The differences between regular public schools and public charter schools and two comments

One of my friends asked:

In addition to KIPP why do you not acknowledge the good work of the Urban Assembly Schools, the College Board schools and some of the other small school public schools?  KIPP is not the only one producing good results.

There are two answers: A) I'm Vice Chair of KIPP in NYC and freely acknowledge my bias; B) That being said, I'm well aware that there are quite a few (and, thankfully, increasing number of) fabulous schools and programs out there and I have made an effort to visit them -- and extoll them in my emails.  For example, I often mention the incredible success of Uncommon Schools and Achievement First.  However, while the volume of emails may lead you to believe otherwise, I actually do have a full-time job (many full-time jobs, come to think of it!), so I'm lucky if I visit one new school per month.  Someday I hope to find the time to visit the Urban Assembly and College Board schools and, if they kick ass, I'll write about them as well...

 

My friend then followed up with these comments:

As you can probably tell, I work in a public school – most notably, one of the new small public high schools established in NYC.  I would suggest there are a number of alternative solutions to the urban education dilemma and charter schools are merely one spoke in the wheel. 

 

I still maintain that the tools utilized in charter schools are not easily transferred to the masses or replicated.   For instance, although we offer extended day programs, we can not mandate attendance.   Many families maintain that their children must leave to pick up siblings, etc.  So although we say the extended day is required, there is no recourse when families choose not to have their children stay, unlike in a KIPP Academy where the student can be asked to leave if the family does not participate in the extended day or Saturday programs. 

 

I could list a host of other issues related to being able to select or eliminate families that public neighborhood school have to contend with that make the comparisons difficult.   I do agree with you that it is not about more money.  We would take less money in exchange for more control over the families in a heartbeat.

 

I would only hope that those who bash public schools (I was one until I started working in one) would take into consideration the overall implications of the many pathologies of working with this population, given the multitude of good intentions but nonetheless restrictive and counter-productive administrative, legal and social variables.

 

Not withstanding the above, I am proud that our school is 65% Title 1 and we graduate in excess of 85% of our students and 85-90% of those graduates go on to college.   Given what we have to navigate, that is a winning school!

Here are my thoughts:

 

A) I hope she's not including me in the categorization of "those who bash public schools."  I LOVE public schools and believe that nothing is more important than a system of high-quality public education for all.  At one point, this system was the pride of this nation and helped make us great, which is why I view it as a catastrophic tragedy that we have allowed this system to deteriorate into mediocrity -- and utter failure in WAY too many areas (mostly schools serving low-income, minority students, who of course are most in need of the BEST public schools)!

Pointing out the obvious failures of our K-12 public schools -- such as 58% and 54% of black and Latino 4th grade children, respectively, are ILLITERATE! -- and forcefully DEMANDING genine reform rather than the usual mealy-mouthed crap that masquerades as reform is most assuredly NOT "bashing" public schools!

 

B) There is no doubt that regular public schools have their hands tied in ways the public charter schools do not.  But the solution here is to give EVERY public school similar freedoms to hire and fire staff, control its own budget, etc. -- and, in fact, this is precisely at the core of Bloomberg and Klein's recently announced reform plan.

 

C) It is also probably true that, since parents must make some modest effort to apply for a charter school lottery, a higher percentage of the truly worst-off children with parents who are unwilling or unable to lift a finger to benefit their child's education, end up at regular public schools rather than public charter schools.  But offsetting this is the fact that most public school districts also have schools the serve much-easier-to-handle-and-educate middle- and even upper-class students, whereas very few charter schools serve students like this.  In fact, most charter schools I know of DELIBERATELY seek out the toughest neighborhoods, families and students.

 

D) The idea that KIPP and other charter schools force families to comply with things like an extended day by threatening the child with expulsion couldn't be further from the truth.  I am not aware of a single instance in which this threat has been made, much less carried through on.  Instead, the schools make it clear up front what their school is all about, so that parents who don't agree with the program simply choose not to apply to that school's lottery.  You'd think this might take care of the problem, but it doesn't -- not even close.  Many families apply to the lottery without any clue what the school is all about -- perhaps because a friend recommeneded it, etc.  Thus, the schools must make a HUGE effort to educate parents and children and get them to buy into the program.  But they're not doing it by threats -- instead, it's a positive message that, for example, the school is making an enormous commitment to the child and that if the child and family reciprocate by putting in the extra hours and buying into the program, the child's odds of going to college and becoming a success in life are greatly enhanced.

 

Thus, the primary difference with regular public schools in not selective application to the charter schools' lotteries (though this is one element) nor the threat of expulsion, but rather: a) the flexibility charter schools have to do things like have an extended school day; and b) their commitment to persuading families to go along with their programs.

 

E) My final thought is that I should make more of an effort to visit more regular public schools, both successful and unsuccessful, to get a better understanding of these important issues.

----------------------

My friend had a witty and insightful response to the discussion over whether it's fair to compare charter schools and regular public schools:

In response to your friend’s comments about the unfairness of comparing charter schools to public schools, I agree with her.

I think that in order to have a fair comparison, we would need to level the playing field more. We would first need to give public schools: (1) more control over hiring and firing; (2) more autonomy over their budgets and other aspects of their program; (3) freedom from a lot of regulations that may or may not make sense in particular school or in a particular circumstance; and (4) the ability to require that the families of students who choose the school accept the basic principles of the school’s program such as longer hours.  And the only caveat is that if the school couldn’t produce results and attract families who were willing to send their children to the school, it should be shut down.

I think that if public schools were given these advantages, then they would do just as well – because, of course, they would then be charter schools!

---------------------

Another friend had a comment as well:

Charter schools are public schools.  Just like traditional public schools, attendance at charters is mandated by state law not by school policy.  I would be surprised if KIPP expels kids for attendance problems.  I can tell you that Achievement First does not.  I think your friend is thinking about the different practices used for encouraging attendance.  For instance, at Amistad Academy (an Achievement First School), good attendance is recognized in a morning circle every week,and classes with zero absences are celebrated in front of the entire school.  Competing for good attendance is contagious and kids feel proud when they win recognition.

 

Additionally, AF deans focus not only on student attendance as a predictor of academic success, but on teacher attendance as well.  There is no good reason that a traditional public school cannot enact the same kind of review and reward system. Similarly if there is a chronic truancy issue, there is no reason that a teacher in a traditional school can't call home repeatedly, or appear at the doorstep of the kid's home.  Good teachers in traditional schools or charters use every tool in the tool box to get the kid to go to school.

 

There are no legal barriers of which I am aware that prevent traditional schools from enacting the same kinds of policies and practices that successful charters utilize.  Not to pick on your friend, but all of the rhetoric about doubles standards and different rules between traditional schools and charters from apologists just doesn't wash.  Are the politics hard?  Sure.  Is it worthwhile to overcome them?  Shouldn't be a question in anyone's mind.  If you want to change the rules of the game, then as Nike says, "just do it". 

 

Here is an example of how it was done in Hartford by Kathy Greider, a great public school principal:

 

http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/Education/htfd_courant_092805.asp