Meeting to Talk Charters
As you recall, CRPE's Robin Lake had invited us all (well, most of us) to come for a discussion over coffee today. I attended part of the discussion as did a couple of SPS parents, two administrators from other districts and a colleague of Ms. Lake's. I can't tell you what the discussion was about because I was asked not to.
I can tell you that it seems apparent that not everyone knows this initiative as well as you might think.
And, it certainly help me see that CRPE is not exactly neutral on this topic of charter schools.
But honestly, how could they be? A large portion of their research is about charters and how great they are and how to grow them. They are funded (and have been funded) for years by the Gates Foundation which also loves charters.
I can only say that while I would never challenge their expertise about charters, I'm not sure I would believe everything they say is neutral or balanced. In the coming months as we battle over this initiative, I can see where a media outlet might go to them, thinking they are an academic institution and would give objective statements but at least you'll know what their focus is and who funds it.
I can tell you that it seems apparent that not everyone knows this initiative as well as you might think.
And, it certainly help me see that CRPE is not exactly neutral on this topic of charter schools.
But honestly, how could they be? A large portion of their research is about charters and how great they are and how to grow them. They are funded (and have been funded) for years by the Gates Foundation which also loves charters.
I can only say that while I would never challenge their expertise about charters, I'm not sure I would believe everything they say is neutral or balanced. In the coming months as we battle over this initiative, I can see where a media outlet might go to them, thinking they are an academic institution and would give objective statements but at least you'll know what their focus is and who funds it.
Comments
I had a great time. It made me think, which I enjoy. I am going to spend some time researching NACSA because I got the impression that how well charters could be implemented in WA will depend on their guidelines for authorizers.
I wish more people were there. I talked way too much.
I'm still working out a framework for how to evaluate whether adding charters to the mix in WA would be valuable. I keep coming back to the fact that 41 states have them and why can't we just learn from what they have done? Maybe the threat of charters could be enough to open up more of our schools to innovative successful practices. Part of the problem I have is that the potential downside of bad charters (especially to the kids enrolled, but also to the Districts) could be really high relative to any upside for charters that help some subset of the kids. And then there is the whole added layer of bureaucracy...
After I left, it occurred to me that if the School Board is going to be an authorizer, and do it right, they will need more staff. Or maybe that would be a contract position? And either way, who pays?
Maureen, she did say not to write about the discussion. You might have missed that as it was noisy but yes, she did say it.
"Maybe the threat of charters could be enough to open up more of our schools to innovative successful practices."
That hasn't happened in 41 states but sure, it could happen here. And SPS DID try something with the Creative Approach schools (but shot themselves in the foot by taking the Board out of it).
The "potential" downside of bad charters? That would be more bad, underfunded schools. That's not a potential. Given the numbers, it will be a fact.
And yes, the volume of work for a Board would be huge (I checked the NACSA and it's a lot). The initiative helpfully allows both the Charter commission and School boards to contract out this work. Both authorizing work and oversight work. So really, who is watching these schools? You might never really know for sure.
Paying for it would likely come from the 4% authorizers get from a charter's funding (this is why charter's get less money than a regular school - someone has to pay for the oversight that we are told comes with charters). Will this cover the total costs of both authorizing and oversight (and an annual report.)
Oh and don't forget districts are REQUIRED to advertise for charters in their district. (Now we don't advertise for Bellevue in Seattle and each charter is its own unique district, but there you go.)
Who pays for the work to put in the information on charters in the enrollment guides? Materials at kindergarten fairs? That would be the district.
Maureen, ask me anything - I think I know that initiative better than those who support it. (That or they don't want you to fully understand what it has in there.)
-- Dan Dempsey
I'm saying that someone who didn't know better would perceive that as academics they don't have a POV and they certainly do. That a lot of their charter research funding comes from Bill Gates cements that.
As for charters, you've been playing the role of Chicken Little around both charter schools and TFA for years. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, because you're too busy "reporting" that the sky is falling.
::yawn::
But not to worry, I love drama, and yours is my favorite "love to hate it" blog around. Thanks for that!
I'm glad we amuse you. I'm also going to be less glad but fairly certain that what we predict is going to happen is will happen. Because despite what many think, we get it right more than we get it wrong.
You wrote:
---
As for charters, you've been playing the role of Chicken Little around both charter schools and TFA for years. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, because you're too busy "reporting" that the sky is falling.
---
Please show us some facts.... what anyone else or everyone else says or in fact everyone says ... just might be total crap.
Please present some relevant data. While Ms. Westbrook has many opinions, some of them I may disagree with, she does present relevant data and uses logic. So what have you got to put forth other than unfounded opinion?
Lets see your data and logic to make a case for either TFA in Western WA or the current charter initiative. Whatcha got?
I'll say that Melissa is admirably restrained in her writing and refrains from getting personal - unlike you and unlike me. I love this blog because it keeps me abreast of district and education matters. What wisdom do you have to impart?
Melissa and Charlie. Thank you.
Carol
I’m something of a jaded New Yorker, so I’ve developed a guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude about most people who are salaried workers in organizations that have a political agenda. These organizations are are almost always governed by expediency when it comes to making policy choices. Once the agenda is set, the only question is to determine the most expedient way to achieve it. Rarely do such organizations ever question whether the agenda is wrong or misguided once it has been set.
Not all, but most employees in these organizations are either hacks or fools. The hacks understand how the game is played and follow orders, and the fools believe the propaganda and naively propagate it.
I look at anyone who works for an organization that has funding from pro-charter sources as guilty of being either a hack or a fool until proved innocent. It’s easier on the conscience to be the fool (cognitive dissonance, Stockholm Syndrome, etc.), but nobody advances in these organizations unless they are one or the other. It’s called being a “team player”. The organization has subtle and not-so-subtle ways to filter out anyone who challenges its basic assumptions.
So my bias leads me to think it a waste of time to sit down with salaried employees in agenda-driven organizations with the idea of having an honest discussion, if by an ‘honest discussion’ you mean being open to having one’s mind changed by facts or good arguments. Rather, they, especially the hacks, look at your openness to have your mind changed as a vulnerability to be exploited, and if they cannot use that vulnerability to change your mind, they can use it at least to confuse and neutralize you by sowing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Anyone who has been reading here for any time knows that Melissa and Charlie, agree with them or not, come by their opinions honestly, and that they are genuinely open to having their minds changed by facts and good arguments. Can we say the same for those employed at CRPE, LEV, Stand, and DFER? IMO--guilty until proved innocent.
In my past life I worked for a consulting firm that almost invariably worked for 'the bad guy.' The work they (we) did was very good though. The analyses that didn't support the client's POV might never see the light of day, but the economists did honest work.
I'm not convinced about charters myself, but by listening to the CRPE people I learned things that will help me build a stronger argument one way or the other.
n...
I totally understand what you're getting at, but I'll suggest a third possibility. Political organizations typically have an agenda, and when it comes time to fill their ranks with paid employees, it's not surprising that most of the applicants will be people who truly do believe in the cause. Why else apply for or accept the position? It doesn't (necessarily) mean they are hacks or fools, just that they have a different outlook. I think the charter movement is full of all people in all three categories: hacks, fools and "true believers" (who are not necessarily fools, although it might feel like it at times).
It's a lot like general politics in this country. Unless you're pretty centrist, everyone across the aisle from your party seems like either a hack or a fool until you really engage with them. Sure, sometimes it's still true, but sometimes it's worthwhile to get to know these individuals as real people, with real families, real worries, etc., and it's nice to let some of those barriers melt away, even if only for a short time. I have friends (and even family!) that have specific political viewpoints that I find appalling, but overall we have much common ground and can still get along quite well. I wish more people were open to these kinds of relationships. It's something I wish we could do more of as a district, state and nation.
Both Sarajane and Gerry Pollett are against Charters. In the 46th LD, Sarajane is running for Rep. Pos. 2 and Gerry is running for Rep position 1 We can support both of them.......
I'm saying that someone who didn't know better would perceive that as academics they don't have a POV and they certainly do. That a lot of their charter research funding comes from Bill Gates cements that.
Huh? Did any of this blog's authors ever go to college? Sure doesn't seem like they did. Since when is research done without a POV? Never! Research isn't "neutral". And more Gates bashing. The only counter arguments ever given to charters are that a relatively high percentage don't perform better than average. Well, if your school is worse than average, that sounds like a good deal to me. And, who cares that your run of the mill public school could just as easily improve - when it never really does? There's no impetus for improvement with the constant ed director musical chairs, the same lame principals, and the same low expectations. I'd love a charter option for my students, because maybe average is better than assuredly below average with no motivation to improve.
Another Parent
This illustrates the downside of the "predictability" of the NSAP. People who lived near failing schools used to have at least the possibility of getting their kids into an average school. Now those chances are greatly reduced, (basically to the seven or so Option Schools) so we see a significant number of Seattle residents who might not have supported charters under the old assignment plan being given an incentive to support them.
The same type of people who exercised choice under the "OSAP" will probably move to charters if they are created. I wish someone would study the impact that reducing choice under the NSAP has had on academic success/the opportunity gap in Seattle. That could tell us something about what we could expect from charters.
The "motivation to improve" part is important to think about. We had choice, but for some reason, that didn't seem to motivate SPS to improve the schools that weren't attracting applicants. What about allowing charters ensures that SPS will suddenly take an interest in improving the remaining schools? In fact IF the charters attract principals and teachers who value autonomy and innovation, won't SPS be left to staff their schools with those who don't? How has this played out in Districts with significant numbers of charters? Do the individual charters that do well (relative to non charter schools in the same districts) do it by cherry picking both students and staff?
You haven't been paying attention. There are MANY good reasons to not like charters in their present form.
As for Gates-bashing, I didn't say he's a bad guy. I'm saying his motives are not as pure as the driven snow.
I agree; all research has a POV but when you have peer-reviewed research that's what I would look at. When you look at a policy group or academic entity, look who their funders are and their focus.
Another Parent, I would urge you to consider the big picture. I surely can understand thinking of your child - it's huge, it's important and vital to their future. But upending a system for ALL with low results for most is not the best answer.
Maureen, it's too soon to make any conclusions on the impacts of the new system. I think that's way off in the future.
The staffing issue IS interesting. I would think it would favor the principals of course because they would have some leeway over hiring and firing teachers.
Enrollment in the New York City schools, the largest district in the country, was flat from 2005 to 2010, but both Chicago and Los Angeles lost students, with declining birthrates and competition from charter schools cited as among the reasons....
In Cleveland, where enrollment fell by nearly a fifth between 2005 and 2010, the number of students requiring special education services has risen from 17 percent of the student body to 23 percent, up from just under 14 percent a decade ago, according to the Cleveland Metropolitan School District.
Other cities around the country are dealing with the second order impacts of charters now. Can charter advocates tell us why the same thing wouldn't play out here if I-1240 passes?
As to the big picture. We had choice, and that made schools worse. It was white flight. Right. In Seattle we call it "economic flight" because there are no racists in Seattle. It boils down to the same result. And, even when we had "choice", it was limited. The real problem is that there isn't a motivation to fix bad schools. That's the big picture. People need options, and they should have it. 4th time's a charm!
Another Parent
You wrote: "We had choice, and that made schools worse."
and
"The real problem is that there isn't a motivation to fix bad schools."
I get both of those, and I largely agree. I'm having trouble making the leap from those two statements to this one:
"People need options, and they should have it. 4th time's a charm!"
If choice didn't work before and doesn't address the core problem, why would you advocate for something that provides choice?
Am I misreading this?
Come on Another Parent, don't be shy, come try to explain. I could actually help you out, but I'm not going to.
This is the big problem with charter supports that I've spoken with. They want "choice", but they really don't have a clue what the whole package means in real life, what the downsides are, etc.