Lost Federal Funding For Charters

Following last week's piece about charter schools wanting some action this year on expanding their numbers, there's an interesting editorial in today's Tribune that charts mis-steps by ISBE and the state about funding charter schools (Chortling over charters).  It's no big surprise that the Tribune comes out pro-charter, of course, but they do make a pretty good case that as long as they're going to have charters serving kids they might as well get federal funding especially that's available.  Let the drumbeat continue.

Comments

[Alexander]

sounds like a good idea. assuming you've already done this, though, what did you see -- and what schools did you go to?

Or we can simply let parents decide which school is best for their children.

3:48, I'd like to know which neighborhood schools allow people to walk-in, ask questions, and observe instruction?

I've worked in two public schools (one in Chicago and one in Seattle) and two charter schools (one in Boston and one in Chicago) so yes I've spent a few years doing just what I propose to you.

I imagine if you call any neighborhood school and tell them that you'd like to come and observe their school, most should be more than happy to welcome you into the school. And I am positive that almost any charter school would do just that.

[George N Schmidt]

Perhaps we can take this apart one piece at a time: Waiting Lists for now.

Two questions about those charter school "waiting lists" (which are part of the Chicago hype) and whether they say anything meaningful about Chicago, charters, or anything else.

The first question is about general high schools and waiting lists. Would Marty McGreal be teaching at Curie High School or principal of Gage Park High School today if Gage Park were allowed to have a "waiting list"?

CPS fired Marty from his principalship for doing what it praises every charter chief for doing! Basically, Marty did at Gage Park what every charter is allowed to do. He told some students they could not attend his school because it had reached capacity.

Marty was fired from his principal job for it. If Gage Park had been limited to its capacity on August 31, the "waiting list" would have been 500 or 600 kids. They would have fit easily inside Lindblom (nearby, but currently housing Urban Prep and the Lindblom Math Science school).

The point is: a general high school in Chicago is forced to be overcrowded by Board policy, while the charter high schools are allowed to exclude kids, then are praised for it.

The second question is how big the "waiting list" would be for Lane Tech, Northside College Prep, Jones, Payton, King, Brooks, or Whitney Young if they had "waiting lists."

Hundreds of more students try to get into these schools every year than can attend. Unlike Gage Park and other general high schools, these schools can (like the charters) cap enrollment and stop taking students. But their principals aren't fired (and in some cases they are offered bonuses to become "turnaround specialists" at other CPS high schools). All the frames of reference here are skewed.

If we were dealing with data instead of propaganda from CPS, this prattle about "waiting lists" for charters would have ended a long time ago. The "waiting lists" don't prove anything, and in CPS they have to be examined closely to show the paradoxes (hypocrisies?) underlying the claims.

Either let the Gage Parks of the city cap enrollment and make "waiting lists" -- or stop all this nonsense about how many are allegedly on the charter school "waiting lists." The fact is meaningless, and is simply being used as a vapid marketing claim.

I'd like to see some of the discussion about charter schools take into count the fact that these schools have no long-term financial survival prospects. It is possible to have a good school for a few years. No doubt, some charters are good. But that is not a serious issue for debate. Charters are not fully funded schools. The best of them are currently receiving huge sums from private foundations and this can neither continue forever nor expand to more schools. There is no incentive for private monies to keep propping up the education of the poor outside of a taxation structure. Really, that is what we are talking about: defunding public education. And if that is the issue then why is there no discussion of how to fund schools for people who can't pay for it themselves? That is why the open enrollment status of public schools comes up. Charters are never going to solve the problem of educating those who come from the poorest and most socially disconnected families--if they even have families. The issue of whether charter schools are good or bad is totally irrelevant to those students who are not going to go to charter schools. And the shift to charters does clearly burden traditional public schools increasingly with the neediest students and takes more and more resources away from those schools. Charter advocates are disingenuous when they fail to deal with the open enrollment issue because the real problem we as a nation face is not about how to educate people who know how to and can afford to get schooling--those are the people who are going to fill charter schools as long as they are available to suck off the best from the public schools. The real problem is how to educate those who are outside the social network.

[Marty McGreal]

I'm not bashing anyone here, but I did visit the original St. Mel School last year. I happened to witness Mr. Adams expelling a young lady because she did not agree with the rule about having to tuck in her shirt. The mother was waiting for her while she cleared out her locker.

I wonder if this is how the St. Mel Charter School will operate.

[Marty McGreal]

Do I now have the right to comment on charter schools?

[Victor]

Marty,

You have the right to comment on anything you like.

I encourage anyone to visit charter schools. About 1/3 of them are doing a good job, regardless of how the kids get in, etc. The other 2/3 are crap and no better than the neighborhood schools the kids could go to. It's a sham.

6:06’s post was very insightful. I agree that charter schools are dramatically under funded and Chicago’s business community along with the University of Chicago will in a short period of time get tired of picking up the tab for educating low income kids. I have heard from several people that the University of Chicago is putting in up to $1 million of its own money along with extra money from Gates, etc, into its charters.

I see charter’s as some type of perverse child of Milton Friedman ideology. The theory is: create a market and then the best will survive and the weak will fail. If that philosophic basis were being followed we would be seeing numerous charters revoked, but we do not. Why? One reason is that families who have their kids in less than outstanding charters still believe they provide a more orderly environment for their children and are on waiting lists to get in.

Are these low income families stupid, no I don’t think so. Charter’s just by taking students whose families are organized enough to even apply are getting more students from what we could call functional families. Structure and order are the big selling points of these schools. One needs to only note the nifty sweaters some issue to students to get the marketing idea. When you live in communities being terrorized by youth and young adults in gangs as a parent you become preoccupied with keeping your own kid out of that life style. Charters seem to be a way out.

The other reason less than outstanding charters are not being closed is ideological. The Board, Daley, and Chicago’s business community have no interest in admitting that a good number of the charters that have been approved are doing no better than traditional public schools.

2:57 pm Charters are an example Milton Friedman thinking. So, unfortunately is late 20th and 21st century America. Not pretty at all.

[Steve Harvey]

I know a woman who is mentally ill and subbed for six years in the Philadelphia School District. Eventually she was hired because she had earned enough "points". She was a lousy teacher, constantly yelling at the kids throughout the day.
The parents at her first public school ran her out at the end of the year. The same thing happen at the next public school and she was fired. By summer she had a new job at a Philly charter school which also happened to hire a male teacher who had just been fired from my school. This past year this charter had a shake up when the administrative heads were fired. The teachers were told in the middle of the summer that they would have be interviewed for their old jobs. The male teacher jumped ship for a new charter. However, this woman was given her old job back. How "with it" can this charter school be to hire someone as incomptent as her? The really sad thing is that Paul Vallas sent her a letter two years ago asking her to come back the public school system in Philly. Why? Despite her lack of teaching ability the district could claim she was "certified" (in more ways than one).

to 2:57. Is this why the University of Chicago is charging "regular" public schools for their services, like technology or "helping" new teachers, (when they don't even have an ed dept.) UC has big bucks--let them pay.