Submitted by Chuck Robbins (not verified) on September 27, 2006 - 21:56.
I currently teach, and have taught for the last 12 years at a suburban district-sponsored charter high school in Northern California. Previously, I taught at a traditional school in our district, and prior to that at a rural Catholic high school and an inner-city high school in San Francisco. (And my own children have attended both parochial and public schools.) Our school's relationship with the rest of our district has been an interesting, and at times, contentious dance. But both sides have persevered, and students have benefitted.
Many of the postings speak about the wide range of quality among public charter schools (yes, charter schools ARE public schools). That is absolutely dead-on; but it's equally dead-on about traditional public schools as well (and private schools, for that matter). DV Edgar (8/31/06) notes the , "The charter schools who are successful have a strong, well-educated, committed administrative team who excel at creative problem solving." That is also an accurate comment about traditional public schools, except that often good administrators are legally prohibited from "creative problem solving" - which makes their task even more difficult. Charter school success could be/should be used by the traditional education establishment to lobby for some of the "deregulation" which Dr. Soto (9/4/06) advocates, rather than attempting to pull charters back into the same box.
Another comment in the postings, which I regularly hear is that charters can pick and choose their students. In California, at least that is not true. Charters may be designed to service a defined type of student (i.e. performing arts), but more often than not, charters are intended to serve students who are currently perfoming poorly academically in the traditional setting. To my knowledge, there has been no "flight" of gifted students to charter schools on a statewide or national basis. Indeed, most charters that have been revoked, have been closed because of poor academic performance.
And yes, charters can "require volunteer hours...abide by a behavior and/or academic contracts...and have strict attendance requirements" along the lines of a private school. In California "the intent of the Legislature [was]...to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure," it makes sense that charters be allowed to operate differently. That they will be allowed to use some of the student accountability tools that have contributed to the success of private schools.
Finally, many of the negative comments about charter schools are about the alleged lack of school accountability. In California, charter schools must demonstrate fiscal, educational (including testing results) and managerial competence, not just when they are initially chartered, or when up for official renewal, but every year. And not to an objective third party, but to a potentially hostile chartering district that may have a vested interest in discrediting and shutting down a charter school. Chartering districts can shut a charter down litterally within months or weeks, during a school year. That is accountability with teeth. On the other hand, a school district that is making "poor use of taxpayer monies" can go three years with a non-performing budget, or any number of years with poor academic performance before a state conservator might be appointed.
I am not of the opinion that charter schools are "the answer". I'm not sure that there is "the answer." The issue is complex and evolving. There may need to be a variety of answers to meet a variety of student needs. But our current educational system is antiquated. It is based on an Agrarian (summer vacation) - Industrial (large "factory" schools) Model. Charters are one effort to create Information Age Schools; like the Internet, such endeavors will inevitably be out ahead of law. And also like the Internet, instead of trying to make charters conform to Ed Code that does not fit them, why doesn't the educational establishment creatively problem solve (the way they want students to do) to create appropriate structures for a new dynamic? Probably a better use of resources than arguing about whether change is good. Change is here whether the educational establishment believes it or not. Just ask Ford and GM about that one.
I currently teach, and have
Submitted by Chuck Robbins (not verified) on September 27, 2006 - 21:56.
I currently teach, and have taught for the last 12 years at a suburban district-sponsored charter high school in Northern California. Previously, I taught at a traditional school in our district, and prior to that at a rural Catholic high school and an inner-city high school in San Francisco. (And my own children have attended both parochial and public schools.) Our school's relationship with the rest of our district has been an interesting, and at times, contentious dance. But both sides have persevered, and students have benefitted.
Many of the postings speak about the wide range of quality among public charter schools (yes, charter schools ARE public schools). That is absolutely dead-on; but it's equally dead-on about traditional public schools as well (and private schools, for that matter). DV Edgar (8/31/06) notes the , "The charter schools who are successful have a strong, well-educated, committed administrative team who excel at creative problem solving." That is also an accurate comment about traditional public schools, except that often good administrators are legally prohibited from "creative problem solving" - which makes their task even more difficult. Charter school success could be/should be used by the traditional education establishment to lobby for some of the "deregulation" which Dr. Soto (9/4/06) advocates, rather than attempting to pull charters back into the same box.
Another comment in the postings, which I regularly hear is that charters can pick and choose their students. In California, at least that is not true. Charters may be designed to service a defined type of student (i.e. performing arts), but more often than not, charters are intended to serve students who are currently perfoming poorly academically in the traditional setting. To my knowledge, there has been no "flight" of gifted students to charter schools on a statewide or national basis. Indeed, most charters that have been revoked, have been closed because of poor academic performance.
And yes, charters can "require volunteer hours...abide by a behavior and/or academic contracts...and have strict attendance requirements" along the lines of a private school. In California "the intent of the Legislature [was]...to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure," it makes sense that charters be allowed to operate differently. That they will be allowed to use some of the student accountability tools that have contributed to the success of private schools.
Finally, many of the negative comments about charter schools are about the alleged lack of school accountability. In California, charter schools must demonstrate fiscal, educational (including testing results) and managerial competence, not just when they are initially chartered, or when up for official renewal, but every year. And not to an objective third party, but to a potentially hostile chartering district that may have a vested interest in discrediting and shutting down a charter school. Chartering districts can shut a charter down litterally within months or weeks, during a school year. That is accountability with teeth. On the other hand, a school district that is making "poor use of taxpayer monies" can go three years with a non-performing budget, or any number of years with poor academic performance before a state conservator might be appointed.
I am not of the opinion that charter schools are "the answer". I'm not sure that there is "the answer." The issue is complex and evolving. There may need to be a variety of answers to meet a variety of student needs. But our current educational system is antiquated. It is based on an Agrarian (summer vacation) - Industrial (large "factory" schools) Model. Charters are one effort to create Information Age Schools; like the Internet, such endeavors will inevitably be out ahead of law. And also like the Internet, instead of trying to make charters conform to Ed Code that does not fit them, why doesn't the educational establishment creatively problem solve (the way they want students to do) to create appropriate structures for a new dynamic? Probably a better use of resources than arguing about whether change is good. Change is here whether the educational establishment believes it or not. Just ask Ford and GM about that one.