Charter Schools

I've waited a very long time before writing about charters. Not sure why so long, maybe hoping for a non-conspiratory epiphany to my question, "Why Charter Schools?". I continue to grapple with the concept. Actually, I guess what I want to understand is why charters were even allowed in the first place. No. Even that's not my question. My question is, if they (you know who "they" are) really thought the charter concept could improve education, why not simply reform traditional public schools by adopting the perceived advantages offered by the charter concept. The questionable assumption long past debate is that our education system was not producing higher scores on international tests. It still isn't as of 2012 and that after 20 years of reform. Most research finds that charter schools and traditional public schools perform similarly. Another assumption, more verifiable, is that an education gap exists between children of less affluent families and those of more affluent families. Back to the question. What if we look at each perceived advantage and consider whether it could have been readily adopted by traditional public schools.

•  Operational autonomy: state and district waivers from procedural and administrative requirements such as staffing, curriculum, instructional approach, finances, length of the school day/year, discipline, etc. Wouldn't this be great? Maybe even no common core.


• More innovative and flexible (an obvious result of operational autonomy in general).


• Create a unique school culture. Already being done to some degree or more by the majority of traditional public schools.


• Parental choice (eliminate geographical boundaries). Combined with unique school culture, every public school could be a type magnet school.


• Create a competitive environment among schools (not sure why this is considered an advantage but would be unavoidable).


• Increase opportunity for poor kids and children of color. Costly yet doable. Charters haven't lived up to the promise.


• Less expensive. Not really when adjusted for services not performed; teacher unions, tenure, longevity, credentials, longer hours and turnover; selective enrollment; backfill policies; and donations (does the Gates fund contribute to poorer public schools?).


• Few or no unions. Probably not doable. Probably not advisable given that states without teacher collective bargaining laws tend to have lower levels of student achievement. Stronger teacher union states tend to have adequate overall funding levels. Stronger teacher union states tend to have fairer funding distributions. Stronger teacher union states tend to have more competitive teacher wages.


• No tenure. Obviously doable and in my opinion, advisable. However, concurrent with the elimination of tenure I believe that all teachers should be entitled to a presumption of continuous employment and dismissal only by due process. What I would add is a requirement for some form of profession self-regulatory body similar to the American Bar Association for lawyers and the American Medical Association for physicians.


• Smaller school/class size. Both tend to enhance student performance and are very doable but costly.


• No credentials needed. Ridiculous. If teaching is a true profession, which I believe it to be, there must be a right of passage and periodic recertification.

Another silly question: Once a district has converted to 100% charter schools are those schools now traditional public schools?

The Results Are In

There are good and bad urban public charter schools and there and good and bad urban non-charter public schools. Profound! Regardless of reformer and transformer interventions, mayoral control or not, instant principal and teacher schools, more money spent per student, more hours in the classroom, more alternative schools, less bureaucracy, less union interference, more firings and hirings, more school turn-arounds, closures and openings, and Arne's focus on whatever works, the infamous "gap" continues, whether it be the real or perceived gap between the our and other advanced nations' students or between disadvantaged and not-so-disadvantaged students. (Phew, and I surely missed a number of experiments.) So what does work? Why exactly do some school do better than others that yields significantly better test scores? And should the goal be to equalize test scores, assuming that tests are good indicators of student potential as well as current knowledge? Probably not. I think the best we can do is strive to equalize education opportunity.

It could be that the "no excuses" schools are on the right path but I'm also inclined to agree with the notion that "our urban public schools cannot succeed unless health, social and employment issues are addressed" (see Jay Mathews blog). My thoughts on this turn to basic management theory. Many will remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid: simply put, the majority of lower level needs (physiological, safety, love/belonging and esteem) must be met before one can experience self-actualization. As Deborah Meier observed

The poor kids I encountered in kindergarten were accustomed to more formal and more consistent good manners—whether it was in how to address their elders or how to dress properly. They were less whiney and more obedient.

Children of the poor get tougher and more unmannerly slowly. In time, they lose respect for authority. Perhaps because adults are rarely able (or willing) to protect them. Maybe because many public authorities quite openly treat them and their families disrespectfully. Over time, they come to depend on “the streets” and their “peer culture” for safety...

When children of the poor realize that their lower level needs are not being met, they begin to seek satisfaction elsewhere, usually from within a culture that does not place much value on education. Obviously a small percentage of urban poor children achieve educational self-actualization in spite of their communities and economic circumstances. I will bet that these children are somehow experiencing a greater degree of basic needs satisfaction than the majority as well as being indoctrinated with the no excuses concept.