After reading Diane Ravitch's book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System I decided to research for myself the origin of the charter school movement. In her book she talks about how the first charter schools were supposed to be run by teachers for the benefit of their local school districts. It is truly amazing how this plan has thus far been skewed.

In order to find out about this in depth, I read what many consider to be the first major mentions of the idea of charter schools: Roy Budde's narrative of the "Education by Charter" idea and the following speech by then-president of the American Federation of Teachers, Al Shanker. Both discussed the idea that charter schools should have fewer restrictions placed on them, more control over curriculum-decisions, increased autonomy in budgetary decisions, and more. But the main difference between what was proposed then and what is happening now is who was running them and to what end.

Their explanations of charter schools revolve around teams of teacher leaders who take charge and craft proposals of schools-within-schools, to be run for 5-10 years, with their outcomes and positive changes to be brought back to the traditional school district. Budde proposes a 10 year cycle whereby "new blood" can make a significant difference quickly without waiting on the bureaucracy that inevitably exists in large school districts. Al Shanker's speech builds support for this idea as well.

It is a sad day, then, when I see almost the exact opposite of that taking place across the country, especially in Philadelphia. Instead of working to support their efforts, the School District of Philadelphia denied the teachers and parents at Creighton Elementary a chance to shape their futures. I experienced something similar when I worked at West Philadelphia High School three years ago.

Instead of creating an adversarial relationship with teachers and their unions, the School District of Philadelphia should look at the true origins of the charter school movement and bring teachers into the planning process, instead of larger corporate-style non-profits. Perhaps that would reduce animosity and bring back the long-term vision and morale we need.
shanker_charter_speech.pdf
File Size: 1115 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

budde_charter_proposal.pdf
File Size: 1739 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

 


Comments

06/19/2012 19:04

I'm so glad you shared your reflections on this, Brian. You have no idea how many charter school operators have no clue about this stuff, either. I would love to see a discussion between traditional public school and charter school leaders about these documents and about how we got where we are now and what the path ahead should look like.

Reply
Jeff
06/19/2012 20:20

Actually the vision for charter schools was that they be more responsive to their community. The realization was that diverse districts will likely have different educational needs, and offering parents a choice among them is a good idea.

Parents, advocates, and teachers coalesced behind the idea in Minnesota where the first charter was granted in 1992. The real idea, though -- and what this post fails to grasp -- is this: charter schools should be public schools run by independent groups free from other restrictions that govern traditional public schools.

As each state evaluated the concept, each state created different laws that would dictate the shape and form that charters took in that state. In California, for-profit companies can hold a charter. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, only "public, non-profit corporations" can hold a charter. Its board members are public officials subject to the ethics act. The school must demonstrate in an application how it will serve a unique constituency or provide more choice for its community. When granted a charter, the school must act according to law, that application, and its charter agreement with the chartering district.

So here is my point. Why should we be limited, as this post suggests, to schools run by teachers? If we acknowledge that we need diversity in the delivery of educational services, why would we try and dictate that each school should be run one particular way? Why are schools run exclusively by teachers any better off than schools run by experienced "corporate style" non-profits?

Reply
Brian Cohen
06/20/2012 18:40

Jeff,

The vision for charter definitely includes community involvement and I would not advocate for anything other than that.

However, when it comes to who should be running the schools, I would advocate that those with the most experience and knowledge base be the ones to run it. As a contrasting example, I would rather not go to a hospital run by its patients who have not gone to medical school.

And when you look at some of the management organizations running many charter schools, many are not performing well enough on state standards or they are not creating sustainable communities where teachers want to stick around and make a larger difference.

Reply
Jeff
06/20/2012 20:07

Agreed on the hospital. But I would venture that (I really don't know) most of our hospitals aren't failing us, in that they are failing to make us well. Many public schools are failing the students that attend them.

The grant of freedom to run a charter school necessarily means that there will be winners and losers. Some schools will do well and others (hopefully very few) won't. And those that don't do well can and will and have been closed.

The charter management organizations, in Philadelphia especially, have volunteered to take over the worst of the worst. Bottom of the barrel in terms of facilities, culture, and the student population that is the input to the system. It takes time to see turnaround in these areas. However, one area where the turnaround is instant is safety. I'm not armed with a statistic at the moment, but it is nothing short of a fact that schools run by CMOs are much safer than the schools they take over.

And, CMOs are not simply "businesses." Many folks in these organizations are veterans of public school administrations and districts, including a lot of teachers.

Regarding "sustainable communities." I think I understand the point. The question is why should we try to solve everything before we can solve anything? When it comes to educating the next generation in a safe environment we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Brian Cohen
06/20/2012 22:15

Jeff,

Re: hospitals. I would imagine what kind of metric you use to measure. If you compare the number of people who die in hospitals vs schools then we would probably advise AGAINST going to hospitals on a regular basis. Data is an easy beast to manipulate for your own purposes.

Case in point: many charter schools have high rates of attrition amongst the most needy students: English Language Learners, Special Education students, and behavioral issue students. If you remove these students from a school WHILE ALSO increasing funding for security staff and more adults in the building, there will most definitely be an increase in safety.

I am not saying SDP schools have gotten it completely right - but I can say from experience at West Philadelphia HS in 2008-2009, safety was not a concern of mine - teaching and learning was. If we could do it at a school that three years prior had police constantly coming into the building, why can we not do it now?

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply