Historian Jack Schneider fears that charter schools in Massachusetts have lost their capacity to innovate. Instead, they have a single-minded focus on test scores and “no-excuses” discipline. They have lost sight of the original vision of charters as laboratories of innovation.
http://commonwealthmagazine.org/education/charter-cap-debate-clouds-original-intent/
He writes:
“Yet an emphasis on the original vision of charter schools—charters as experimental hubs in an integrated network of public schools—might do a great deal to reestablish common ground. Perhaps more importantly, by thoughtfully regulating the charter sector with the aim of fostering system-wide innovation, policy leaders might make it possible to reap the benefits of charter schools without paying the steep associated costs.
“Of course, Massachusetts charter schools are regulated. The number of charter seats in each district is limited by the state—a cap being challenged by Question 2. And charters are held accountable by the state for their performance. But current regulations do little to support charters as laboratories. In fact, current state regulatory practices have fostered a climate hostile to innovation.
“The chief problem with current regulatory practices is that the state relies chiefly on standardized test scores to determine charter performance—a practice that severely undercuts any impulse to innovate. Additionally, given some high-profile charter implosions, the state has become increasingly risk-averse, and now only approves “proven providers.” Thus, rather than a thousand flowers blooming, we instead have seen the proliferation of a single model—one oriented towards rigid discipline and test-oriented instruction; three-quarters of the charters in Boston, for instance, are so-called “no excuses” schools. This kind of monoculture is fine for parents who desire it. But it hardly reflects the wishes of most parents, and it certainly isn’t going to promote systemic improvement.
Eliminating the cap on charter schools won’t solve this problem. In fact, it will exacerbate it, as a small number of chain operators will be in the strongest position to take advantage of the new opportunities to expand. Simply put, another KIPP, MATCH, or Uncommon school is not going to bring new ideas to Massachusetts, or to Boston, where most of the expansion is likely to occur….
“Charter schools were supposed to be places of innovation—something we have not seen in practice. This vision, however, can still be rescued. Charters can play a critical role in the strengthening of all public schools. But not if Question 2 passes and we eliminate the cap. However ironic it may seem, then, a vote against charter expansion may be the only way to save the original promise of charter schools—as places for innovation.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I agree that people running charter schools that aren’t the well-funded charter chains are playing a very dangerous game by their silent condoning of no-excuses charters whose results (after high attrition) on standardized tests are the main thing justifying charter schools.
Just because their mediocre test results have been conveniently overlooked by the rich pro-charter groups so far is no guarantee that it will continue. And the fact that they have sold out all those kids drummed out of no-excuses charters by their silence will blow back to them. Their charters will be the new repositories of those unwanted kids that the favored charters will get rid of, and then will become the object of derision for their terrible teaching and administration. They should really be the object of derision for their terrible ethical compass that allow them to remain silent when seeing how corrupt the charter school movement has become.
LikeLike
As to “no excuses” charter schools. . . . The author states, “This kind of monoculture is fine for parents who desire it.” No, it’s not. This kind of monoculture is abusive, racist, and contrary to all we know about child development. Among the shameful aspects of the current education climate is that we have allowed – propagandized – parents of poor children of color to believe the abominable idea that their children “need” this kind of school.
LikeLike
Unsure, that the charter vision can be, or should be, rescued. But surely question two, which is opposed
by 170 school committees throughout the state, will open the door to numerous out-of-state “innovators”
who would undoubtedly do further damage to excellent public schools systems. (We need better, more responsible, legislation on Beacon Hill.)
LikeLike
Quality is better than quantity. If the current number of charters works for the citizens, it is a far better solution than opening up the floodgates to a lot of out of state ‘get rich quick’ operators that fleece taxpayers and harm public schools. Massachusetts has only to look at Pennsylvania and Ohio as examples of what not to do.
LikeLike
There is seldom if ever innovation from top down micro-mangers. The original concept for charter schools was a bottom-up approach where teachers were free to innovate; what teachers are already doing in Finland and why Finland has been recently named the best education system in the world.
LikeLike
My comment in response to the author (wearing one of my very limited number of masks – “sbrsb”):
Definitely good to recognize and celebrate what Innovation Schools can do! Thanks for that.
Where the article states: “the state has become increasingly risk-averse, and now only approves ‘proven providers.'” kindly correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that that restriction only applies to a limited number of districts where academic performance has been particularly low.
You write: “Thus, rather than a thousand flowers blooming, we instead have seen the proliferation of a single model—one oriented towards rigid discipline and test-oriented instruction; three-quarters of the charters in Boston, for instance, are so-called “no excuses” schools.”
I don’t think that properly appreciates their fairly rich diversity… whether, here in Boston, it’s the Mandarin taught at Academy of the Pacific Rim, the ballet barre and music room full of xylophones at Brooke Mattapan https://www.bostonglobe.com/op…
or the enormously impressive tutoring program at MATCH.
When Rev. Oliver Brown’s daughter Cheryl Brown Henderson spoke recently in Boston she urged those who would speak against charter schools to hesitate until they have first become intimately familiar with them.
https://www.facebook.com/Liftc…
Use of “no excuses” as if to imply that this is a harsh, unforgiving attitude towards students doesn’t properly appreciate the origins of the phrase. My understanding is that the original intent is that those who engage in education should not try to evade the problem by making self-excuses when historically under-served populations of children don’t succeed in a broad variety of ways in school.
LikeLike
Stephen,
The phrase “no excuses” refers to the harsh disciplinary tactics imposed on students to teach them the “dominant” (white) culture. In some such schools, black students have been disciplined for “black hair.” There are elaborate rules for suspension, punishment, and expulsion for failure to comply. The kids can always be returned to real public schools.
LikeLike
I spoke several minutes ago to a young KIPPster who told me, smilingly that she was exhausted… Had been dancing most of the day. I doubt it was all in a straight, single file line.
LikeLike
Your interpretation of “no excuses” is quite outdated, but was offensive even when fresh. It emanated from the Bush era and its glib “tyranny of low expectations,” as though we can cure poverty and injustice by simply expecting more of black and brown girls and boys. The current iteration is worse as it is a clear “branding” of schools that engage in shunning, shaming, isolation, suspension, expulsion and all sort of other forms of tough love. It is a national shame.
LikeLike
Stephen,
The term “no excuses,” as used for many years, refers to a rigid disciplinary code for students. I have posted here the long lists of reasons that students may be suspended from school, such as speaking in the hallways, not looking the teacher in the eye (“tracking” the teacher), not sitting exactly as told, etc. etc.
LikeLike
“. . . and all sort of other forms of SUPPOSEDLY tough love. It is a national shame.”
Minor correction with major meaning change.
LikeLike
It would be a relatively simple matter to allow charter schools the freedom to experiment, while maintaining the transparency, accountability, equity, union wages, benefits and working conditions (such as they are) of public schools. They could easily be managed as quasi-independent sub-systems of the local school district.
But that’s not what charter schools are about, nor have they every really been, naive yearnings for a past that never was notwithstanding. Charter schools are about the insatiable appetites of their Overclass founders and promoters, appetites for ever-more power, status, control and profit.
In practice, charter schools have as much to do with innovation as parasites and predators do with nurturing, so we might as well stop even referring to that long ago and far away time when they were seen as anything other than the current reality of bait-and-switch hustlers siphoning off public dollars to fund private, parallel, segregated school systems.
LikeLike
Where are the morals and ethics? This KIPP charter radio piece touts how admin and teachers created an elaborate lie to get a student to improve his performance. http://www.ewa.org/ewa-radio/chartering-new-course-kipps-katrina-generation-goes-college
LikeLike
Charter schools just suck $$$$$ from our public schools … the real intent.
LikeLike
All of Colorado’s “reformers” are solidly behind Question 2. And Erick-Woods Erickson, highly visible conservative Trump opponent, said in today’s NYT: “…Republicans should empower individuals by making school choice a priority,” i.e. an unlimited number of charters. So, voters in MA, be aware of the coalition supporting Question 2.
LikeLike