This idea is not original to me, it is something I have gleamed after reading weeks upon weeks of comments on the NCS expansion project. While the concept is not mine, I have chosen to expound on the idea and the benefits it would have on Delaware's educational landscape:
Along the way, 15 years into Charter creation, we have lost sight of the original intention of Delaware's charter law. These schools were to be incubators of innovation. Yes, that tired word, innovation, used long before Arne Duncan poisoned it with RTTT. THE EXPERIMENT IS OVER. Charter school perform on average about average with "regular" public schools. There are pockets of success. NCS exemplifies that success as does Downes Elementary, West Park Elementary, Gallaher Elementary, the list of CSD schools succeeding goes on and on.
It's time for new Charter Legislation, had the law been amended in the following ways before NCS went to seek it's latest expansion could have eliminated the entire debate before it started. NCS within DOE's established standards has developed an award-winning model that they claim is NOT impacted by their demographics. Our next set of Charter Legislation then must enforce the logical next step for those charter schools who seek expansion - SUCCEEDING CHARTER SCHOOLS MUST BE COMPELLED BY LAW TO ADOPT AND OPERATE A FAILING TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL AND INSTITUTE THEIR SUCCESSFUL MODEL. PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS MUST BE COMPELLED BY LAW TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS. PARTICIPATING CHARTERS WHO ENGAGE A TRADITIONAL FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOL SHALL BE ENTICED WITH RECEIVING THE FULL FUNDING FOR THE SCHOOL INCLUDING CAPITAL FUNDING (ALTHOUGH THAT FUNDING MUST BE RESTRICTED TO USE AT THE SITE THAT GENERATES THAT FUNDING.) IN ACCEPTING THE FULL GENERATED FUNDING, THE CHARTER OPERATOR TAKE FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL STUDENTS and ACHIEVEMENT OF THE NEWLY ACQUIRED SCHOOL...
Yes, it's time to test the results and this seems like the only logical and sound way to do it. When successful charter schools are compelled to adopt a failing school two things can happen: First, all children in the failing school are exposed to the successful model. Secondly, the effects of charter school competition are decreased - children of parents for whom choice is truly an option are not expedited out of the school district. There are no lottery winners. And there are no losers. All children win, not just the select few whose parents are able to negotiate the barriers to school choice such as transportation (hub stops), subsidized lunch (traditional public schools have operating cafeterias and are already approved for the federal free and reduced lunch program), the pressure to participate in fundraising (which many low income families cannot do) is decreased b/c the legislation would permit charter operators in traditional schools to access capital funding. This is the winning scenario and this is the message we should be providing to our children - that when adults work together and share resources, students achieve. This is what should happen before charter schools are permitted to expand their physical plant and facilities and further dilute the student pool. This strategy also decreases the likelihood for facility glut - under-enrolled buildings that carry the same operating expenses as fully enrolled buildings. This will also reduce the number of properties being rezone out of the commercial class and into exempt status for education mitigating the growing tax revenue loss of expansion.
Yes, Delaware and local legislators, it is time to revisit the charter law. Much has changed since 1995 when charter school were advertised as schools that would be similar to private schools but free to those parents who engaged them. Private school without the cost of tuition - b/c that tuition would be born by the tax base. I only hope that some of our enterprising legislators will adopt this philosophy and allow the charter school experiment to move to the next level. The time has come...
14 comments:
Traditional high schools work for 85% of the students. They provide Advanced Placement courses, Honors courses, calculus courses, Instrumental and Vocal courses,Fine arts courses, fall/winter/spring athletic competition and special education in all areas. Why not build a charter school for the other 15% that are failing to get their needs met in a traditional comprehensive school? Turning the 85% upside down to serve the 15% is an upside down solution. It is a disservice to the 85% and still fails to address the 15%.
Would you intend that the failing district school comply completely with the charter model? Or, would district policies supercede the charter rules/regs? Almost all charter teachers are not union members. I assume, then, then any teacher in the school that the charter would be compelled to take over would be non-union as well. Is that what you envision when you see this playing out? I am interested to see how you imagine such a plan could work. There are a lot of variables at play.
Great thoughts Anonymouse at 9:27 pm. That's what this forum is for - exploring the "what if's?"
Here's an interesting thought - say the successful charter model could be deployed to a newly designated PZ school. The state already has regs in place to govern what happens to the union. In the models previously chosen, the union members were required become part of a collective bargaining carve-out. Future charter legislation could treat union members in this way, but it doesn't have to. One Delaware charter school has already unionized itself this year. Will this be a growing trend and will have an impact on charter schools? Lots of questions. Lots and lots of questions. But, they need to be asked and we need to be working on the next step in the charter experiment left to us by our legislative predecessors (okay and some folks still in office.)
As to whose policies supercede who? The charter policies would have to supercede the district ones. Those policies are part of the dynamic that make that model work. While dealing with status's of employees who are unionized would require some real work to make a compromise fair and reflective, the other policies of that charter model should be replicated in the failing school. It's what works. The traditional model in place failed. Let's apply with as much fidelity as is humanly possible!
Oh, and I almost forgot... People CHOOSE charters because of what they offer(think DMA or Odyssey). How would you account for the lack of buy-in in a takeover? Somehow, I don't see many students in traditional schools choosing what some of the successful charters offer. A lot of what makes charters successful is the desire of the students and families to avail themselves of the opportunities offered. Would it even be possible to measure a charter model's effectiveness without the interest from the students and families?
Anonymous at 9:40 pm - But, that's where the charter experiment has stopped and failed - no one has compelled the two parties to work together! And what parent of a child in a failing school would deny the essentially free assistance of a successful school taking the reigns? Surely there is some value in that?
If we don't generalize the experiements results then the experiment was a failure - it ensure that good or bad charters become exclusive to those who can overcome the boundries and those who win the lottery. With the proposed idea - every child in a particular school regardless of limitations wins the lottery and charter certain to go on to greater success! How could anyone say NO to that? (Sounds lile Koolaide, huh? But, I am truly parrotting back the constant cries of charter parents that CSD should be looking to fix their own schools and not take down their good school. It's an argument flipped on its head and it deserves some thought.)
Great discussion! I see both sides of this, as a charter parent I would like to see a proven successful charter model at work in a PZ school. I would love to give this experience to more kids than it can currently serve, and if that was the original intent of charter schools, then it should be enacted. However, as said above, you can compel the charter school and the district school to do this, but how do you compel the student body to accept the changes a charter model would bring? If the charter school would assume "full and complete" responsibility, then that means it would uphold the rules and consequences of its model. That is a part of the success, parents share that philosophy. It was disheartening to see Shue school attempt to uphold a rule, and then be slammed for it and have to back down. Uniforms may not have to be a part of this, but an acceptance and understanding by ALL involved is necessary for success.
Patriot - I like your idea, but I would clarify your interpretation of the purpose of charter schools by citing the actual charter school law currently on the books which reads as follows:
§ 501. Legislative intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to create an alternative to traditional public schools operated by school districts and improve public education overall by establishing a system of independent “charter” schools throughout the State.
To that end, this chapter offers members of the community a charter to organize and run independent public schools, free of most state and school district rules and regulations governing public education, as long as they meet the requirements of this chapter, and particularly the obligation to meet measurable standards of student performance. Schools established under this chapter shall be known as “charter schools.”
This chapter is intended to improve student learning; encourage the use of different and innovative or proven school environments and teaching and learning methods; provide parents and students with measures of improved school and student performance and greater opportunities in choosing public schools within and outside their school districts; and to provide for a well-educated community.
So you see, charter schools were meant to be an ALTERNATIVE, not just think tanks. Having said that, I have been advocating on Kilroy's Delaware for some time that the only strategy that makes sense to bridge the gap between NCS/charter school demand and supply is a "grow the pie" strategy that increases the supply of desireable public education options via implementing an NCS-like model at existing traditional public schools. As you say, this is the best way to avoid having "losers" in the charter school sweepstakes. I too have questions/concerns as to whether the rules of decorum present in NCS and other charter schools will be accepted (ref: pink hair issue), but directionally your idea makes a lot of sense.
This relationship is taking place in Philly, where a Gates grant is supporting collaboration between the district and charters -- and doing exactly what you suggest, Elizabeth (check out Mastery -- it has taken over several district schools at the district's request). The union would certainly work to develop an appropriate relationship to demonstrate that it can support a 21st century education model -- and, if workers DON'T feel a need for union representation, in a charter they have a right to decertify as a school -- not the cumbersome effort of a district-wide decertification. However, the biggest problem is that charter schools have become political weapons, pushing people to one corner or another and diffusing the capacity of charter schools as a whole to be effective models in improving student outcomes.
Let's not forget that in the charter school law itself provides a method for schools to convert to charters through a required voting system and required percentage of participation of all interest groups.
What the next generation of legislation may need is to amend this portion of the existing law and address a method that allows districts and charters to make the decision to partner even if the voters required for a conversion to happen simply don't turn out. Voter apathy itself is enough to derail a charter conversion in Delaware. It's not to the benefit of any child for the adult members of a school community/constituency to fail engage the process. This is clearly an area that charter law needs to address.
"And what parent of a child in a failing school would deny the essentially free assistance of a successful school taking the reigns?"
There would be a lot of resistance depending upon the model of the charter. Some parents may not be accepting of the military culture of DMA. Some would not be willing to abide by the rules of decorum at NCS (think pink hair) or they may not be willing to put in the extra work that an academically rigorous curriculum requires. Some families place a lot of importance on other activities like sports or dance that don't leave as much time for academics - and that is their perogative. I guess what I am trying to say is that the charters haven't failed because each one does not appeal to or work for all students. They are succeeding because they provide options to all sorts of people that the districts seem unable to provide. I think it is great that the students in Red Clay have so many varied options for their education. I'd like to see the success of their programs replicated elsewhere. All students aren't the same, and one model won't work for every family. That is why choice, charters and vo-techs have flourished. The more choices available, the greater the liklihood that all students will be served. I think the possibility of new charters opening in Wilmington is really exciting. Hopefully there will be more chances to reach more students.
As for how to implement the success of charters in a district school, I think the district would have to really study what is working in the schools, then prioritize their findings and decide what to use. If a stricter discipline code leads to an improved academic environment, then use that. If a more challenging curriculum offers chances for students to learn more, then implement that. A district could make a careful study, involve the teachers in the process, and come up with a plan for change. The charters could offer guidance along the way.
To anon at 5:47 pp:
CSD is becoming quite experienced at "tranforming" failing schools. We have implemented our third turnaround school in two years. Now, just b/c it's called "turnaround" does not mean these re-inventions have either successful research behind them or have actually achieved academic success yet. But, CSD has been able to inflict the federal intrusion of RTTT on three differing communities with relatively little pushback. The greatest dissenting voice has been those parents at Glasgow who wanted to see a charter engaged to run the school (though the exploration was supported by two board members, this idea was promptly dismissed by the remainder of the board and admin back in 2009/10 when the PZ planning was initiated.)Three very different schools are emerging as a result of PZ/RTTT. I, for one, would rather see a successful Delaware charter already serving CSD students take the reigns of a failing traditional school. Since pushback has been so minimal, I think we may be turning the corner where parents would prefer to see their schools run by folks with success under the belt. As for those who may not mesh well with the new "model," let's not forget about the wonderful options that exist due to school choice. Just as parents currently opt out of CSD for charter, they would still retain the right to choice their children elsewhere. Yes,choice is a gift that we need to continue to optimize.
Mastery is working? Gee, I wonder why....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.masterycharter.org%2Fuploads%2Fschool_files%2FWhatever%2520It%2520Takes%2520Contract%2520-%2520School%2520Parent%2520Compact.docx&ei=n2dyT4KGHuHe0QGg88ycAQ&usg=AFQjCNFd5PXrHjIu2cMglzR2gHh-AxiW4g&sig2=A8HypFxXfrFpkFie7T2pRw
Im not sure I like the idea of COMPELLING a public school to adopt a charter model...as I believe the other Anonymous has a point about lack of buy in. However, if a charter's education model is truly the reason student's succeed, then the model should be able to be applied to their regular public school counterpart and enjoy equal success. I would like to see an experiment whereas NCS's model was applied to its public school counterpart and see what happens. However, I doubt that it's NCS's educational model that makes all the difference. It is also the fact that they have a 3 strikes and your out policy. If a child cannot uphold the school's charter "Excellence in Education AND Decorum", then they are removed and replaced with a child who can. Now, that is quite a departure from the traditional school who accepts whomever lives in the feeder pattern...regardless of their decorum. NCS maintains that education cannot take place UNLESS their is also proper behavior. And they will not allow their educational process to be interrupted by poor behavior. If only their public school counterparts had the same leeway! How much time for actual LEARNING would be redeemed if teachers did not have to spend their instructional time on discipline! Some of the brilliance of the founders of NCS is that they incorporated that crucial word, DECORUM, into their charter!! So, yes, public schools would do well to follow the examples of successful charters. But requiring or compelling them to do so would probably create more division between public schools and charters than build bridges.
Post a Comment
Word Verification May Be Case Sensitive