Charters Required to Be Innovative? Massett "hopes not."

By Elizabeth Scheinberg

The debate rages on - should school boards be required to record their meetings and to make those recordings available to the public? Hell, YES. But, legislation introduced in Dover this spring was nearly dead on arrival. One has to wonder why anyone would oppose a measure that increases transparency and accountability?

Then again, maybe not.

While reading through the minutes of New Moyer's May 30th meeting with DOE, I was dumbfounded to read the following: (Red added for emphasis by blogger.)

http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/schools/charterschools/files/MinMoyerFM53013.pdf

Ms. McLaughlin said that to be clear about this section, they are talking about the shift of the online curriculum to traditional and the concern is that the Applicant’s response still references similar verbatim language that was used for the online curriculum and there is

not enough support for the traditional curriculum and how it is going to be innovative in its approach to a blended learinng model. She asked if this was an accurate summary. Mr. Carwell said that this was correct.

Ms. Massett asked if they are saying charter schools are required to be innovative. She said she hoped not.

Mr. Carwell said he is referring to the statute.

Ms. Massett said that the statute states that it "encourage the use of different and innovative or proven school environments and teaching and learning methods; provide parent and students with improved measures of school performance and greater opportunities in choosing public schools within and outside their school districts; and to provide for a well-educated community."

She said we need to be careful in not putting charter schools in a box. She said especially in what we say if they are articulating their mission then we cannot prescribe what that mission is, but rather we encourage the use of innovation. She said she is hopeful of innovation but we cannot say that they have to.

Mr. Carwell agreed and said those points are helpful. He said what he wanted to do was

to make it clear and to clarify; these pieces, particularly the online piece of the school,

that was a clear basis for why the school was approved. He said that was part of their educational program.

And there you have it - buried in the minutes of a meeting. If charter school aren't "innovative" - a term the whole of the charter movement has latched onto to justify their existence, their flexibility in spending, and their tooth and nail claw for more public funding, then what are they?

Massett's statement puts a context around a subset of schools that call themselves charters, yet actually function no differently than traditional public schools. Which brings home a very important point - since this subset of charters appear to be performing on par or below traditional public schools and can be often found to be non-compliant with various laws/regulation/codes - why not shutter this subset of non-innovators and return the students and corresponding funds to traditional school districts? Traditional school districts have the expertise, experience, and understanding (in general) to be "innovative." What they lack is the incentive - The flexibility to use their public funds in a way that allows them to establish new programs - based on successful, research proven models.

I'm not advocating the elimination of charters at all. But, it is time to pull the plug on failing charter schools while reinforcing those that are succeeding.

Now, how you measure success is up to you...

Category: 0 comments