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?

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.”

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.

*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.