I’ve said it over and over again: this is not about individual choices. Every family has a responsibility to do the best they can with their children.

The issue I’m concerned with is public investment policy.

Over the past several years, Portland Public Schools has allowed its open transfer policy to radically reshape the geographic pattern of its public investment without regard to demographic trends.

The real culprit in this is neighborhood-to-neighborhood transfers, which account for most of the out-transfers from our most beleaguered clusters. But charter schools are an affront to those of us who believe we should first fix our neighborhood schools, which can and should serve the vast majority of our students, before we add any more “choice” to a system already suffering from too many options.

With that, I’m closing comments on this post. Ninety-six comments is enough for any post, I’d say.

Now, my real reason for posting here: I have a friend who enrolled his only child at a charter, so I am offering up his thinking to add to this discussion. He immediately ruled out their neighborhood school because of 4 (yes, 4) competing programs under one roof, and the opinion he developed after multiple visits to the school that there were too many students behaving out-of-control there. He considered two language immersion schools, rejecting one for insufficient safety of the building and the other for unsatisfactory English instruction. Wanting to stay close to home, he finally settled on the nearby (within walking distance) charter school, which caps classes at 25, overall enrollment under 200, behavior kept under control, and a very strong reading program.

Just to clarify, these are the opinions of my friend, not my own. I researched some of the same schools before my child entered kindergarten, so I agree with some but not all of his points. On some other schools I have no opinion because I have not done any research.

Bottom line: given the same choices, how many of us would have made the same decision?

My .02’s worth on this: I’m interested in sending my two kids (one of whom is in pre-K at Chief Jo) to a charter school primarily because of the different approach that schools like Trillium, Portland Village, Opal, and Emerson take to teaching and learning. As much as I’d love for my kids to attend Chief Jo, and as problematic as charters are, I have a much greater problem with the issues that RVN described so eloquently, i.e., teaching to the middle of the pack, teacher-dominated vs. student-directed approaches, etc. The matter is complicated further by the district’s adoption of the Scott Foresman curriculum (called “Reading Street”). As a result of district policy, all neighborhood elementary schools are required to teach kids how to read according to this very scripted, one-size-fits-all approach. Not so the charters. The Scott Foresman curriculum not only assumes/demands that all kids learn to read the same way and at the same time, but it essentially guts any kind of professional judgment that a good teacher used to be able to make. Now that teacher’s judgment is being replaced by a canned, scripted solution. This is completely antithetical to the needs of children, yet it is nonetheless district policy. This situation does not exist at the charters.

Finally, as part of this new scripted curriculum, Kindergarten students are subjected to a regular series of “benchmark assessments” to determine if they are “at grade level” or not. Even worse, pre-K students — my daughter included — are subjected to a set of tests. In fact, the week before she started pre-K, my daughter was asked to come in and be tested. The teacher asked my daughter to write her name. Write her name? The week before pre-K? My daughter didn’t know how to hold a pencil, much less write her name.

The new policy is symptomatic of a much larger phenomenon that is happening all over the country, which is essentially about (1) testing, testing, testing and (2) pushing the 1st grade curriculum down into Kindergarten and pre-K. I have a much longer post on this subject here.

Bottom line: charters are not subject to this same kind of top-down, one-size-fits-all nonsense. They have much more say in crafting solutions that meet the needs of each child, not the schools’ or the district’s needs to boost test scores and make AYP.

Charter Schools can really be about the communities that they support because the parents, the staff and the kids can be the ones running them. If the community that Jeff comes from had more actual say in how it is run I think that is would be a much better place. There is no one vote system there. It is a top down hierarchy and that needs to be addressed. Imagine if the community was really listened to, really had some power in making choices (not just listen to on occasion or when people got angry).

I also think that it isn’t looking at the facts when you say that charters are “sucking” students away. A large portion of the kids who are at Trillium from the neighborhood came because their other options were just not working. We also ended up getting quite a few kids who were actually kicked out of other schools. So rather than “sucking” kids, we were actually a place that would take them in when others wouldn’t. There have been many kids, (especially troubled ones) who came to Trillium as middle schoolers and ended up going back to their neighborhood schools when they “straightened” themselves out. In that way we actually “saved” kids from leaving. Rather than being out on the street, or at an alternative school, they had a place where they could figure themselves out.

That is something that is often overlooked by the charter school bashers. We are here to help kids out. We aren’t here to save a dying system. We care about kids and what is good for them. And you have to agree that neighborhood schools are not always good for kids.

So what do you say to the parents of kids in my class that used to go to Ockley and felt horrible about their experience and whose kids didn’t want to go to school anymore? Do you say just hang in there and hope that eventually things will get better? What do you say to them after being at Trillium (just a 15 minute walk from their house) for less than 4 months and they are happy and excited about school?

Are you going to say they are selfish because they are taking their kids out of a place that wasn’t working? They should have kept their kids there because by them leaving they are giving the rest of the kids at Ockley less?

I think that it is great that you are so involved in Jeff even without any kids there. It is great that you want them to go there. It would be great if everyone in the neighborhood had your willingness. It is definitely needed. BUT, what if your kids went to Jeff and hated it? It is one thing if it works for them, but what if it didn’t? What if they didn’t want to go to school anymore? What if you had other options where they would feel happy and successful? What then?

We do all need to keep the conversation going, you’re right. I have a very hard time with charters, especially as I feel them (and De La Salle) pushing in and on our neighborhood schools and sucking students away.

Bullet points for you….(kind of)

*I know about Tom Potter at Jeff. I live in the neighborhood and I have been in there many times (I have a relative who went there almost 50 years ago) and I think that the way to make it a better place is to change around how people can choose the schools they go to AND change federal education policy that allows people to run away if test scores drop without money to help the schools improve. Why did so many people flee Jeff? There are reasons and it isn’t the fault of charters. But you know that already right?

*If you want inclusiveness you need to be willing to discuss the possibilities of other schooling. Period. Part of inclusiveness is talking with everyone, even if you don’t always agree. Too few people are willing to have conversations in this country. They only want to talk to, vote for, and listen to people that think and act just like them on every issue.

*I am pro-union and have been a member of one for a long time. While unions are vital and important, they also do a lot of things I don’t agree with when it comes to teacher support.

*I played hockey and miss it. (indoor hockey just isn’t the same).

*I will continue to discuss charter schools with those people who are open minded enough to have a conversation. Charter schools are not perfect, nor the only answer, but neither are neighborhood schools as they are now. The system has been sick a lot longer than charter schools have been around.

*If you call me friend, you should mean it. Sarcasm never builds community or inclusiveness.

signed,

Cheerleader for kids, how they learn and what they need to learn best, not institutions for the sake of institutions, who will talk to anyone open to a good discussion.

* pro-union
* pro-neighborhood schools
* pro-hockey (pro hockey, get it? ha)
* pro-knitting
* pro-getting some inclusiveness going on

I have a solution for students who can’t get into Grant: Go to Jefferson. National Honor Society, PCC right across the street, AP classes coming up, Jefferson Dancers, basketball, football, and much more. I like Jeff so much I accepted a part-time job there. And I have been a member of the PTSA for two years, even though my kids are still in grade school. Future Demos!

At least try this bold move: Walk through the doors. We have a nice big building that can fit about 1,500 more students.

Go, Demos!!! Woot! And now, a brief public service announcement (like it wasn’t, so far. Ha):

Mayor Tom Potter is bringing City Hall to Jeff, Jan. 14-18. We have a huge community night celebration planned for 6-8 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 17th. Music, food, fun; free childcare, Penny’s Puppets and face painting; meet with the mayor, PPS Superintendent Smith, Jefferson Principal Harris. See you then!

signed,

Cheerleader for Jeff, Who Refuses to Ever Again Discuss Charter Schools

Those are some really good points. Ideally, we do need stronger schools that are accessible to everyone. Ideally our local schools would be there to help everyone and meet all kids needs. I think that Portland was much better at doing that 20 years ago. We were an example for the country in many ways. However, the political landscape continues to move away from allowing schools to really be the kind of places that do work for all our kids. If it was just in Portland, I think that would be one thing, but the issue we are talking about is a national (and some might say) an international problem. The direction that schooling is taking is one of increased pressure, testing and stress. The machine of schooling is very much broken and part of that is because things are done on such a large scale.

Charter Schools, no matter how you might view them, have the local flexibility to do some great things for ALL kids. Trillium, can be, and is, a local option for the kids that live nearby. The things you mentioned (free breakfast and lunch and services) are things that are available at Trillium and can be available at other charters. We do have an aftercare program that charges, that is true, but we are also working to find ways to make it more accessible to all families (sliding scales, scholarships, etc).

We located Trillium in N/NE just because we wanted it to be accessible for lower income families. I believe that is true also of some of the other charters that want to locate in these neighborhood. The intention IS to provide choice for families.

The fact that some of these charters don’t offer all the things that would make it more accessible isn’t because they can’t. And that is a key point. At Trillium we have the flexibility (we staffing, budgets, etc) to work to make it more accessible. The present system of choice in Portland (if you don’t like Jefferson you can apply to get into Grant and then you need to find a way to get there) is MORE restrictive than a charter school is.

Let me address one other point, that I think is crucial as an educator who has worked in many different kinds of schools. Even in the best “well rounded” neighborhood schools, the learning tends to shoot toward the middle. The reason I believe that happens is that most schools don’t have a strong mission or focus. Of course we want all kids to learn, but without a strong vision or mission (other than the typical “Working for Excellence” kind of thing) you never really allow all kids to learn in a way that really works best for them and their families. You are trying to please everyone all the time, and from my experience that just means everything gets watered down.

One way that I think works, would be to have smaller “school within school” situations. So at a neighborhood school there may be several choices of how your kid learns. I think that choice and flexibility are crucial and that the way that education has been happening in this country for the past 100 years just doesn’t work anymore. There are so many different needs (language, style of learning, etc) that it just doesn’t fit into the way monolithic schools work.

When I worked in North Clackamas I was in the process of developing a “school within a school” to address this very issue. I wanted to create a place like Trillium (based on individual interests and democratic learning) that would be in one wing of a traditional school. At the time (6 years ago) the district was open to the idea. I ended up jumping ship and going with Trillium when it opened because I wasn’t interested in starting and running a school (I wanted to remain a teacher) but it was opening in my neighborhood.

6 years later there is no way I could open that type of school within a school in North Clackamas. The political climate just wouldn’t allow for it.

I know that charters, in general, are lambasted for a lot of reasons (many of which I agree with), but they are an attempt to make some changes to a very broken system (one that many of us who have been in it for some time (almost 15 years) realize might not be fixable.

I think that we need new ideas, fresh ways of educating kids, and charters provide one possible solution. Again, of all 50,000 kids in PPS, only about 1,000 go to charters. I think they get a lot of flack because it seems like it is “us” or the public school, and it doesn’t have to be that way. Trillium, as one of the largest charter schools in state, is working hard to create a charter school climate that addresses the types of concerns that you mentioned. I think that is a positive thing. We care about issues of poverty and equity, it is a founding principle that we have. If we can have that kind of vision, all charters can.

For instance, Ockley offers the SUN program, for free afterschool care. Trillium charges for afterschool care. A community school offers busing. Charters expect parents to have cars or arrange transportation. Community schools offer free breakfast and lunch. I don’t think all or even most charters do.

I am not blaming you personally for these realities, but they are realities that mean “choice” benefits wealthier and more sophisticated families far more than it does those who limited means. I mean this on an overall level, not aimed at Trillium, which deserves credit for reaching out to low income families.

I personally would much rather see stronger schools that are accessible to everyone, whether it is the Hispanic family down the street that has no car, to the white student that is homeless and living in a section 8 hotel and doesn’t just want free breakfast and lunch but needs it, to the longtime residents of a neighborhood who might have big families and not want to drive kids all over the place so everyone can get their needs met.

I think those things are far easier to obtain in solid, well-funded, well-rounded neighborhood schools than they are by fragmenting education into a variety of speciality schools.

I didn’t mean to imply that Ockley wasn’t working for most kids. Like any school it works for some and not for others. Frankly, I don’t know enough about the place to say much of anything. Last year I did have a student that was at Tubman for a short while and he didn’t care much for it, but his sister is fine there. This year I also have a few Tubman students who were a Tubman and didn’t feel successful or that their teachers understood them. Of course I will hear from the students it “isn’t” working for, more often then who it is working for. It sounds like your kids are feeling good about their experience, that is great.

I know that kids have left Trillium because it didn’t work for them. Part of the idea of charters is to give some choice to families to find places where they can feel successful.

As a charter school, Trillium has no desire to denigrate other public (or private schools). We don’t think we are better, but rather offer something different. I am a strong believer in public education and know that there are good teachers in all schools. Teachers who work hard, who care about their students and whose classes do amazing things. Trillium actually has interest in partnering up with neighboring schools to share ideas and support. One of the requirements of charters is to share what they do with other schools. At Trillium we do some innovative things and have a lot of flexibility to try new things.

Thanks