Lisa Haver and Deborah Grill, leaders of the activist group Alliance for Philadelphia Public Schools, wrote a commentary calling out the school board for its deference to charters, which are now asking to be held to lowered standards.
Forget about transparency or accountability if you are in the charter industry. Even the school board asks permission from the charters to regulate them and holds closed-door meetings to negotiate what they are willing to do.
They begin:
Philadelphia charter school operators and advocates have long maintained that if they were freed from the bureaucracy and regulations imposed on public schools, charters would be able to quickly and consistently raise student achievement. The School Reform Commission bought into that argument, approving new charters in almost every year of its 17-year reign.
The SRC also turned over control of more than 20 neighborhood schools to charter operators through its Renaissance initiative, whose provisions include “stringent academic requirements” that would be used “as a basis for a decision to renew, not renew or revoke a Renaissance school at the end of its [five-year] term.”
But when the data show many of those schools failing to achieve anything close to the “dramatic gains” promised, the SRC did not hold those charters accountable.
Recently, charter operators have actually lobbied the District to lower the standards by which their schools are evaluated. A June 11 Philadelphia Public School Notebook/WHYY story, “Philadelphia School District nearing new accountability rules for charters,” revealed that secret negotiations had taken place between District and charter officials about changes in the rating system, which “was developed with substantial input from the charter operators themselves.” This is not the first time charter operators and District officials have met in secret: They conducted closed-door meetings from fall 2016 through spring 2017 to formulate public policy about charters.
Belmont Charter CEO Jennifer Faustman argued that it’s not fair to compare charters who took over poor-performing District schools, saying, “You’re basically being challenged to exceed the District.”
But hasn’t that been the justification for creating and expanding charters — that they would always do better than public schools? Belmont Charter would not sign its 2017 renewal agreement, citing unfairness of conditions, even though Belmont failed to meet standards in all three categories—academic, financial, and organizational.
District officials contend that the new rubric is “fair” to charter operators, but do not explain how it is fair to the students or their parents. Theoretically, a charter school could earn a 45 percent academic grade even with near-zero proficiency rates. That is, a charter could be renewed as long as it showed improved attendance and growth — if not actual academic achievement. Incredibly, the charter coalition finds that expectation too high. They are holding out for a 40 percent passing grade.
Then-SRC Chair Estelle Richman told reporters that the charter “performance framework” has undergone “more than 60 negotiated changes” in the last year and that the “charter agreements incorporate a revised performance framework which provides charter schools with transparent and predictable accountability and ensures charter schools are quality options for students and families.”
Transparency, apparently, should be extended to charter operators but not to the public. If charters are truly public schools, as charter operators contend, then all policy discussions, including changes in the rating system, must be open to the public. Nor did Richman explain why the SRC felt the need to consult those being regulated on how they wished to be regulated.
Last month, in one of its final actions, the SRC approved 10 charter renewals. Four others, including two Mastery charters, were not on the agenda, reportedly because they rejected conditions suggested by the District.
Who is in charge? Why no accountability? Why are standards higher for public schools than for charters? What about all those promises?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Any adjustments in the rating system — which would be a major policy change — should be deliberated on in a public process, for the purpose of raising standards, not lowering them. The District cannot afford to subsidize charters that are not adequately educating their students.”
Charter operators promised improved academics, and they have failed to deliver. If charter operators fail, students should be returned to the public schools, Appointed boards should not be allowed to negotiate behind closed doors with charter operators. The determination of public funds should include input from the public. Decisions about education should be based on what is best for students, not charter operators.
LikeLike
The changing narrative about the purpose of charter schools is telling. Perhaps there were some naive people at the start who thought they could actually do better, who boght into the incompetent public school narrative of A Nation at Risk. Then the reality hit about how difficult education actually is. Now that the money folks have realized the vast amount they could make, the rallying cry is “choice!” to hide the lack of results.
LikeLike
The original narrative from Charter Advocates was that they would cost less, be more accountable, and get better results. None of this happened.
LikeLike
Who is in charge?
The Koch brothers the members of ALEC and their Alt-Right Deep State allies.
Why no accountability?
Because that’s what the Alt-Right Deep State wants and they have the deep dark pockets filled with money to buy elected state and federal representatives and judges.
Why are standards higher for public schools than for charters?
Because the Alt-Right Deep State has weaponized those higher standards to destroy the traditional public schools that are the foundation of the US Constitutional Republic.
What about all those promises?
Those mostly empty promises were all PR to fool parents and voters. The Alt-Right Deep State is all about achieving their autocratic, racist, greed-based agenda and there is no limit on lies and conspiracy theories to achieve that agenda.
LikeLike
We are having: A Race to the Dump.
LikeLike
We all know that the vast majority of charter students are from minority backgrounds. So Philly wants to lower the standards they’re expected to achieve? And NY tried to allow a watered-down teacher certification program for charter teachers, until the court told them it was an illegal move. So what’s going on: lobbying for a lesser education for children of color? Last I checked Brown v Board of Education still prohibits “separate but equal” treatment for non white children; a fortiori Brown prohibits separate and plainly unequal treatment as well. Shame on every supporter of lessening the education these poor kids receive.
LikeLike
First they will overturn Roe v. Wade and next will be Brown.
LikeLike
Charters often offer a separate and unequal education to minority students. They work around the law by using test scores and a variety of other criteria that either targets or excludes poor minorities depending on the type of charter they are opening. It is generally the charter that does the choosing, not the students. This is the great “choice” charters offer.
LikeLike