Why charter schools matter

Barbara O'Brien is a persuasive advocate for kids. As a young corporate executive, she recruited me to visit with Governor Romer in 1992 to convince him that Colorado kids needed charter schools. There are now 141 charters schools in Colorado thanks in large part to (now Lt. Gov) Barbara O'Brien.

National Charter School Week is an opportunity to celebrate the 4,600 public school options created in 39 states. It's also a chance to reflect on why charters matter. There are three reasons that public charter schools are important:

1. Charters provide quality options. Charter schools have created educational options for 1.4 million students. Most of these students are low-income students that previously lacked access to quality schools.

2. CMO's are producing reliable quality. The biggest challenge in education is achieving quality at scale. There are dozens of charter management organizations each running dozens of high quality schools in low income neighborhoods--often with less funding and without public facilities. CMOs are more efficient and effective than school districts. They are piloting new employment agreements, new performance management systems, new school models, and new parent/community connections.

3. Charters model good governance--more school autonomy for more accountability. Charter schools don't have tenure--they must earn the right to stay open by serving students well and being responsive to parent and community needs.

Not all charters are good. Some states have been sloppy in authorization and lack in accountability. However, the quest for quality has resulted in strict and restrictive authorization policies in many states wringing most of the innovation out of the sector. We should let more innovators in and kick more underperformers out.

We finally have a President and Secretary that strongly support charter schools--and they're ready to invest. Even with air cover and money, we'll see many cities and states take a pass. Adult concerns will outweigh student concerns.

All schools should operate under a performance contract, should be funded based on the needs of their students, should have access to public facilities, and should be free to contract with staff and vendors of their choice. If they don't work, they should be closed and replaced. All schools should be charter schools.

Comments

[MaryT63]

My son interviewed for a teaching position at a charter sch. His amazement was the class size, about 5 students per class. He got a job at one of the middle public schools - class size 35 students. It's been a beef of mine that both charter, private and parochial schools success rates boil down to several factors that they have in common: small class sizes, homogeneous student body, more funds. No way can public schools compete with this. So the proponents against public schools always place the blame on the teacher's union. Never do they address real issues in the public school system: large class sizes, old buildings, low funds, not enough teachers, diverse student body, diverse skill levels in classrooms, etc. Why not take the successful non public schools and find out why they are performing better - use that data to make public schools better. Never is this plan ever discussed. It's always blame the union, and move the kids out to charter schools.

[LeftRight]

And when you account for things such as class size, and average wealth of the families involved, public schools still do better than charter schools, almost all private schools, and many parochial schools!

[LeftRight]

You DO realize, don't you, that regular public schools are outperforming charter schools in EVERY way, right????

[TJ1776]

That's why 4 of the top 5 high schools in Arizona are charter schools, right?

Keep digesting the NEA nonsense about charter schools, it makes you easy to identify and marginalize.

[LeftRight]

Read my other post, directly above this thread. Once you cancel out things like class size and family wealth, public schools ALWAYS outperform charter schools. In other words, rather than take money away from public schools to give to charters, we should be providing for public schools!

[philistine]

With the statement "All schools should be charter schools," you clearly established yourself as a demagogue. I expect you to offer proofs for the sweeping generalizations you make - proofs which you can't offer, because they don't exist. Evaluating the effectiveness of teaching methods, methodologies or school structures is very difficult, due to the number and complexity of the factors involved. I'm not buying what you're selling.

[PaiaGirl]

[continued from below]
Re: not teaching rote learning in early grades

Here's why it is a counter-productive argument. Until about age 7 (different for different children) reasoning ability is poorly developed. But memorization and rote learning is easy.

Later when reasoning abilities mature, a child who has memorized number facts no longer needs the reasoning part of their brain to be engaged when, say, factoring an algebraic equation and can devote their entire thinking to problem solving. A child who never learned the times tables is consumed with figuring out what 2*3 is and has very little brain power left to do problem solving.

I defy anyone to do calculus or vector analysis without having memorized their times tables.

[PaiaGirl]

Charter Schools are a step in the right direction.

The educational establishment has become so inbred and has such a strong secular humanism bias (I say this as a NONreligious person who does not share the group-think principles that permeate our public school system.)

In order to be allowed to teach in a public school you have to be credentialed which means you either buy into this mindset or you are such a dedicated person you can put up with a viewpoint with which you disagree for the years it takes to get credentialed.

Then (and again I say this as a staunch union supporter.­..in most cases) the teachers union is shaping the curriculum and it is tailored to a single type of student...­and I've never met a student who actually fit that profile.

Then we don't track because that is a politically incorrect no no. So our smart students are held back and our less smart students are lost.

And we DO age-track which makes no sense because young people mature at different stages and may be far ahead in say math and lagging in reading.

And math. Ahhhhhhh. It is now politically incorrect for children to "memorize" or do rote learning since it might damage their delicate "creative thinking". This idea has been pushed by teachers who themselves are clueless about math.