this conclusion.
Ah, but there’s the rub. In NYC it is hard to get that information from charter schools. In fact, they are happy to spend whatever money is necessary to sue any government organization that asks for it. Can you imagine a good reason for a charter to want to spend its money to challenge an audit of its suspension and attrition instead of just opening its books and saying “see, we aren’t doing anything wrong”?
But if you look at the data the NY State posts, you see very strange anomalies that the charter can’t hide.
For example I can see that at the “top ranked charter network” in the entire state, at one school the number of economically disadvantaged students who started 2nd grade declined by 40 percent by the time 3rd grade testing came around.
Can you imagine a school where 40% of the low-income students in 2nd grade don’t make it to 3rd grade testing time? A school that offers those kids an education “better than private school” and where the families who pull them have only a choice of an underfunded, low-performing public school. You really think that doesn’t deserve to be investigated? But it will never be because there is no one with the right to investigate except the charter board whose job it is to promote the high performing charters that get that way by making so many at-risk kids disappear.
.
Here in Chicago, I envy this sentence: “Most public schools are accountable to an elected school board made up of community members.”
Let that happen for us!!n
I use the term “corporate school,” to indicate the lack of public control over them. You make a very good point about the responsibility of the government to promote the general welfare.
I work for a charter school in California. We have a charter council that meets regularly. We have community members on that council. Any member of the public can attend those meetings…anyone. We are also a dependent charter, meaning we have a sponsoring district that also has regular board meetings. Again, any member of the public can attend.
I am saddened by the rise of for-profit corporations getting into the charter business. Profit is money that should go to students. We would be better off giving “profits” as cash payouts to kids for staying in school rather than going into investors’ pockets
I am proud that we are publicly funded.
I am proud of our openness and oversight.
I am proud that we take anyone who walks through our doors, especially the high school refugees who would otherwise be dropouts because the traditional system failed them.
Don’t paint charter schools with a broad brush, they are not all equal. And don’t pretend that traditional always work and are the best option, they aren’t.
Harold Miller,
Your charter is the exception, not the rule.
The charter sector should have cleaned up its act long ago. Most charters are operated by private boards with no transparency, no accountability, and they take money away from the public schools, which are then less able to serve the vast majority of children. Aside from your school and a few others like it, the sector has turned into an industry with powerful lobbying organizations, always demanding more money and less regulation. If you look at charters in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and elsewhere, you will see a parasite that is determined to kill its host.
Actually, the majority of charters are NOT run by for-profits. And when people talk about the need for “democratic control” of charters, they seem to equate this with locally elected boards. But charters operate under rules and regulations adopted by state legislatures, which are elected. Some states do a better job of supervising charters, just like some school districts do a better job of supervising individual schools.
Moreover, 2 of the 3 largest district public school systems in the country, New York and Chicago, do not operate with elected school boards. NYC moved away from locally elected boards because of enormous corruption in some of the locally elected boards.
Perhaps it’s time to restore local boards in NYC and Chicago. But clearly, a locally elected board – just like a charter board – however it’s elected – does not guarantee an excellent public school.
That’s why I think (and have worked for more than 20 years on this), we should and can learn from the most effective schools, serving various groups of students.
The false choice of district vs. charter (Minneapolis) Star Trbune,
July 10, 2009 – 11:57 PM
by Joe Nathan
Neither type of school has a lock on quality — or lack thereof. Let’s just take our cues from the best of both.
Three recent Star Tribune stories regarding Minnesota’s public schools deserve a response.
The first described the paper’s finding that six of the 10 metro-area public schools producing the highest scores with low-income students are charter schools, as are several of the schools with lowest achievement. The second involves attempts to compare schools, and the third is a column with questionable assertions by the think tank Minnesota 2020.
The Star Tribune’s July 1 test-score analysis should discourage the lumping together of all district or all charter schools. They differ dramatically. The success with low-income students that some charter and district schools have achieved is producing encouraging, constructive conversations. For example:
•Superintendents and/or principals from districts such as Edina and Duluth met with charter directors at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute earlier this year. Additional meetings are being considered.
•The Minneapolis School District has created an Office of New Schools and has hired a director who helped create several successful metro-area charter public schools.
•Target has convened district and charter school leaders to help improve their leadership skills. Reactions were extremely positive.
•The Minnesota New Country School in Henderson has received millions of dollars from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to help district and charter educators in 13 states use its hands-on, project-based strategies.
•New Visions of Minneapolis has used federal and foundation funds to help increase achievement of students with special needs in dozens of district and charter schools.
Statistical games about which public schools are better — district or charter — are unproductive. A June 16 Star Tribune headline about a study done elsewhere said that Minnesota charters aren’t as effective as district schools. But the report actually showed that after three years in a school, the average Minnesota charter student gained more in reading and math that did the average district student. This study also showed that African-American students in Minnesota do better in charters than in district schools.
The Star Tribune’s research showed that both district and charter schools vary enormously in their effectiveness. So lumping them together makes little sense, and doesn’t help improve any classrooms.
The newspaper’s list of most-improved and “Beat the Odds” schools contains many whose directors are not licensed administrators, as Minnesota 2020 demands. Strong (but unlicensed) directors like Eric Mahmoud of Harvest Prep, Bill Wilson of Higher Ground Academy and Jon Gutierrez of St. Croix Prep have produced excellent results.
Minnesota 2020 could learn from them. Kate Barr, former banker asked by several respected Minnesota foundations to establish the Nonprofits Assistance Fund, reviewed 2020’s claims about charter finance. She wrote: “The report’s author does not have a sound understanding of school finance, nonprofit financial management or audit standards and terminology.”
There have been huge financial mistakes in Minnesota school districts that licensed administrators haven’t prevented. They include a suburb where licensed administrators overspent their budget by more than a million dollars, another where licensed administrators didn’t deduct enough from employee paychecks to pay taxes, and an urban district whose (new) finance director discovered that no one knew how much money the district had.
Minnesota’s charter-school enrollment has tripled in the last seven years to more than 32,000. Meanwhile, district enrollment has declined by more than 40,000. This also helps explain why some district educators are meeting with several of the most-effective charter directors.
Isn’t it time to accept reality? Some of Minnesota’s finest schools are district schools, and some are charters. We’ll make the best progress by learning from the most effective schools.
Joe Nathan is director of the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. He is at joe@centerforschoolchange.org