In response to reading our blog for the first time, a Maine school superintendent wrote with the very kinds of questions I think need to be part of the larger debate.
"I am very intrigued by the discussion of charter schools and would like to learn more about the 'real deal,' when it comes to these schools. Are they producing a better product, do they siphon off moneys that could bolster public schools, are they designed for tailor made audiences, how is tuition handled (do the charter schools take the same amount of per pupil money as allocated to public schools), do they accommodate special needs, what are the two major disadvantages/worries, and the two real advantages?"
I'm going to attempt to answer those questions one at a time over the next couple days...the 'real deal' is that done well, charter schools are fully public schools that, rather than drain resources from public schools, ARE public schools that help communities serve more kids well...but, as you'll see, that's easier said than done.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools defined charters as "independent public schools that are free to be more innovative and are held accountable for improved student achievement. They foster a partnership between parents, teachers and students to create an environment in which parents can be more involved, teachers are given the freedom to innovate and students are provided the structure they need to learn."
This very broad definition, which has to encompass 39 different laws in 39 states, indicates part of why the term "charter school" puts us in a hole before the debate even starts. There are as many kinds of charter schools (and charter school bills) as there are schools, but often they all get lumped together. I try not to take a pro-charter or anti-charter stance, but instead to look at each state, and each charter within each state, on its merits.
The variables are many, but are often broken down into "strong" and "weak" charter laws; Massachusetts' law being strong and Arizona weak. The strong laws have several characteristics in common - clear, transparent oversight by a charter authority; clear criteria for improving outcomes for the NEEDIEST students; a well-defined funding structure that enables "dollars follow the student" funding; and a large (but not unlimited) degree of autonomy from certain rules and regulations.
A weak charter law tends to look more libertarian and, in my opinion, contributes a great deal to the perception that charters threaten or drain money from public schools. Such laws, in fact, may be intended to do just that. Some laws foster the growth of something more like magnet schools, drawing motivated students and families only. Others exempt charters from meaningfully needing to address special education. Still others exempt charters from most teacher certification and licensing requirements, often relying on lower paid teachers and contributing to high rates of turnover. Still others fund charters at a considerably lower level than a comparable , fully public charter school, causing the charter to have to rely on outside funding. Some laws do all of the above...and it's easy to see how such laws would have exactly the effect opponents most fear.
Maine Enterprise Schools seeks policy that enable "innovative, autonomous, small, PUBLIC schools." Charter legislation is one way to get there, but there are others - as I've noted in previous blog entries. Please see "Asking the Right Questions" for a list of 8 best practice bullets that we think can provide a structure for such schools. As a nation, we've also learned a great deal about charters and the laws that can enable them over the past 20 years. The National Alliance for Public Charter School has published a model law, most of which we believe can be built into a Maine law. A two-page list of the 20 key elements can be found on pages 3 and 4 of A New Model Law for Supporting the Growth of High Quality Public Charter Schools.
Next up: Do charters siphon money that could be used to bolster public schools?
No comments:
Post a Comment