The attended consequences of charter schools

From the reader Surfed

Here's what's going to happen to my school. We're down 250 students. Over the year they will start trickling back in as their parents get tired of taking them to schools across town or they get tired of riding a bus for an hour each way or as they get booted out of the Charter schools or just leave the Charter school to come hang with their neighborhood peeps. We will have already surplussed our excess teachers. As the students trickle back in our class sizes will swell because the students are returning without the money to hire more teachers. 

That money will have already been given to the Charter schools. They will also return in many instances without a focused look at the subject matter vis a vis FCAT. We will then test them at FCAT time and reap the consequences of the Charter student being unprepared for the test. Our teaching ass and our schools grade is on the line and we have little control over the outcome. This is what happens when you let politicians try to social engineer society whether it's education, health care, whatever. It's a train wreck.

Charter schools may be here to stay whether we like them or not.

By Greg Sampson

Charter Schools Will Not Go Away

At a recent presentation to Assistant Principals, Instructional Coaches, Deans of Displine, ISSP teachers, and District personnel, Superintendent Nikolai Vitti spoke of the competition that public schools face from charter schools and virtual academies.

They are not going away, he said. We have to begin to look at our parents as customers. We must market ourselves to our neighborhoods. Dr. Vitti wants these students to return to DCPS traditional public schools. He presented data that showed that charter schools in Duval County perform at the same levels as traditional public schools.

But parents think charter schools are a great option, Dr. Vitti continued, because charter schools market themselves as the way for parents to get a private school education using public money.

I believe what Dr. Vitti said and I applaud his goal to market our schools so parents return their children to our classrooms. However, the truth is that we are rowing upstream against the mighty Mississippi when it comes to bringing children back from charter schools.

The strategic plan published by the Florida Department of Education includes these goals: increase the number of charter schools from 518 in the 2011-12 school year to 829 schools for the 2017-18 school year, with 8.5% growth in the number of schools for a total of 60% growth over the six-year period; increase the number of students enrolled in charter schools from 179,940 to 359,880 over the same time period, a 12.5% growth in the number of charter school students for a 100% growth total over the same six years.

Since the overall number of children in schools will not grow over that period, the implication is clear. The State Board of Education and the Florida Department of Education are working to reduce enrollment in Florida’s traditional public schools. Here is the link to the strategic plan (look at items 3.4 and 3.6): http://www.fldoe.org/board/meetings/2012_10_09/strategicv3.pdf

No matter how hard we try or how well we market our schools, charter schools will not go away.

(Greg Sampson is a DCPS teacher on special assignment as the instructional math coach for his school, which is located on the Westside.)

What We Need to Hear from the President

Reviewing the range of responses to President Obama's plan to reduce college costs, and the questions that are being raised on Twitter, it seems important that the Administration clarify a few things sooner rather than later.

1. This effort to reduce college costs is a first step and thus it is not intended to solve all problems.  The President should say something more specific about the ultimate goal and what it would look like in practice. Are we working towards a free community college education? Are we trying to close achievement gaps?  What is the intended outcome down the road?

2. This is not NCLB for higher education.  The President needs to assure the public that he is not calling for standardized testing, the end of professorial tenure, or a focus on specific fields or majors.  He is trying to help more Americans access the quality post secondary education they seek, not water down quality or redefine what matters.

3. This is an effort to protect public higher education, not destroy it.  This needs to be said loud and clear, and the President's commitment to community colleges in particular must be emphasized.  Too many community college leaders are distressed at the roll-out of these plans, and I did not think that was intended.

4. This is also not an attempt to end for-profit or private higher education.  The purpose is to ensure that Title IV is spent in ways that support national needs, not to define the entire range of opportunities that can exist.  It is certainly possible to support private and for-profit educational providers without insisting that the federal government should also subsidize them.

5.  The President is not insisting that everyone must go to college-- he is  trying to help make the American Dream a reality by decoupling family income from educational opportunities.

Now, if I'm correct that these are all statements the President and his Administration can agree with, let's move on to figuring out how to take aim at the underlying inefficiencies in the current financial aid system using institutional accountability.

I think it would be a mistake to subject all institutions to metrics anytime in the near future. Most colleges and universities are good actors, keeping college costs down as long as states do their part. What we need to do as a starting point is to get a handle on (a) the bad actors and (b) federal investments that are ineffective and unnecessary.

Which schools fall into those categories? Here's a start.

BAD ACTORS

1. Institutions whose primary revenue source is Title IV.  Let's say those who get at least 75% of funding from Pell and/or student loans, for example.  These schools aren't operating based on market demand but rather are propped up by federal aid.

2. Institutions with selective admissions (say less than 75% admitted) and low average graduation rates (less than 50% over 5 years).

INEFFECTIVE, UNNECESSARY INVESTMENTS

1. Institutions with large endowments per student.

2. Institutions serving very few Pell recipients (regardless of whether this is due to admissions practices, costs, or a decision to simply be small).


If we could ensure that federal student aid no longer supported these schools, we would see fewer students attend these schools, their prices would likely fall (or they would close), and/or at minimum we'd save money that could be spent elsewhere.

If that were the first stage, then the Department of Education could begin by publishing these lists of problematic schools, issuing a warning that they have three years to get off the list or lose Title IV.


The other big issue is how to get states back to the table.  There could be a separate list of states that are put on probation based on a failure to match federal investments in higher education with state investments.  All colleges and universities in those states should be put at risk of losing Title IV-- including the privates and for-profits-- and given 5 years to address the problems.

None of this is perfect, of course, but they get us thinking about a more targeted, incremental approach to reform.  What do you think? What would you include?

Here is a joke, what school has 150 student gym classes and no librarian?

Mandarin high, sadly though parents don’t find it very funny.

Jason Fischer is the School Board member there, if this sounds inappropriate to you let him know. 
fischerj@duvalschools.org

Jacksonville’s Northside Schools left to languish.

Reports of overcrowded classrooms being led by substitutes are starting to creep out of Ribault and Raines High schools and Kirby Smith middle.

First I think it is great that people are starting to see through the false choice of charters and recent improvement has seen kids come back but the district only has a limited opportunity to make sure this return is permanent. Putting subs in classes, having huge classes some with fifty and sixty students or seeing other students sit idle in their school’s auditorium is not the way to do it.

DCPS has an opportunity here to show the parents of an often-neglected part of town that their kids matter too. I hope they don’t blow it. 

Parents of Kirby Smith Middle school students, be sure to pack a snack

Kirby Smith’s school day starts at 8:10 and goes to 2:55. If your kids an 8^th grader his lunch starts at 9:30, which for many I imagine is just 90 minutes after when they ate breakfast, give or take a few minutes. Over the summer I called 9:30 breakfast and I imagine many of you did too.

Then from 10 till sometime after 2:55 these hormone raging, fast growing adolescents are expected to power through.

That however isn’t the most shocking thing going on at Kirby Smith, supposedly one of the best schools the district has to offer.  No the most disturbing thing is Kirby doesn’t have enough teachers and a lot of its kids are forced to spend hours in the auditorium doing nothing. Kids will likely lose weeks of instruction time.

I am reminded of the saying you only have one time to make a first impression. Color me unimpressed.   

The hypocrisy of the school choice movement.

Public schools took a beating today in the Times Union today. They were called unaccountable failures with only school choice (vouchers and charter schools) being able to save some.

Have you ever wondered why we only have one police department or fire department, one army and one navy? It is because when we put all our resources into one pot we are able to do more with them. It is the same with public schools and when resources are siphoned away it weakens them and since public schools are here to benefit us all, charter schools on the other hand are here to generate a profit for their operators, it hurts us all.

I also find it ironic and a little sickening that the same people who scream loudest for school choice are against a living wage increase, housing subsidies and affordable health care. The scream screw poor black folks (and white, Hispanic, etc folks too,) and call them moochers and takers but if they want to send their kids to a private school in an abandoned strip mall, then we’ll help out some.

The following is from the Rachel Maddow blog:

If folks on the left argue, "It's not fair that working people can't choose the same quality, affordable health care as rich people," the right condemns the argument as socialism.

If folks on the left argue, "It's not fair that working people can't choose to have the same access to safe, affordable housing as rich people," the right condemns the argument as socialism.

If folks on the left argue, "It's not fair that working people can't choose to have the same access to reliable transportation as rich people," the right condemns the argument as socialism.

If folks on the left argue, "It's not fair that working people can't choose to have the same quality nutrition as rich people," the right condemns the argument as socialism.

But when schools are the topic of conversation, conservatives claim the high ground -- they may celebrate income inequality as part of a competitive free market, and may not lose any sleep over struggling Americans lacking access to health care, housing, transportation, and food, but if you deny poor kids a voucher to pay private-school tuition, you're obviously a heartless monster.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/07/19916292-jeb-bushs-narrow-understanding-of-choice?lite