To charter or not: school supporters debate
The state Legislature has begun to hear the arguments on both sides of the issue: a plus for disadvantaged students in the eyes of supporters, and a waste of resources for little or no return to opponents.
Hdescopeland (Henry De Saussure Copeland)/Flickr
Rep. Jan Angel, R-Port Orchard, has received hundreds of emails on the pros and cons of charter schools. Angel is still undecided on the concept.
She has visited several charter schools. "Some work really good and some don't," she said.
Will the fourth time be the charm for charter schools in Washington?
Two companion bills are working their ways thorugh Washington's Senate and House to create charter schools with an accompanying cousin-like version called a Transformation Zone District.
Sen. Rodney Tom, D-Bellevue, introduced the bipartisan Senate bill — believing the timing is much riper now than the state's last flirtation with this controversial concept in 2004. Rep. Eric Pettigrew, D-Seattle, introduced the same bipartisan bill in the House. Of the 57 schools that the state government sees as the lowest-performing academically, five are in his district, he said.
More states — 41 plus Washington, D.C. — have charter schools than in 2004, Tom said. Plus, America is currently doing serious soul-searching about education, and there are 5,275 charter schools in the nation.
Glenn Anderson, R-Fall City, is the chief co-sponsor of Pettigrew's bill. He said Washington has not made sufficient progress is in addressing the gap between "the educational haves and have-nots."
Tom said, "Washington has a history of innovation (in education), and this bill will add one more option to that flexibility, ... We've taken the best of what works." Pettigrew said:" It is supposed to be targeted to those students who are not doing well."
"Charter schools are by no means a panacea. But I think excellent opportunity" to try to improve education, said Robin Lake, associate director of the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education. Much of her research is on charter schools.
Critics, though, are already questioning whether the bill is tightly drawn, and they point out that state voters have repeatedly rejected charter schools.
The charter school portions of Tom's and Pettigrew's bills are set up as follows.
An "authorizer" — which could be a school district, a four-year college, or a new Washington State Charter School Commission — would hire a non-profit corporation to run a charter school. Up to 10 charter schools could be created each year, accumulating up to a total of 50 such schools. These arrangements would be five-year contracts with options to renew.
A majority of each year's 10 schools would be expected to serve what the state would specify as educationally disdvantaged students. In theory, then, a minority of the schools could be aimed at students other than economically disadvantaged such as artists, science-oriented students, or others. And the wording of one section sets up a situation where the majority of schools could be for such purposes if there are few charter applicants seeking to serve disadvantaged students.
The non-profit corporation would have significant leeway in how to run its school. For example, a teacher in a needed speciality could be paid extra when hired, as opposed to being paid according to a union contract with seniority and education credits being the biggest factors in a teacher's wages. Or pay increases could be based on merit rather the seniority, Tom said. Another potential area for leeway would be in extending hours or days of school. The charters would have exemption from many state regulations.
The school's students would not pay any tuition, and, if there were too many students applying to admit them all, they would be selected via lottery. Preference would be granted to siblings of existing students, and a limited number of preferences would be allowed for the children of a school's founders, board members, and full-time employees.
Charter schools would likely use existing buildings, although the door is open to building new schools, Tom said. The rental and construction money could come from the state's capital budget or from outside philanthropic donations, he said. Charter schools would not have the power to levy their own taxes.
The State Board of Education would supervise whether the authorizers and the non-profit corporations are performing well.
Meanwhile, if the bills pass, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction would supervise 10 to 20 low-achieving schools in a statewide Transformation Zone District program to improve education for their pupils. Schools in this program would have leeways similar charter schools, but would be supervised by OSPI.
In two hearings last week, supporters argued that disadvantaged students need every available option to improve their education. They argued that charter schools have good track records elsewhere; can show how educational red tape can be trimmed to good effect; and would be almost totally paid by existing education money following the students. They also contended charter schools would have adequate pubic supervision of expenditures.
Opponents argued many charter schools have done poorly; that trimming red tape for a few schools should be replaced by eliminating the same red tape for all schools; and that the non-profit corporations in charge of charter schools would not be adequately supervised by taxpayers. And they contended charter schools would siphon money from a statewide education system that the Washington Supreme Court recently ruled is inadequately funding schools.
Sen. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, asked: "Why is this better or more flexible than our current alternative schools?"
Catherine Ahl, education chairwoman for the Washington League Women Voters and former North Kitsap school board member, said innovative schools are already possible without charter schools. She did not believe in eliminating regulations for charter schools, while keeping them in place for other schools.
"If that is the secret silver bullet, then eliminate them for all schools," Ahl said.
Ahl and several others questioned having non-profit corporations in charge of charter schools, shielding the nut-and-bolts operations and finances from public, taxpayer-related oversight.
Ahl and others, including the Washington Education Association, argued that underfunding of schools is the biggest problem, and that providing adequate funding, as ordered by the state Supreme Court, would go a long way toward fixing many current troubles.
Rep. John McCoy, D-Tulalip, sees the charter school concept as needing extra money from a state that that the Washington Supreme Court has declared as not meeting its legal obligations to pay for school.
"Our belief is that it will take extra money, which we don't believe is available at this time," said Lucinda Young, representing the Washington Education Association.
Critics also raised questions on how students are selected to attend charter schools.
Shawn Lewis, representing Washington's Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn, said Dorn opposes the concept. The OSPI finds the authorizing process confusing and believes the concept should be taken to a public referendum.
Tom countered that charter schools are accountable to the public, noting they can be shut down if they don't improve education for disadvantaged students.
He cited their growing use elsewhere — picking up support from parents and teachers in other states, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Michigan-based philanthropic Eli and Edithe Broad Foundation.
Tom contended charter schools allow new educational practices to be tested and perfected. Also, Tom argued the operation of charter schools would not increase the state's education operating costs, saying existing state and local education money will follow the charter students to the new schools.
Amy Bell, representing the business-oriented Washington Roundtable, which supports charters, said voters on local levies will know that part of those taxes will go to local charter schools. The charter school would likely rent their buildings, with Tom saying the rental money would come the state's capital fund or from private third-party donations.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Jan 23, 9:04 a.m. Inappropriate
"The school would select students for enrollment"
What if the situation were reversed and the public schools got to select students and the charter schools were responsible for the underachievers. How about a charter school for the developmentally disabled students with the guidlines and funding that the state allocates? Good luck.
If charter schools are worth their salt, they have to take the same failing school, with all the same students, with the same money, and produce better results.
Posted Mon, Jan 23, 12:30 p.m. Inappropriate
"flirtation"? That's a pretty light-hearted word for something as serious as bringing in charter schools which would be a fundamental change to public education.
"A majority of each year's 10 schools would have to serve what the state would specify as educationally disdvantaged students."
Not true. A majority of the authorizations are set aside for this purpose but if they do not get enough proposals for schools serving those children (or not enough quality ones, the authorizers HAVE to okay any other types of charter schools. (Read the bill, section 115.)
Charters could not levy taxes BUT if a school board authorizes them within their district and the approval comes before a levy, then that charter would get part of the levy (whether operational or capital). Charters also have the right of first refusal to buy/lease any school property up for sell/lease AT or BELOW market value. (section 123)
"Tom countered that charter schools are accountable to the public, noting they can be shut down if they don't improve education for disadvantaged students."
Here's what the Department of Education says at their own website on this topic:
"There is a general expectation in the charter school sector that authorizers have a responsibility to regularly oversee charter school operations and progress toward meeting the goals in the charter. The reality is that only 36 percent of authorizers had a charter school office or staff in 2001-02, suggesting limited capacity to address charter school oversight. However, this finding varies by type of authorizer. For example, 85 percent of states that are authorizers have an office or staff dedicated to charter school work. Because states are more likely to authorize a large number of schools, they may require an infrastructure to provide adequate oversight.
More important, more than half of authorizers report difficulty closing a school that is having problems--a key responsibility of authorizers in this educational reform."
I don't see the teeth for real accountability in this bill.
And, as usual, why should we care what the Broad Foundation or the Gates Foundation think on public education? Could you name one advance they have made that has made a difference nationally for public education?
"Also, Tom argued the operation of charter schools would not increase the state's education operating costs, saying existing state and local education money will follow the charter students to the new schools."
That's quite the clever statement because it is true. But what is more true is that it would increase the state budget costs by about (and this is a partial estimate from staff at the legislature) $33M by 2015.
There are huge administrative costs including a brand new commission that this bill thoughtfully houses in the Governor's office with the Governor's staff doing their adm work. (I'm sure our next governor will appreciate this sleight of hand.)
Senator Tom and Rep. Pettigrew, please explain to all of us where you find this money? From more cuts to existing public K-12 schools? Higher ed?
"Tom contended charter schools allow new educational practices to be tested and perfected."
Sure they allow it but has it happened? Nope, charters are no more hot-beds of innovation than traditional public schools.
What is interesting is the Legislature, just last year, passed two innovation bills that OSPI is working hard to implement this year. OSPI estimates there are over 500 innovation schools in the state. And the Legislature passed a "light-house school" bill that allows schools/district with STEM programs to mentor other schools/districts that would like to have a STEM program.
And Seattle Schools is set to sign an agreement with SEA for Creative Approach schools so that school community will have more flexibility and autonomy.
I don't like that any more than Ms. Gustafson but then, the wealthy have always had more options than the rest of us. If she has a way to change that hard life fact, she should let us know.
What other reasons to not be for charters?
- only 17% of ALL the charter schools in the US do better than traditionals. Those aren't odds they would take in Vegas.
- Charters serve fewer Special Ed/ELL students than the districts they sit in.
- charters, according to our own UW Center for Reinventing Education, aren't as innovative as they should be and sigh, many look a lot like traditional schools.
- charters are less likely to employ teachers meeting state certification standards AND have MORE teacher/principal turnover than traditional schools.
- charters tend to be much more highly segregated than the districts they sit in
- The fact that charters do not do better than traditional schools even with autonomy and flexibility may show that it is not about regulation or teachers unions. If you want a change in the achievement gap, decades of research suggest that these educationally disadvantaged students will do better in schools that have economically integrated environments.
I wrote a whole series on charter schools (neutral research) covering history, landscape today, federal law, definition of, etc. It's at saveseattleschools.blogspot. com. I will note that many groups including Stand for Children, the Washington State PTSA and the League of Education Voters seem more interested in advocating for a position rather than helping parents and taxpayers understand charters. You have to wonder why given we have never had charters in this state and there are many, many people who know little about them.
Our state Supreme Court has just ruled that our Legislature is not fully funding education. Senator Tom and Rep. Pettigrew are quite silent on solving this problem.
So we are not even fully funding our EXISTING schools.
And yet they think bringing on-line MORE underfunded schools will be the answer to the achievement gap.
And it will cost the state more money (and they have not identified ONE revenue source for these costs).
And research shows that charters, overall, perform no better (or even worse) than traditional public schools.
Three strikes and you're out. We should be done with charter school talk in Washington State.
One last thing I want to hear from every single charter supporter - where do you get the money for charter school costs to the state?
Posted Mon, Jan 23, 1:06 p.m. Inappropriate
Westello makes a particularly good point about Section 115 allowing a majority of the schools to serve other purposes, rather than disadvantaged students, depending on the number of applications. We're revising the wording of the article.
Thanks
Posted Mon, Jan 23, 6:28 p.m. Inappropriate
There is nothing that a charter school can do that a public school cannot do.
Posted Mon, Jan 23, 7:47 p.m. Inappropriate
The Consortium of Universities for Global Health blog has a number of pieces written by John Stang. The Gates Foundation has been a major funder of CUGH global get-togethers. There couldn't be any connection between writing on charter schools and other subjects in which the Foundation has a hand, of course.
Posted Tue, Jan 24, 8:12 a.m. Inappropriate
This issue's proponents and opponents are so polarized it is difficult to rationally discuss.
1. Yes, more money is needed for all schools but that is a separate issue. Education dollars: The money follows the child; it is for the child's educations, not the school's perpetuation.
2. Yes, there are good charters and not so good charters. The charters can be terminated; no so easy with the not so good schools and definitely a challenge with the not so good teachers.
3. Pay and benefits based on seniority and union rules may work well for some businesses, but my child's education should not ride on whether the teacher has held the job for a long time; rather, on whether the teacher is doing a good job.
4. Performance appraisals are the norm in other jobs. And they come with "performance improved plans." And if the latter do not work, termination follows. Why should education be so different?
5. This is not a partisan issue. Witness Governor Cuoumo of New York and Chris Christie of New Jersey both advocating for common sense charters.
6. An overwhelming number of States have allowed "choice" and "charters" while our supposedly progressive State holds back approval.
7. Let's not be so quick to demonize supporters like the Gates Foundation. Disturbing turn of events to look to experts.
8. Even more disturbing is to deny students and their parents a chance to chose their own education future.
This debate will go on ad infinitum. Everything that can be said has been said. Time to decide.
Posted Tue, Jan 24, 8:59 a.m. Inappropriate
"Education dollars: The money follows the child; it is for the child's educations, not the school's perpetuation."
Again, yes this is true. But WHERE is the money ($33M) for administration of this program? We are all wondering. Still waiting for that answer.
"The charters can be terminated; no so easy with the not so good schools and definitely a challenge with the not so good teachers."
Nope, one of the main challenges today for states (and do look it up) is that they are NOT closing bad charters. See my post above for a statement from the DOE.
Posted Tue, Jan 24, 9:53 a.m. Inappropriate
"the money follows the child" Is that true? If you take any school in Washington and divide the total staff compensation by the number of students, is that number the same everywhere in the state? If induvidual schools aren't getting their proportional share of staff dollars, you have a flawed system. If you have the highest paid most experienced teachers gravitating toward a few schools, you have a system where the money is following the teacher, not the child. How to fix that, maybe give the principle the money and let them choose a team on that budget. Pay more at less desirable locations and cut pay at desirable locations to achieve equitable spending per child at each school in Washington State.
Posted Wed, Jan 25, 9:37 a.m. Inappropriate
1. Yes, more money is needed for all schools but that is a separate issue. Education dollars: The money follows the child; it is for the child's educations, not the school's perpetuation.
"The money follows the child" is a myth. It isn't really true. The money needed for schools is NOT a separate issue; it is this issue: how to secure better academic outcomes for our children. The failure is a systemic failure and the fault rests at the top with the people who control the system, starting with the state legislature and their refusal to adequately fund public education. This charter school measure is part of their effort to push the blame onto others who had no part in creating the systemic problems.
2. Yes, there are good charters and not so good charters. The charters can be terminated; no so easy with the not so good schools and definitely a challenge with the not so good teachers.
Again, false. It is no easier to close a failing charter than it is to close a failing public school. Also, if the solution is to make it easier to close schools then let's do that. If the benefit that charters offer is higher scrutiny, then let's bring that standard of scrutiny to all of our schools and allow every student to benefit from it.
3. Pay and benefits based on seniority and union rules may work well for some businesses, but my child's education should not ride on whether the teacher has held the job for a long time; rather, on whether the teacher is doing a good job.
Schools are not businesses. All of the rules for business, including pay and benefits, are driven by the profit motive. There is no profit motive in the public sector so none of the private sector rules will work.
4. Performance appraisals are the norm in other jobs. And they come with "performance improved plans." And if the latter do not work, termination follows. Why should education be so different?
Another myth. Teachers can be fired for poor performance and it happens a lot more than people suspect. It would happen more, but that's a failure of management, not teachers. If there is a bad teacher in a building, then there is also a bad principal in that building.
5. This is not a partisan issue. Witness Governor Cuoumo of New York and Chris Christie of New Jersey both advocating for common sense charters.
It's not a partisan issue. Regardless of their political party the people in control of the system are working to blame those caught in the system for the systemic failures instead of accepting their own accountability for the system that they maintain.
6. An overwhelming number of States have allowed "choice" and "charters" while our supposedly progressive State holds back approval.
What's your point? All the other kids are doing it? With what results?
7. Let's not be so quick to demonize supporters like the Gates Foundation. Disturbing turn of events to look to experts.
We shouldn't demonize the Gates Foundation even if some of their actions are demonic? Who should we demonize? Teachers? Their unions? Parents? Who do you cast as the villain in this melodrama?
8. Even more disturbing is to deny students and their parents a chance to chose their own education future.
Choice is possible without charters. We had it here in Seattle for years. It didn't help. Choice, like other private sector solutions, doesn't work in the public sector.
Posted Sun, Jan 29, 10:16 a.m. Inappropriate
Just in reading this article I would absolutely vote NO on any attempt to have charter schools in WA. I am a public school educator and I already see money wasted on testing that could be better put to use hiring extra staff to help struggling students. It could instead be used for extra training for teachers. What I saw mentioned that bothers me: They wouldn't have to abide by union rules, ergo, they would be non-union, furthering my belief that charter schools are being introduced to weaken the unions. Secondly an non-profit corporation would be hired to oversee the schools, so more money to pay a bunch of administrators huge salaries that would be better spent hiring enough staff to accommodate struggling students. Many charter schools can pick and choose what students they want to attend their schools. Public schools must accept anyone whether they have extreme handicapping conditions, behavior issues, learning issues, language barriers, etc. Here in Seattle we spend so much money paying for tests, proctoring, grading, etc. Every time I open my school bulletin for the day it seems another group of students is being tested for who knows what. Then I read comments on articles in different news publications and see that half the posters can't spell, punctuate or even coherently create a sentence that gets their point across. I just participated in a picketing event when Seattle teachers were forced from their classrooms for a half day furlough. The turnout was very low and where I picketed (there were about five locations) no students joined the few teachers except for some very young ones who accompanied parents. Public schools nowadays deal with such a wide variety of students and have very little resources to accommodate the onslaught. Further, everyone blames teachers and schools for kids not learning. Here's a solution: Pay people living wages so they don't have to leave the kids home alone playing video games while they work two jobs. I don't know if there's much we can do to change the mindset of a large population who do not value education. Then we elect politicians who don't value education either. They all give it lip service, but none of them will put money towards education materials, teacher pay, etc. Even Gary Locke, who ran on a platform of "education is my top priority" refused to give teachers a cost of living increase. In Seattle we haven't had a cost of living raise in more than a decade. So charter schools ARE NOT the answer. Would someone listen to the teachers for once?
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.