The Big Picture on Charter Schools in N/NE Portland
by Zarwen, January 10th, 2008It all started with this comment right here on this blog:
“You know, Hockeygod, it just struck me that something missing from your latest edition of the map are the CHARTER SCHOOLS. How many of THOSE are in the red zone???”
As regular visitors know, Steve’s red-and-green maps unleashed a firestorm of debate about the district’s transfer policy and equity in the schools. Most of the debate has centered on the neighborhood-to-neighborhood transfer issue, which has probably been exacerbated in the parts of town, especially North and inner Northeast, that have been hardest hit with neighborhood school closures. These same parts of town, interestingly enough, are now home to more charter schools, former charter schools, and charter school proposals than any other part of town. Hence the map with the color-coded dots. If you look at where schools were closed and where charters were opened, you might just question whether it’s all coincidence. For purposes of this article, I will be focusing primarily on the Jefferson and Roosevelt Cluster areas.
A quick rundown on the closed neighborhood schools in those areas, which are represented by red dots on the map:
- Kennedy School (K-8), 5736 NE 33rd. Closed in 1975. Sold to the McMenamins in the 1990’s.
- Columbia School (K-8 until 1969, then 4-8), 716 NE Marine Dr. First closed in 1978. Reopened from 1981-83 for grades 6-8. Then used from 1983-86 as temporary housing for students whose neighborhood schools were being renovated. It has since been used as district offices and a county-run alternative high school.
- Adams High School, 5700 NE 39th. First closed in June 1981, but reopened in 1983 as Whitaker Middle School. Closed again in 2001 when the building was condemned due to environmental hazards. Children were dispersed to “Whitaker Lakeside” (see below) and Rice Elementary Schools, neither of which was particularly close by the condemned site. (Had Kennedy not been sold, it would have been the nearest and most sensible choice.) Adams was torn down last year; the District is planning to sell off a portion of the land.
- Meek Elementary, 4039 NE Albert Ct. Closed in 2003. Has since been remodeled and reopened as Joseph Meek Technical High School, the current incarnation of Vocational Village School (which, interestingly enough, previously occupied another closed elementary, Glenhaven, on NE 82nd Ave. That location was sold to a veterinary practice!).
- “Old” Whitaker (originally K-8), 5135 NE Columbia Blvd. First closed in 1981 and children relocated to Columbia School (see above); leased to MESD for an alternative HS until it was reopened in 2001 as “Whitaker Lakeside” (6-8), due to the condemnation of the “new” Whitaker (see above). Closed again in 2005, when students were “consolidated” at Ockley Green, over 4 miles away. Currently the home of an alternative HS once again, this one operated by NAYA, a social services agency for Native Americans. The Oregonian reported that NAYA intends to buy the building within the next three years.
- Kenton Elementary, 7528 N. Fenwick. Closed in 2005. Now a Catholic high school via long-term lease, which is why it is shown with two different colored dots on the map.
- Applegate Elementary, 7650 N. Commercial. Closed in 2005. The District claims to be looking for a tenant but declined offers from at least two charter schools.
- Eliot School (K-8), 2231 N. Flint. First closed in 1984; children sent to Boise, which we know as Boise-Eliot today. Remodeled and reopened in 1985 for the relocation of Harriet Tubman Middle School, a neighborhood/magnet hybrid, which had been temporarily sited at the current da Vinci Middle School from 1980-85. Closed again in June 2007 and reopened in September as an all-girls 6-12 focus option academy.
- Clarendon Elementary, 9325 N. Van Houten. Closed in June 2007.
*Humboldt was also targeted for closure in the recent past; concerned citizens lobbied successfully to keep it open, but the District is now talking about absorbing it into the Jefferson campus. (Didn’t we ring around that rosy back in 2005 when Vicki Phillips proposed making Jeff into a 7-12 school and parents overwhelmingly rejected the idea?)
The reason given for all of the above closures was “declining enrollment.” I acknowledge that a few on the list are not recent, but I believe that the fallout from those closures of decades ago is still with us today, so that is why I have included them here.
And now a rundown of the charter schools in this area, represented by black dots:
- McCoy Academy (6-12), 3802 NE MLK Blvd. Formerly a private alternative school before reopening as a charter in 2000. Closed in 2002 for failing to fulfill its charter.
- Trillium K-12, 5420 N. Interstate Ave. Opened in 2002.
- Self-Enhancement Inc. Academy 6-8, 3920 N. Kerby. Opened in 2004.
- Portland Village Public Charter K-8, 7654 N. Delaware. Opened in 2007.
- Ivy School 1-8, 4212 NE Prescott. Application recently rejected by the Portland School Board; future uncertain. Organized by board members of a private Montessori school located around the corner from the proposed Ivy site.
- New Harvest K-12, 7025 N Lombard. Application recently rejected by the Portland School Board; future uncertain.
*Although two proposed charter schools listed above have been rejected by the school board, they do have the right to appeal to the State Department of Education; I do not know whether either group has plans to do so. I would be grateful for any responses to this piece that include updates on these proposed charters. The addresses given here for those schools represent their proposed locations.
**The former Victory Middle School charter, sponsored by the State Department of Education, was located at 4824 NE 20th Ave. from 2003-2006. Like McCoy Academy, its charter was revoked due to lack of fulfillment. (Details may be found here.) While the Portland School Board deserves credit for repeatedly denying Victory’s charter applications, I am making mention of Victory because of its contribution (along with the other charters listed, as well as numerous other factors that deserve articles of their own) to the demise of neighborhood schools in this area.
The green dots on the map represent private schools; I asked Steve to include them here as a reflection of the local school-aged population, school closures notwithstanding. While it is true that private and charter schools do not have a limited catchment area as neighborhood schools do, it is also true that the majority of any school’s enrollment will come from within a 3-mile radius. With that in mind, what was the rationale for opening 4 schools (6 if you count the Catholic school at Kenton and the NAYA school at Old Whittaker) in the same area you closed 9? Obviously there must be some children in those neighborhoods that need schools nearby! (What was that about “declining enrollment” again?)
Other rationales might be discerned in how charter schools differ from neighborhood schools (and most other public schools):
- Charter schools can set their own admissions criteria and thereby select their student bodies. Neighborhood schools must accept all children who live within their catchment areas, regardless of abilities or needs.
- Charter schools are allowed to deviate from curricula established by the local school district as long as they outline their plans in their charters. Their “success rate” is then measured against the charters.
- Charter schools are funded at 80% of the per-pupil rate of other public schools. The charter is expected to fundraise or do without the other 20%, which the school district is allowed to keep. Thus, they are cheaper to run than regular public schools.
- At other public schools, all teachers must be certified by the state. At charter schools, only 50% of the teaching staff must be certified; the school can set its own hiring criteria for the other half. So, theoretically, half the teachers at charter schools don’t even have to be high school graduates.
- The employees of a charter school are not required to join the local union that represents all similar employees in the district. (This affects not only teachers but also secretaries, custodians, etc.) Therefore, the charter school is not required to honor any union contracts in effect in the district. Consequently, charter school employees are usually paid less than their counterparts and may not have benefits such as sick leave or health insurance.
This last point leads me to my charge of union busting. Take a look at the map: close 9 neighborhood schools, open 4 charters, have union-free schools and save $ because half the charter teachers don’t have to be certified and will work for peanuts. Do it in the part of town where (you assume) people are least likely to protest. To be fair, the way the state law governing charter schools is written makes it difficult for the District to say no—and the state can overrule them when they do, as they did with Victory and Southwest Charters (see above and below).
Now, I am not a conspiracy theorist (as a few have charged), nor do I think that charters should be banned. As with most programs, individual charters may be the best match for some children and their families, and I firmly believe they deserve a place, right along with focus options, alternative schools, and other programs that do not fit into the neighborhood school model. In other words, I believe that charters, like focus options and alternative schools, should be supplements to, not replacements for, neighborhood schools. What concerns me is how many of these charters have been crammed into one part of town right on the heels of multiple neighborhood school closures and upheaval within the remaining schools. It’s hard not to consider, even if only for a moment, that PPS was using “declining enrollment” as an excuse to close union schools and replace them with non-union schools.
The parents who are helping organize these charters probably don’t even realize that they’re party to any union-busting, because all they are thinking about is getting a school back in their neighborhood to replace the one they lost, and opening a charter gives them a means to do that. For further evidence, consider these: Leadership and Entrepreneurship Public Charter High School (LEP) at 2044 E. Burnside is near the former Washington-Monroe HS, which was sold for condos in 2007. Over on westside, there’s the new, state-sponsored Southwest Charter elementary, spearheaded by a group of families from the now-closed Smith School. (They wanted to lease the Smith building, but the district refused; that building is still empty today.) And in Southeast, you’ll find the Arthur Academy Charter elementary halfway between the now-closed Wilcox and Youngson Schools. (Youngson was later reopened for special ed. programs; Wilcox is leased to an alternative program.) Prior to Arthur Academy, the same building housed the Garden Laboratory Charter, which lasted only one year. Lastly, the PPS School Board recently rejected a new charter application for inner Southeast, not far from the now-closed Edwards School (which is currently leased to MESD for a Head Start program). And it’s not even confined to Portland; check out this story from Lincoln County.
I should add that PPS is not new at union-busting activity. Back in the 90’s, both Jefferson and Humboldt were “reconstituted” in violation of the teachers’ contract. And in 2003, PPS teachers agreed to work 10 days for free just so they could keep their health insurance benefits intact. I believe it was that same year that the custodians’ jobs were outsourced. This last issue has recently made the news again because the District is adding insult to injury with their abominable “negotiations” of the custodians’ contract. Whether we want to face it or not, charter schools provide a convenient way for the District to weaken the unions in the name of saving money and offering more “choices” to families that can manage the logistics.
Now, there are plenty of folks out there who are probably thinking that weakening the unions is a good thing. For that matter, why not just do away with them altogether? Think of the money that could be saved on wages and benefits, money that could be used to hire more teachers and shrink class sizes, just the way the charters are doing! I’d like to take these folks for a walk down memory lane:
Teaching did not become a unionized profession until the 1960’s: rather recently compared to many other fields. Prior to then, the teaching force was comprised almost completely of women (it is still majority women today, but a smaller majority), not because women are collectively better at teaching or like it better, but because a man could not support a family on a teacher’s salary then. Teachers of the pre-union era had little in the way of health or pension benefits unless they were married to someone else who had some. They didn’t even get a real lunch break because they were expected to eat with and supervise the children during the lunch period. They could be fired for getting pregnant. For that matter, they could be fired without cause or due process. I could go on, but I hope you all get the idea.
So, to all of you anti-union folks out there, I’d like to say, GET REAL! How many college graduates would be willing to work under such conditions today? The fact that teachers now make a living wage, health benefits and pensions is directly due to union advocacy nationwide. When charters start having difficulty hiring college-educated, state-certified teachers, maybe they’ll persuade the state to reduce the requirement from 50% to 40%. Over time it could be reduced to 30%, 20% and so on. In the meantime, unions will have ever greater difficulty bargaining for living wages and benefits because the public will be saying that it just costs too much, and if the charter school teachers don’t need that much money, why should anyone?
The current proliferation of union-free charter schools has opened the door to send the teaching profession on a U-turn to the 1930’s. Is this the direction in which we want to send the teaching profession in the future? No living wages even with a college education, no job security, no benefits? Is that the message we want to send to today’s children who might want to grow up to be teachers?
Didn’t think so. And, finally, it looks as if the Portland School Board might be starting to agree. They rejected the last four charter applications they reviewed.
Zarwen is a parent, taxpayer, former teacher, and frequent commenter on education blogs.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Thank you for this excellent, insightful post and incredible map! A picture is worth a thousand words.
Zarwen your analysis of union busting in Portland Public Schools, and particularly in Jeff Cluster, is right on.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Zarwen, excellent work. It’s what we all suspected, but to see it laid out like that — and to get the history — was great.
I especially appreciate the Whitaker-Lakeside history, I’ve always wondered about the specifics.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Zarwen-
Brilliant analyis Zarwen. I would add that there are people and institutions that are VERY conscious about privatization and union-busting. Foundations like Broad Foundation and Gates and their henchmen (henchpeople?) like PPS’s Cathy Mincberg, Paul Hill, and Don McAdams are explicit about their intent to destroy public education. Mincberg is now an administrator at PPS and Hill and Mc Adams have consulted with PPS for years. School districts all over the country are facing the same or worse.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Thank you all for your kind words.
I just caught an error in the text, so here is the correction: Washington-Monroe High School was sold for condos LAST year, not this year. Obviously, I wrote most of this piece last year!
January 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am
There can be no doubt that as the district’s open transfer policy has allowed enrollment to bleed out of our north-side neighborhoods, charter and private schools have jumped in to fill the gap.
It is disingenuous for the district to blame district-wide enrollment trends for the disproportionate program cuts and school closures experienced here.
(I fixed the Washington-Monroe sale date in the original post, by the way.)
January 10th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
It’s Delurking Day today… so comment, already!
January 11th, 2008 at 6:34 am
SHAME ON YOU!
Your map is incredibly misleading. You show 3 charter schools that aren’t even in operation. They don’t fit under your classification of “charter schools in the area” because…they aren’t there. Hence the map with the color-coded dots is bogus.
Also, you obviously misplaced your copy of the Oregon Charter School Handbook while doing your research. It states that all teachers that are not licensed must be registered, which requires a Bachelor’s degree to fulfill the NCLB requirements.
You have also not considered (or pondered publicly here):
1) The number of private school students and out-of-staters a charter school like the Portland Village School (Waldorf) attracts.
2) Allowing Smith and Applegate to open as a charter school would cause an uproar.
3) The financial issues of aging schools which play a factor in schools closing.
4) Magnet schools in Portland and where all the cool one’s are located (language immersion, Odyssey, etc.) They’re not on you map.
5) And let’s not forget what’s most important (which you as a former teacher are probably aware of)- not all students thrive/meet benchmark in a typical (public) classroom setting. Charter and magnet schools provide options for parents and students.
Bottom line: your “analysis” is merely a vomiting of information.
January 11th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I changed my mind. Stay in the closet, dudes.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:28 am
The text is very clear about which schools are still in operation. The map is just an illustration.
One of the main thrusts of Zarwen’s article is that the district has used “declining enrollment” as an excuse to close neighborhood schools in North and Northeast. The proliferation of private schools and charter proposals, even if rejected or closed for failure to fulfill their charters, demonstrates that PPS school closures have left a void in this part of town.
The truth is that most of the decline in enrollment in the poorer parts of Portland are due to out-transfers to other neighborhoods under the district’s radical open transfer policy, not demographics. These are, in fact, the neighborhoods predicted to gain the most school-aged population over the next decade.
Turbulence in PPS leadership and short-sighted PPS policy have put us on a collision course with reality that the charter school movement isn’t going to solve. We need strong, comprehensive neighborhood schools in all of our neighborhoods, not just the white, middle class ones.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Dave,
Thanks for the info on “registration” of non-licensed teachers. That is news to me. However, the charter schools law was passed before NCLB was passed, so I am wondering now whether any of those “registered” folks could have been grandfathered in? And if so, are they receiving financial assistance from the feds or the state to take the necessary coursework?
Concerning the rest of your comments: I think you missed the point of why I wrote the article, as you have a long list of things I haven’t “pondered publicly .” The reason I didn’t “publicly ponder” them is that they are off-topic, with the exception of #5, which I DID “publicly ponder” when I wrote, “As with most programs, individual charters may be the best match for some children and their families, and I firmly believe they deserve a place, right along with focus options, alternative schools, and other programs that do not fit into the neighborhood school model.” (It’s in the second paragraph after the summary of how charters are different from other public schools.)
Lastly, I never presented this article as an “analysis”; that moniker came from other readers. “Vomiting of information” strikes me as excessively graphic but nevertheless accurate.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Interesting analysis, Zarwen. There is a lot to contemplate there. I do think that the point Dave made (even if he was fairly obnoxious in the tone he used to make it) about the financial impact of aging buildings is relevant, only because it has been used as a rationale by the district in closing schools (although usually in a subsidiary position to the “declining schools” charge).
And because I think it could be used very successfully to defend against the charge by the district’s lawyers…
January 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Roger,
Thanks for your comment. I don’t dispute that aging buildings have a financial impact, only that it is not germane to the substance of this piece. Certainly that factor deserves an article of its own, esp. with the “Reshaping Schools” business PPS is currently undertaking. I wanted to write about how school closures (regardless of WHY they closed) leave holes in neighborhoods that charters (and private schools) are springing up to fill.
What is “the charge by the district’s lawyers”?
January 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Sorry, I needed a comma there. The lawyers are the ones who will be doing the defending. The “charge” is your assertion that union-busting might be the motivation for the closing-then-chartering cycle.
The more I think about that charge (you did ask us to think about it, right?), the more I get stuck on one point: who is the actor or actors? Ignoring the closures from the 80s, you can narrow it down to a period from 2000-2007. That was a period with famous turnover in the superintendent’s office, and the school board. In the middle of it, we do have Vicki, but she couldn’t have been directing the closures and charters prior to her reign.
If this is indicative of union-busting, it would have to have been a coordinated effort over a 7-year period, a period which also includes (as you note) the emergence of a board whose policies toward charters would run counter to that coordinated effort.
Perhaps there is an actor, either a consultant or a high-level bureaucrat, who developed and orchestrated this plan. I’d posit that in order to convince people that union-busting was the organizing principle at work here, you need to propose either someone, or some office or entity within PPS, who would have been able to do so.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Roger,
Isn’t this where the guys in the smoke-filled back rooms come in?
As far as an “entity” goes, we could consider the Real Estate Trust. They certainly have a hand in closing down schools. I don’t know if they have any involvement concerning charters, but they have had great influence over the school board in the recent past. And there are some parents who are looking for another wave of closures in 2009-10 as part of the fallout from “Reshaping Schools.”
January 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Is there any other evidence that the Real Estate Trust would have a specific desire to bust the teacher’s union? It makes sense that they would want to churn parcels of land, but for reasons that don’t require busting the union.
Plus, we’d have to concede that if they did have the influence over the school board, that influence has slipped, since getting a charter past the board has become much more difficult as of late.
Or maybe they’ve just become distracted.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
You are right, land turnover does not require union busting. But, as noted in the article, past school boards and superintendents engaged in union busting wholeheartedly back in the ’90’s. It may not have been on the RET’s agenda, but the RET’s activities provided others with a new union busting opportunity.
DON’T think that RET’s influence over the Board has slipped. I can smell them all over this “Reshaping Schools” business.
January 13th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Speaking of “Reshaping Schools,” & apologies for drifting a little off topic . . . But, is anyone else as puzzled as I am that PPS is Paying the same people who want to get big bucks by designing our new school to make presentations and “sell” their ideas to us? I don’t have any problem with them advertising their business. But, usually people Pay to advertise, not Get Paid to do it. How much can you trust a “Consultant” who tells you, “Oh yes, your old schools gotta go, and I just happen to be in the business of designing. You need me to design them.” (??)
January 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Not puzzled, just disgusted. As far as I am concerned, that is just more business-as-usual at PPS.
January 13th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I am disgusted, too, …every time I think about that million dollars pocketed by Magellan and then take a walk down the hallway to my classroom where huge gaping holes let rain water drip in. My kindergarteners are now afraid to go to the bathroom because they are convinced bats have taken up residence inside the “hole.” Activists that they are, they decided to write letters to animal control and the principal about the situation last week. So far I think the bats exist only in their imaginations. The holes are for real, though. That million dollars would have made it possible to fix a roof that has been leaking on and off for years now.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
You know, I have a theory that if PPS cancelled all the CONSULTANTS’ CONTRACTS we wouldn’t need a bond to rehabilitate our schools!
January 14th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
On a quasi-related note, I was talking with a charter school parent today. Among the reasons he enrolled his son at a charter was the physical condition of some of the other schools he considered.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I share many of your concerns about PPS. However, in the interest of full-disclosure, I like charter schools. I also like accurate information, so here goes:
*how charter schools differ from neighborhood schools (and most other public schools):
*Charter schools can set their own admissions criteria and thereby select their student bodies. Neighborhood schools must accept all children who live within their catchment areas, regardless of abilities or needs.
THIS IS NOT TRUE. The ONLY criteria charter schools can use is AGE and GRADE. Period. It’s simply not true that they can use any other criteria. It’s illegal. Charters must accept all who apply, unless the #’s of interested kids exceed available space, in which case they must hold an equitable lottery.
*Charter schools are allowed to deviate from curricula established by the local school district as long as they outline their plans in their charters. Their “success rate” is then measured against the charters.
FALSE. Charter schools are legally required to use all Oregon state standards, to have curriculum aligned to those standards, to fully participate in the state assessment system, meet AYP, have HQ teachers, etc. They are not exempt from any of these critical pieces.
*Charter schools are funded at 80% of the per-pupil rate of other public schools. The charter is expected to fundraise or do without the other 20%, which the school district is allowed to keep. Thus, they are cheaper to run than regular public schools.
FALSE. It’s true that districts keep an “administrative rate” for schools they do not operate and kids they do not educate. How fair is that? Charter schools receive 80% of the SSF for kids in grade k-8 and 95% for kids in 9-12. This DOES NOT mean they receive 80/95% of the funds that kids in district schools receive, because the SSF is only ONE pot of money that districts receive. In Portland, charters receive HALF the per-pupil funds that district schools receive. Around the state, charters receive one-third to one-half the state/federal/local funds that districts receive.
*At other public schools, all teachers must be certified by the state. At charter schools, only 50% of the teaching staff must be certified; the school can set its own hiring criteria for the other half. So, theoretically, half the teachers at charter schools don’t even have to be high school graduates.
FALSE. Charter school staff must be HQ. So, those w/o TSPC licenses must have bachelor’s degrees, pass subject-matter tests, etc. It is not possible for even one (let alone half) charter school teacher to be a high school drop-out. By the way, the licensure and HQ rates for charters (last school year) was THE SAME AS the state-wide average licensure and HQ rate.
*The employees of a charter school are not required to join the local union that represents all similar employees in the district. (This affects not only teachers but also secretaries, custodians, etc.) Therefore, the charter school is not required to honor any union contracts in effect in the district. Consequently, charter school employees are usually paid less than their counterparts and may not have benefits such as sick leave or health insurance.
It’s true that union participation is VOLUNTARY rather than MANDATORY. Many people think this is a good thing. Why should someone be FORCED to be in a union? Charter school staff must (legally) receive PERS, and most have medical and other benefits. Also, the salaries are higher in some charters and lower in others…and I’m not aware of any charter that would resist paying their teachers more if they received the same level of public funding that traditional schools receive.
Also, PPS is not a fan of charter schools. If the board could deny them all and refuse any future proposals, it would, in a heart-beat. PPS doesn’t agree to sponsor charters because they like them, but because state law (ORS Chapter 338) requires them to consider charter proposal and stipulates the criteria they must use in deciding whether or not to sponsor. So, if you want a ban on charter schools anywhere in this state, that would require a Legislative action.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:25 am
I have mixed feelings about charters. I think My Little Pony does a good job here of countering many of the arguments made against them.
But there’s a big difference between locally-controlled, parent-run, not-for-profit charters like we see in PPS and corporate, for-profit charters like Edison Schools, Inc. and McCharters like the KIPP schools. You can read about Edison here and KIPP here.
Ideally, charters were envisioned as institutions that would offer alternative approaches to education and would actively involve parents and the community. I think this model is very useful, especially in light of the top-down, cookie-cutter approach we see in PPS today.
There’s also a big picture issue here which I’d be interested in getting your take on, My Little Pony.
While what you say is technically accurate RE: enrollment, the truth of the matter is that PPS charters tend to draw a disproportionate percentage of middle-class white people.
Unlike the local neighborhood school, charters are not the default schooling option for students and parents. So parents have to find out about the charters in their district. This winnows the field of applicants down considerably. Once they find out about the charters in their district, parents have to attend an informational meeting about the school. This further winnows the field down. Charters often require parents to sign some kind of agreement, e.g., to help at the school, to help with their kids homework, etc. This winnows the field down even further. Then, because the charters are often not in the neighborhood, parents and students have to travel — some times long distances — to get to the school. You guessed it: this winnows the field down still further.
So although charters are technically open to everyone, the way they are set up tends to limit the field of applicants to parents who have extra time on their hands and who are very motivated, involved, mobile, and informed. There’s a good chunk of research that shows that parental involvement is the number one factor for kids succeeding in school. Give me a bunch of parents who have extra time on their hands and who are very motivated, involved, mobile, and informed and I will show you a good school.
So, yes, they are open to all. But not all come. Why not?
I don’t blame the charters for this. But it is a conundrum that needs serious attention.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Thank you to My Little Pony for his/her corrections. However, I stand by the statement about charter schools receiving 80% of the per-pupil funding allotment because that part is TRUE. Furthermore, my assertion that charters are cheaper for the district to run is also true, as is the fact that charters can choose to fundraise on their own. The fact that the charters do not receive federal funding is not germane to this point.
MLP went on to make statements about charters and unions, but I am unclear on what the point was, since he/she could not slap a “FALSE” label on that.
“PPS is not a fan of charter schools. . . .”
What information do you have to support this statement?
“So, if you want a ban on charter schools anywhere in this state, . . . .”
I don’t know who you are talking to here; I believe I was clear when I wrote “. . . NOR do I think that charters should be banned.”
January 19th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I would also like to remind “Dave” and “My Little Pony” and anyone else reading this post:
The conditions requiring higher education for non-certified charter teachers are stipulated by No Child Left Behind, which will sunset in the near future. At this time, renewal of the law is uncertain. If it is not renewed, what is to prevent less-qualified (and lower-paid) personnel from taking teaching positions in charter schools?
January 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
If you are not reinforcing your childs strengths and developing them as a parent than this discussion is wanton. I am not saying for the parent to force their beliefs on what the childs talents could be, but recognizing what they really have as natural talents. My point, the parent is the first front on teaching your child…The school has become very secondary and sublime. Even for private, charter, public, or any other education you want. You must have drive to learn on your own. Mentor mentor mentor with what you want to do in life.
We all know what….so what if….what if there was no such thing as schools. Who would educate our child? Probably the master builder in that specific area. Or maybe is a parent recognized their childs true talents, they may become the master in that area. \
With that all hail Kelly Tillman…way to goooooooo
February 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
If you like Charters your going to love vouchers.