A few points.

I'm not familiar with every state's charter school laws, needless to say, but Minnesota has three Edison schools, which are charter schools run by a for-profit company (all in Duluth). They were in no way whatsoever "founded and run by a majority of teachers who serve in that school." So your pleasing-sounding description of Minnesota's charter school law cannot be accurate.

**

Yes, this is exactly like traditional public schools in every single respect!

**"If you have seen one charter school, you have seen one charter school." Charter law opens the door for a plethora of types of learning environments for kids. Some are successful and some are not. Some attract a student body that likely will under perform on assessment measures due to other external factors...**

**

It's a straw man to claim that charter school critics say charters "only want the best students." That's not what charter critics say.

What we charter critics say is that because of the fact that all charter schools enroll only students whose families sought out and requested the school, charter schools enroll students from families that are interested in and focused on their children's education, as opposed to families that for whatever reason are not willing or able to pay attention to or put any effort into their children's education.

That's why charter schools attract only students from more-motivated families, which means those students are predisposed to be more compliant and successful in school. Charter schools do not -- ever, by definition -- enroll students from the troubled and dysfunctional families who do not have the wherewithal to take any interest in their children's schooling.

Despite that huge -- massive, gi-normous -- advantage, charter schools overall don't outperform traditional public schools.

Those Edison schools were certainly not started by teachers. I assume your information is correct, so in that case, the Edison schools are undoubtedly flirting with defying the law and/or scheming and maneuvering to meet the letter of the law while violating the spirit of the law.

When there was an Edison-run school in my district, it was required to be governed by a community council, a group made of up community members and other. But actually, the community council was a complete sham. The council's members admitted that they didn't even know what they had lent their names to. One activist requested the minutes of the meetings, and was given supposed minutes that were identical to the word, comma and period but with different dates on them -- including one for a meeting that hadn't happened yet. I'm just saying...

Why shouldn't alternative public schools count as "traditional public schools"? I use "traditional public schools" in the standard way, which is to mean a public school that's not a charter school -- that doesn't mean their programs are "traditional." If that's your misinterpretation, we need a new term for "non-charter public school." The point is that we don't need the problems that come with charter schools to have schools that offer flexible, innovative programs.

Both my kids attend a non-charter, urban public arts high school in which they study their art all afternoon after academic classes in the morning. That's far more out of the ordinary mold than any of the charter schools in our district. In many years of following the charter school movement, I have not heard of any charter schools offering programs or environments that aren't being offered in non-charter public schools. Also, charters -- despite the constant stream of false information to the contrary -- generally have more money to spend per student, and since they overall accept far fewer students with challenges, they don't have to spend money on those higher-need students, either. So quite a few of the programs often touted as unique to charters (such as KIPP's longer days and hours) are not only not unique, they are also offered in charters because the charters can afford them, not because of some great specialness about charter schools. 

Carl: In this ongoing discussion about charter schools, and with the fact that some of your ideas are so simplistic to me, I started thinking our different perspectives might have to do with having totally different personal experiences.

You are a teacher, but I don't know the type of student body you work with. From looking at your blog, I see that you are in your early 30's and live in Rochester, Minnesota. As for me, I've been living in Oakland, California since 1985, and have been sending my children to the public schools here since 1993. There are quite a lot of differences between our two worlds.

From 2000 US Census:

Rochester (pop. ~97,000) vs. Oakland (pop. ~397,000)

-White - 87.5% vs. 31.3%
-Black - 3.6% vs. 35.7%
-Asian - 5.6% vs. 15.2%
-Two or more races - 1.8% vs. 5.0%
-Hispanic or Latino origin - 3.0% vs. 21.9%
-Foreign born persons - 10.1% vs. 26.6%
-Language other than English spoken at home - 12.2% vs. 36.8%
-High school graduates, percent of persons age - 25+ - 91.0% vs. 73.9%
-Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age - 25+ - 38.1% vs. 30.9%
-Persons below poverty, percent - 7.8% vs. 19.4%
-Violent crime rate per 1,000 people (2003) - 2.8 vs. 13.8

Oakland Unified, the school district experience from which I derive my perspective, is:

-White - 6.5%
-Black - 34.8%
-Asian - 13.4%
-Hispanic or Latino origin - 37.3%
-Qualify for Free or Reduced Price Lunch - 64%
-English Learners - 30%

Rochester Public Schools are:
-Minority enrollment (not specified) - 28.25%
-English Language Learners - 14%
-Low income - 28.7%

Our school districts are certain to have a different history as well.

There was a state takeover of Oakland Unified in 2003. The state superintendent assigned Eli Broad trained state administrators to run the district. Traditional public schools, long neglected, were forced to close and charter schools were rapidly installed by the Broad trained staff. They did not care that members of this community were attached to those schools and to the people who worked in them.

What needs to be mentioned is that schools are part of the spirit and history of a community; they shouldn't just be demolished and dismantled at some outsider's will. They aren't like houses which are only physical "things" and this where your analogy is flawed. Schools are more like homes. They deserve positive attention and care, and it is those things that will make them stronger.

The destruction in Oakland was all driven by Eli Broad and his venture philanthropist bedfellows, who don't care a bit about our community. It was a result of political campaign payoffs by Broad and friends to our State Superintendent. You can read the details on my blog.

Communities who have seen their school districts taken over by an autocratic/authoritarian rule (such as in DC & NYC) are being subjected to a very specific and well-funded strategy on the part of a business generated/pro-charter force. I doubt they would ever target your community's schools in the same, undemocratic way.

Thanks for this series.

What we charter critics say is that because of the fact that all charter schools enroll only students whose families sought out and requested the school, charter schools enroll students from families that are interested in and focused on their children's education, as opposed to families that for whatever reason are not willing or able to pay attention to or put any effort into their children's education.

It's always interesting to see charter/voucher opponents make the incredibly damning admission that families who care about academic achievement will tend to try to get out of the public schools, and that families who stay in the public school tend to be negligent and neglectful. 

Maybe we're forming a bridge of understanding now.

The fact that the pro-charter agenda is being forced down the throats of urban dwellers is a very real issue for me, and that's why I am anti-charter. I'm guessing that your pro-charter perspective is because you desire more tailored, and creative learning environments for the kids in a community such as yours.

KIPP is certainly a tailored learning environment, but somehow I don't think this type of uber tight control of children is what you have in mind.

What we are witnessing in urban areas is that the kids who are society's "dregs" will eventually all be rounded up in one place, if the charter movement is allowed to grow. Because of their boutique, self-selection, and yes, cherry-picking nature, the charters in these communities on on their way to separating and stratifying each group. The kids will have no interaction outside of their own type, just like private schools. Frankly, I think its good for children from different worlds to get to know a little about one another.

High school teachers here in Oakland are noticing a change in the quality of their incoming 9th grade classes. They are getting worse and worse and are attributing it to the fact that charters have siphoned off many of the kids with the most together and pro-active parents.

Most of us do not believe this is a unintentional side effect of charters at this point. The size of the propaganda and the strategy that pushes charters into big city school districts is too huge. If you haven't yet read http://perimeterprimate.blogspot.com/2009/04/scheming-called-venture-philanthropy.html, please do.

Teachers' union president Albert Shanker is credited for coming up with the idea for charter schools and in those innocent days they were something like what you have in mind. According to Tough Liberal, Richard Kahlenberg's biography, Shanker "watched with alarm as the concept he put forward began to move away from a public-school reform effort to look more like a private-school voucher plan. Shanker came to believe that the charter school movement was largely hijacked by conservatives who made many charter schools vulnerable to the same groups that made voucher schools so dangerous: for-profit corporations, racial separatists, the religious right, and anti-union activists...Shanker watched with dismay as 'those who had tremendous contempt for public education' jumped on to the charter school bandwagon."

This all reminds me of the story of kudzu. Have you ever been to the south? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu

Isn't it interesting how these particular pro-charter forces have swooped into the communities with the weakest ability to fight (least educated, high illiteracy, non-English, immigrant, etc.).

It's truly amazing to see this kind of demonization.  And it's a catch-22.  If rich people started schools for rich kids, well that would be segregative, elitist, etc.  But let a few rich people finally say, "I'm going to do my best to help poor communities," then the knee-jerk status quo folks accuse them of somehow victimizing the poor communities. 

But one of the strongest voices accusing those rich folks of victimizing poor communities is Diane Ravitch, longtime "education reform" advocate, Hoover Institution fellow and education official in the George H.W. Bush administration.

I think it's not being "knee-jerk status quo" that prompts thoughtful education observers to raise alarms, but how much they understand about what's going on in urban schools. Ravitch's views have changed as she has watched firsthand the changes in NYC public schools.

Stuart says: "It's always interesting to see charter/voucher opponents make the incredibly damning admission that families who care about academic achievement will tend to try to get out of the public schools, and that families who stay in the public school tend to be negligent and neglectful."

But that's a deliberately twisted version of what charter critics say -- not an honest or ethical way to make a point, Stuart. And it's not "incredibly damning," expect to the charter advocates who inaccurately insist that charters are serving the full spectrum of students.

The families whom you call "negligent and neglectful" will indeed remain in the public schools, because they don't have the wherewithal and resources to pursue other options. That's not the same as implying that all or most families in public school tend to be negligent and neglectful.

Carl, my kids' school is in its 26th year of existence; it has been around since well before charter schools were a gleam in their misguided founders' eyes. Many other specialty and magnet schools also existed well before charters were thought of. And yes, specialty and magnet public schools do sort for families who specifically request them -- but they do it openly and honestly, not covertly while denying it and proclaiming themselves superior to other schools, the way charter schools do.
 

It's  not twisted at all: I was just repeating what you said, however unwittingly.  In your own words, people who attend charter schools or accept vouchers are the same ones who "are interested in and focused on their children's education," while the people who stay in the public schools "are not willing or able to pay attention to or put any effort into their children's education."

Wow.  I mean, I like charter schools, vouchers, etc., but I wouldn't say something about public schools quite so damning as that. 

But let a few rich people finally say, "I'm going to do my best to help poor communities,..."

Stuart Buck: I don't have a problem with rich people helping poor communities by trying to improve their public schools. But I do have a problem when they don't directly and closely consult with those communities first, but instead presume to know what is needed.

For years, one of my local philanthropists, Gary Rogers of Dreyer's Ice Cream fortune, has had a program called the Rocky Road Community Bus. Teachers apply for a day when this decorated, special bus picks up their class and takes them on a field trip to anywhere they want. The waiting list is perpetually very long, even hopelessly so.

Kids who grow up in poor communities don't have parents with minivans who drive them to museums, aquariums, parks, and other wonderful places. I recall a 7th grade teacher telling me that in one of his classes, half of the kids had already been to Europe, and that in another class half of the kids had never even been to San Francisco (16 miles away). At that time the school had "accelerated" and "non-accelerated" classes; guess which one was which.

Wouldn't it be marvelous for inner-city kids if there were many more buses like the Dreyer's bus, and if the program even paid for entrance fees and provided a great lunch? What if non-working parents were invited to come along, too? Middle-class families get to do this all the time; the experiences open eyes, foster curiosity, and give inspiration.

Supporting school libraries is another thing philanthropists could do. My guess is that public schools in many cities are experiencing the same neglected situation that is going on in Oakland. Most schools here have a physical library space and a collection of books from the old days, but they aren't staffed because schools haven't been able to afford librarians for years. If staffing needs were met, the libraries would also need more reading materials and up-to-date library technology (bar codes, magnetic swiping, etc.). Why don't billionaires adopt all those dead school libraries and bring them back to life? With some support, they could be turned into thriving local centers of learning that could be open before and after school, maybe even a night or two so whole families could stop by. Isn't promoting literacy in this population one of the main goals?

Low income parents aren't as likely to attend school meetings, because they don't feel connected with the school and/or because sacrificing that time and effort is a true family hardship. They'd be a lot more likely to attend if good food and childcare was provided, if great things are raffled off, and if transportation assistance is given. Overwhelmed inner-city public school administrators don't have the funding and time to develop programs that would entice poor parents to attend their useful meetings. Why couldn't the rich people form a non-profit that would provide the schools with positive programs like this?

In the seven years I was working at my local school, it astounded me to watch computer after computer get purchased, but then languish in the corner because the district didn't have enough computer techs to set them up and keep them running. When things went wrong with a working computer, it could easily take months before a tech would respond from the district's IT department; there just isn't enough staff. Lucky schools here have parents or teachers who take on computer maintenance as a do-gooder side job. Also, it's not unusual to find that the internet doesn't functioning properly in older school buildings. The idea of having working wireless seems like light years away. Why doesn't computer mega-mogul Bill Gates narrow his focus and help the schools with that?

Parents who want to volunteer in schools in my district must now be willing to pay the $90 for fingerprinting every year. My local middle school used to have three school counselors, one for each grade; now it has only one. Why won't the edu-philanthropists sponsor those things? I KNOW it would help. On and on and on. There are so many things that would truly help the traditional neighborhood public schools and the kids in them, other than closing them down and replacing them with charters.

I wish the venture philanthropists would stop their charter pushing and send teams into the public schools to assess what the grassroots needs are. The teams could interview teachers, students, principals, parents, school security staff, secretaries, etc. and ask, "What things do you need to help you do a better job?" A lot of useful things could be learned by consulting directly with the common people. Then the immense resources could be used to improve the quality of life at the existing schools, to increase the schools' ability to function, and to boost teacher morale. Extra targeted support would work wonders.

Of course, my entire response is on a presumption that the true intention of these people has been simply to "help," but I am not convinced that it is. At any rate, if they had done something as sensible as the things I am suggesting, the two of us wouldn't be engaged in this testy conversation now.

There is a Stuart Buck, a Harvard educated attorney, who is a Research Associate at University of Arkansas, Department of Education Reform, "...the newest department in the College of Education and Health Professions, established on July 1, 2005. The creation of the Department of Education Reform was made possible through a $10,000,000 private gift and an additional $10,000,000 from the University's Matching Gift Program. This gift is one of the largest ever received by a college of education in the country. With these resources the department has six endowed professorships, ten doctoral fellowships, and funds for research and projects (Stuart is probably getting paid to deal with people like Caroline and me)."

Let's take a guess at who gave that unprecedented contribution?

You can read about the Walton family's influence here - http://www.waltoninfluence.com/influence/news-archive/the_wal_mart_effect

"In 2006, the Walton Family Foundation spent more than $92 million on K-12 education reform initiatives, including $55 million on charter schools and $27 million on private school scholarship and voucher programs.

The family's historic rationale has been that public schools will benefit from competition if all students - not just those from affluent homes - have choices other than their neighborhood public school...

The greatest single donation was a $300 million pledge from the Walton Family Charitable Support Foundation to the University of Arkansas in 2002 - a gift the university believes is still the largest ever to a college in the United States."

All I'm sayin' is two plus two is ... (By the way, my mother-in-law grew up in Little Rock, in the "colored" side of town. She went to segregated Dunbar High.)

For those of you more interested in the targets for the Walton family's generosity, go to http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/990search.php and type in Walton Family Foundation (EIN 133441466), de-select "Show only the latest returns?" and click submit.

In case you don't know, the four members of the Walton family are ranked billionaires #3,4, 5 & 6, with a total net worth of $93.1 billion.

In my humble opinion, the family needs to review its "historic rationale."

Those all sound like great causes.  That said, I'm still not sure why people who, from their perspective, are trying to help should have to be limited to the few things that you would personally approve. 

Put it this way.  There are people in the world who have a different perspective from you, and who don't necessarily agree with everything that you say. 

From their perspective, the world of education is somewhat like Microsoft having a monopoly on computer systems, and they see themselves as wanting to start up a better alternative (such as Apple, or Linux, etc.). 

Still viewing things from their perspective, these people see you and your ideological kin as making the following argument:

"I hate all these people who are trying to destroy Microsoft by targeting poor computer users for their propaganda about having a choice among computers.  If these rich folks were really interested in helping computer users, they would spend all their time and money volunteering for Microsoft.  For example, they could donate money for Microsoft to hire more personnel to answer the phones for technical support.  Or they could donate more money for Microsoft to make more user-friendly versions of its products."

Again viewing things from their perspective, these people think that your argument is odd.  Who says it's written in stone that all computer users must use Microsoft, and that the only way to improve the computer experience is to do it by specifically giving more money to Microsoft?  Maybe Microsoft itself could figure out some ways to improve with a little more healthy competition.  And maybe Apple isn't an evil conspiracy trying to "target" people; instead, it's just a company that's trying to grow specifically by helping people. 

I could spell out the analogy to schools, but that would be rather tedious.  You get the point, I'm sure. 

Yes, that's me. 

By the way, a much more user-friendly version of the Walton Family Foundation's grants can be found here: http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/aboutus/2007grants.asp

By the way, this is absolutely false:
 
Stuart is probably getting paid to deal with people like Caroline and me.

Stuart, that's called a shill (at least that's the more polite term for it).

By the way, I almost missed this: your mother-in-law went to Dunbar in Little Rock?  That's fascinating . . . somewhere in my boxes of stuff I have an old postcard with the Dunbar school from Little Rock, as well as a book on Dunbar by Faustine Jones (it was extremely difficult to track down a copy of this).  I've also chatted with Erma Glasco Davis, a 1945 alum of Dunbar in Little Rock, and former president of the National Dunbar Alumni Association, see http://www.ndaaoflra.org/.

Dunbar High School in Little Rock was one of the many casualties of desegregation, i.e., black schools forced to shut down or be converted into a different school.

I need to stop using "by the way." 

Caroline -- can you try to be civil and tolerant?  Thanks.

Sorry, Stuart, but if your job is funded by the very same forces that you're defending, it's not uncivil or intolerant to point out that that's a major conflict of interest.

My job isn't "funded" by those "forces" -- it's funded by the University of Arkansas.  FYI, universities get donations all the time by rich people or rich foundations who admire what the university, or some department thereof, is doing.  That's just the way the world works, and it's completely ubiquitous.  But it doesn't mean that the university (let alone every low-level employee thereof) can then be described as a "shill" for whatever causes that the rich people or rich foundations might happen to believe in. 

Moreover, I've already directly said that it is unequivocally false to suggest that the Walton Family Foundation has anything to do with the fact that I'm arguing here.  No one at the Walton Family Foundation would even have any idea that I ever post anywhere on the entire Internet, the only conceivable exception being if someone there happens to do a google search that coincidentally leads to my blog.  In fact, no one that I work for or with would have any idea that I have left any comments on this blog, which is rather obscure.  I ended up here only because I read the Core Knowledge blog out of personal interest, and I followed a link to this blog, of which I had never before heard.  

I've written on my own blog about education for the past 7+ years, long predating the few months I've worked as a Research Associate at the University of Arkansas.  I'd be saying the exact same things (and HAVE said exactly the same things) if I worked at any other job in the country. 

In any event, ad hominem arguments are fallacious.  That's why I'm not googling you or Sharon Higgins to try to come up with some means of attacking your personal life rather than your arguments.   

Well, sorry to be a crank about it. Charter people have repeatedly tried to organize debates that pitted me (unpaid volunteer mommy) against paid charter flacks with the vast might of all those billionaires, think tanks, pro-charter government agencies etc. at their disposal. Jay Mathews himself suggested that -- and he's the nation's highest-profile education journalist, employed by the company that owns Newsweek and the Washington Post.

I don't think you'll find anything very damning. You can find that I co-chaired Back to School Night and Science, Math and Humanities Nights at Aptos Middle School in the San Francisco Unified School District in the 2007-08 school year (for some reason that shows up on Google). Also that I was in charge of Aptos Tigers sweatshirt sales. You got me! I admit everything!