Should charter schools be neighborhood schools?

November 11, 8:27 AMCharter Schools ExaminerKarin Piper

Previous Next

9 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Charter Schools Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Denver Superintendent Tom Boasberg

"Charter schools are public schools, and they must be public schools in every sense of the word," says Denver Public School (DPS) Superintendent Tom Boasberg, in an unveiling of future plans for Denver Schools. "Effectively, there will be absolutely no distinction between charter schools and district schools."

My initial reaction is the same as if you scraped your fingernails across the blackboard. Isn’t the whole idea behind charter schools to be innovative, different and free from bureaucracy? But suddenly charter schools are supposed to fall in line with the status quo?

Let’s back up. What Denver Superintendent Boasberg is actually referring to is to experiment with charter school enrollment policy. The DPS plan would affect two new charter schools--West Denver Preparatory and Edison Learning operated Manny Martinez Middle School—both which are planned to operate inside district owned facilities. If this plan is approved, these two charter schools would begin serving their respective communities as “boundary” schools and enroll students based on their zip codes rather than being opted by families as alternative schools.

Currently the models used for enrollment in Colorado charter schools are a random lottery system or true first-come-first-serve admission.

This little nugget may not seem like a big deal to some. It can even be pointed out that Green Dot Schools (charter chain) have had such an enrollment system introduced to at least one of its schools—Locke High School. But what works for one school may not be such a great move for others. And the DPS proposal is a jagged little pill from so many angles.

Let’s dissect the topic further:

•    If DPS want to convert charters to have “effectively no distinction” from non-chartered public schools, is a change in mandated enrollment policy the first change, of how many?
•    Is assigning schools by zip code actually such a great idea to begin with? I actually find it rather insulting that there is a proposal to mandate education choices—of any form—to families. As a parent I pick my kids pediatrician, whether to nurse or bottle feed, Huggies or Pampers, but I’m going to be told to hand over my kid to the school district because based on our address they know best in how my kid learns. Baloney! I don’t care what type of school it is, that’s simply a ridiculous practice. Maybe the government should make people’s employment decisions based on zip code too. Hey, you live in 80222—you must be a veterinarian!
•    School-family-agreements. Several charter schools practice family-school-agreements, meaning enrolling families sign a “contract” which lists the expectations and responsibilities for each of the vested party, i.e. the teacher, student, and the parents. Will this be too much of a charter culture shock for some families? If so, Boasberg says the families can opt out of the charter school. Great idea, that leads us to the next concern…
•    Where do students go who did not find that the assigned charter school was a great fit for them? Their neighborhood school? Oh yeah, only problem is the charter school is the neighborhood school.
•    Parental involvement has always been a part of charter culture. It’s often the side effect of giving families choice in education. If a parent is excited about a school and believe in its mission, they are excited about getting involved. If a family is simply assigned a school, charter or otherwise, and don’t believe it’s the best fit for their student, how can we possible be asked to man the bake sale?
•    Do charter schools naively set themselves up to be framed into a different set of conditions when accepting facility agreements with an authorizing school district? This was a huge concern for charter schools earlier this year when discussions about districts including charter schools in bond elections were taking place in for Colorado Senate Bill 176. At the time district authorizers across Colorado adamantly denied this. DPS’s proposal appears that at least one district authorizer has changed their mind. You don’t see charter schools located in non-district owned buildings included in the proposal, do you? Nope. If the two charters don’t like the idea of having “no distinction” between charters and the district controlled schools, I wonder what will unfold next. The Denver Charter Schools Examiner warns charters about those attached strings.
•    Based on what exactly is it that DPS thinks that charter schools should become neighborhood schools? Because DPS operated schools perform better than charters? Look again. Charter schools are on top of district performance. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have neighborhood schools adopt practices of successful charter schools rather than force charters to implement practices of less-than-fantastic schools? DPS is talking about closing and restructuring several of its neighborhood schools, but want the charters to be more like these?
•    Charter Schools contract permission to operate from their authorizer based on a firm number of enrollments. For example, a charter school K-8 might operate under an agreement that their school’s student enrollment will not go over 450. Since charter schools usually have lottery admissions, or first-come-first-serve, they accept that number of kiddos according to the policy, the rest goes on a wait list; hence they are compliant to their authorizer on the agreed student count. Now make this charter school a neighborhood school. Suddenly, enrollment is not as easily gauged. Is DPS planning on flexing with these charter schools on enrollment figures in the charter contract? A trusted insider source pointed out that DPS could possibly charter the schools for a set number of kiddos, then not need to pay the charters for the extra number of students should enrollment surge above that count. Wow! Does that sound like a sneaky way of hemorrhaging reform right out of the district? The only other option would be to grant the participating charters an unlimited number of kids for their enrollments, hence not have wait lists—ever! You’d need a policy with similar give and take as Aunt Ruth’s Thanksgiving elasto-pants. That could actually make it very nice for the charters as they now can truly accept every kiddo on the wait list. Talk about the gift that keeps on giving, Edison and Denver Prep will be the fastest growing charter schools in Denver. Wohoo!
•    Charter schools are designed to operate autonomously from their authorizer, write their own bylaws, structure their own organization and run their contracted public-ed business. The authorizer discerns who deserves to be stewards of taxpayer funds—most importantly--our children. Now, I’ve looked all through the National Association of Charter School Authorizer’s (NACSA) website, skimmed the Internet, dug deep in the corners of my memory, but I cannot find a suggestion that a charter school authorizer ought play a role in deciding what type of enrollment procedure a charter school should use in its operations (as long as it is a permitted practice for that state, of course). Is DPS trying to get into charter management business?

These are just some of the immediate questions that have come up so far. Another interesting note is that the dynamics of the previously very reform minded DPS Board of Education is changing.Not sure what happened in DPS, but charter families just did not represent heavily as voters this year. Well school choice fans, here is a very good reason to never, ever fall asleep at the ballot:

As of last week, school reformers are yielding their majority presence on the board to an incoming group which is largely represented by status quo. One of these members was elected in spite of some blatantly anti-charter campaign material, although adamantly denying being particularly anti-charter.

Interestingly the unveiling of DPS changes comes this week, and the yet-to-be-sworn-in-board will be voting to approve or deny the plan in its first meeting next week.

Although I am usually a cynic of conspiracy theories, this DPS plan was not hatched overnight and certainly not the type of moves we have seen previously by the out-going charter friendly board.

The intent and integrity behind the DPS proposal is soon to be tested. And how Boasberg and the incoming DPS board actually uses this type of policy is yet to be seen. Will such implementation be a seemingly non-issue, as with Green Dot Schools, or will it become a rather effective tool for charter school foes to control these autonomous organizations?

Boasberg has not been known as a charter foe, and I certainly hope this is not the beginning of a negative trend. He is replacing former superintendent Michael Bennet who left the position to serve as a Colorado Senator. Bennet became famed for reform-friendly strategies for improving tattered DPS schools and supporting charter schools.

I remain hopeful that Boasberg will stand firm against decisions which may have negative impact on existing reform which have served DPS so well. With the changing climate on the DPS Board of Education, it will take a particularly strong leader to do so. This might be the very opportunity for Boasberg to fill Bennet's shoes, and create a name of his own. Question is: What type of reputation would Boasberg prefer to have?--Reform supporter, or pal of status quo.

Time will tell.

Other articles by this Examiner: