Education at charters is spotty, oversight lax

This is what Arne and Obama are promoting? What kind of safeguards do they plan?

Education at charters is spotty, oversight lax
15-year report card: Problems can persist for years with no action

By Rhonda Bodfield and Enric Volante
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.16.2009


One couple made more than $337,000 last year to operate their charter schools, even though the schools don't rank among top academic performers.

Instructors at another charter school failed to keep students in class long enough and couldn't prove they'd met graduation requirements or that the staff was qualified to teach.

<snip>

... an Arizona Daily Star investigation has found that state regulators rarely visit charter schools, that sporadic oversight sometimes allows academic and financial issues to continue for years, and that information about charter schools is difficult for parents to come by.
Among the Star's findings:

• Students in charter schools score slightly higher than traditional public school counterparts overall in the AIMS test in lower grades. But there is a 30 percentage point gap in how many of their students pass the high school AIMS test compared with district schools.

• While it's clear that some charter schools do excellent work, problems at others can persist for years. The state has revoked charter licenses only 14 times — and poor academic performance was specifically identified in only one case.

• The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools has only seven staff positions — and only five are filled — to oversee 502 charter schools. Regulators visit a school once in each of its first two years and may never go back.

• Information about how schools spend public dollars and about complaints and other problems is difficult to obtain. Instead of going to your local school district office, you must drive to Phoenix to look at records. In Arizona, you can go online to check whether gas stations pass inspection, but not charter schools.

• Some administrators make salaries that don't seem on par with academic performance, and some have salaries that rival superintendents of much-larger districts. Taxpayers are in the dark about how much some operators make because budget information submitted to the state Education Department is sparse. And 12 percent of the schools are for-profit ventures that don't file federal forms required of nonprofits that would provide more details on their operations.

• The charter board isn't required to weigh in on complaints to determine their validity in the same way that, say, the boards that oversee doctors or lawyers are. The board does investigate if it gets a complaint that a school is charging tuition, for example, or if the school is endangering the health and safety of students. But, generally, complaints and the school's response just get put in the file for public review.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/mailstory-clickthru/305160.php

Are you saying that public schools are more accountable or saying that the points in the OP apply to public schools also? The former would be true and the latter false, in my experience.

Charter schools are not accountable. Sorry to anyone who thinks that their tax dollars, vouchers, whatever, will improve charter schools over the accountability of the public schools---they will not. There is no incentive for charter schools to improve.

Charter schools foster segregation of the economic classes, the racial and ethnic classes and of the difference between decently paid teachers and those who exist on crumbs.

Child molesters for teachers, unqualified teachers, unsafe "classrooms." It's not a joke, it's an insult.

But the nuts have to have their "CHRISTIAN" education, and I don't care how many times people will scream at me that charter schools are "public" schools and can't teach religion, I've had first hand experience with just how easily those regulations are circumvented.

A mighty pox on 'em.




Tansy Gold

I worked at one for a month and walked out for two reasons:

1) Another teacher was fired after a board meeting when she raised a question about something that was, unknown to her, near and dear to the wife of the director's heart. Wife took offense to a mere question and told her husband to fire the teacher. She had 10 years teaching experience and was the "go to" person and mentor for all the elementary teachers. This told me I had no job protection and that hiring and firing decisions were not made with regard to a peron's performance in the classroom but could be arbitrary and petty.

2) At a teacher's meeting, the principal told a teacher to discourage a family who wanted their special ed. child to enroll because the school didn't have the resources. He said "legally, we have to take the kid, but we can't afford to."

In setting up the Arizona charter school system, the Leg. caved to business interests. Business can't wait to get its greedy hands on all that money.

Just reading the OP, one may interpret this as reflecting charter schools nationwide, especially as the OP states This is what Arne and Obama are promoting? What kind of safeguards do they plan? Pointing out that this article only reflects Arizona doesn't beg for a snarky remark.

You come at me as if I disagree with the article on it's basis. :shrug:


ON EDIT: I re-read through the article to see if I missed some mention of Obama and Duncan. I did not. They mentioned that Chicago Charter teachers started a union. So, again, no direct mention of Obama and his plans for charter schools in relation to the clear mess that is happening in Arizona.

and charter schools are not doing well where ever they operate in the united states.
some individual schools are doing well but on average the charters don't score as well on national achievement tests as the public schools do.
this data is well documented yet rarely acknowledged in any discussions about continued support for charters.
obama shocked me after being elected by announcing his support for the continued privatization of public schools.
the op asks good questions.

Obama. I'm curious how the system in Illinois is run. It is my understanding that each state has their own charter school systems, so how are the ones in AZ comparable to the ones in Chicago or Illinois? Is AZ particularly bad? Are ones in Illinois particularly good? :shrug: No one is saying that the OP doesn't have legitimate concerns, but I'm not fully convinced that all charters schools are, in themselves, a full evil. In California, not all charter schools are connected to corporations. There are multiple public schools that take full state money and no private corporations have a role in them at all. In my particular city, there is a charter school that functions as a visual and performing arts school. I see nothing inherently wrong with that. They run on public money, the students take all the mandatory state testing, the teachers are all credentialed, as is the necessary administration. Their financial dealings are public information and is accessible by anyone. I really don't have a problem with this school.

I believe the reference to Obama and Duncan was a comment by the OP, not part of the article.

The subject line was a direct quote of the article's published title. Since it was published in an Arizona paper, it would make sense that it addresses charters in that state, not the entire nation.

The OP *could* have added "< AZ >" to indicate that the article only covered Arizona charters, but hey, I guess not everyone thinks DUers need to be spoon-fed their article titles.

Sorry if I'm a bit snarky. I just don't deal well with people who make mountains out of molehills. Sometimes article titles aren't absolutely Cape May Diamond crystal clear, y'know?? Deal with it.




TG

I can say. Again, I still sense a tone of hostility for nothing. But, ok, if it makes you happy, so be it.

God forbid charters have to have the same accountability as actual public schools.:scared:

how about highlighting info like this? . . .

:Among the Star's findings:
• Students in charter schools score slightly higher than traditional public school counterparts overall in the AIMS test in lower grades. But there is a 30 percentage point gap in how many of their students pass the high school AIMS test compared with district schools.

. . .

Charter advocates point to standouts like BASIS Tucson, Hermosa Montessori School and Sonoran Science Academy as examples of how the system is fueling needed change. Those schools all have crafted specialized niches and are thriving academically, earning the state's highest performance ranking.
. . .
And surveys show parents are happy with their schools. A 2007 survey by Arizona State University researchers for the charter schools board showed more than 90 percent of some 6,000 parents interviewed felt their child had improved academically, and only 6 percent rated their school a "C" or lower. A majority chose their school for small class sizes, with 40 percent mentioning specialized curriculum.

Arthur Desi Gross, a 46-year-old computer technician, can't say enough about how charters helped his now-18-year-old daughter.

. . .Those kinds of experiences help fuel the system's growth.

. . . To help boost oversight, the Arizona Charter Schools Association, a nonprofit advocacy group, is sharing with the state a new data-driven model intended to provide a sophisticated analysis on how well charter schools are performing.

Association spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said the public is demanding a responsible education system.
"The state has limited resources, and we recognize that," she said. "If there isn't the staff to do the research that needs to be done, it's nobody's fault, but that's why we're giving them more information and arming them with more data. If a school isn't improving, then those students deserve something better."
The organization is assisting schools as well. Its staff has visited 80 schools across the state since the beginning of the year to pinpoint academic weaknesses and shore up strengths.

DeAnna Rowe, the director of the charter school board office, said her office is relying on outside assistance to compensate for the small staff. The business and charter communities help review the business plans of startup charters. The state Department of Education helps with areas such as special education and federal funding requirements.

By the first of the year, Rowe hopes to roll out an online search mechanism that will help the public make sense of the confusing maze of options by letting users sort by a school's special characteristics — such as those with a performing arts bent for fifth-graders. The system should also provide access to annual audits and other school compliance issues, including complaints.

Just wondering if you are an owner or operator of a charter school.

one of my children has been attending charter schools (two different states) since Kindergarten and will be entering 5th grade this fall.

I also have a lot of friends whose children attend several different charter schools - so I'm probably a bit more familiar with how some of the actually operate than most people around here. I KNOW how effective they can be - and also know - first hand - how INeffective SOME school-board-run-public schools can be.

I think there is a lot of scare mongering by people who feel threatened by free and public charter schools. I think there is a lot of misinformation being put out by the anti-charter people and I truly believe that some charters are currently offering some of the best options out there for some children and in some school districts. Charter public schools are not perfect, there are some bad ones, yes - but there certainly are plenty of school-board-run-public schools that are worse.

At least something is being done in Charter public schools, some attempts at innovation, some attempts at trying to meet the needs of children that have traditionally NOT been met in school-board-run-public schools. Charter public schools are a lot like school-board-run-public magnet schools, but have a bit more freedom in designing programs.

Am I anti-school-board-run-public schools? No, I'm not. I sincerely wish that school-board-run-public schools could show the innovative ideas that charter public schools have. I wish they could be less burdened with the red tape and bureaucracy that Charter public schools seem to have circumvented.

:kick:

the regs and regulations that both protect students (some) and hold the system back (others.)

Privatization at it's finest.

Charter public schools DO have accountability and DO have to meet regulations. They still have to meet the same Standards that the schoolboard run public schools do. T

he freedom comes in being able to use innovative teaching methodolgies not allowed in schoolboard run public schools and have more freedom in choosing curriculum.

And you just made my point.

While charter schools have to abide by some state and federal requirements, they don't have to abide by all.

They get public money, but they aren't accountable for all of the rest of the crap that the rest of us are.

It sets up an unequal, tiered system. It bypasses unions. Which is, of course, one of the bigger points.

Put education in the hands of educators, instead of politicians and bureaucrats, and give ALL schools the same flexibility, while providing ALL schools with the oversights that protect students, and the unions that protect teachers from bureaucratic, political power plays.

You won't need charter schools. ALL students will have access to schools with the same freedoms you think are good for charter schools.

they DO have to abide by "state and federal requirements" . . . Which ones do you think they don't have to abide by? (Though granted every state has a different set of rules and I'm not aware of all 50 so there COULD be some differences, but I really don't think so.)

Yes - they are most definitely accountablel for the "public money"

Unequal? Hogwash - it is a lot of the kids who are NOT getting an education in schoolboard run public schools who are fleeing to charter public schools. Blacks and Hispanics and typically undersserved minorities are more likely to receive an "EQUAL" educational opportunity in a charter public school than in many (most?) schoolboard run public schools.

Many charters are Union and more becoming so everyday. Did you not know that??

If you check the charter board members you will find that they ARE educators AND parents, not people who don't have a damn clue what goes on in a classroom.

I agree that schoolboard run public schools need an extreme overhaul. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy is so institutionalized it's going to take a hell of lot to accomplish. IN the meantime, children - and society - are the ones being shortchanged. If something can be done better, then wth not?

It would be wonderful it charter public schools weren't necessary, but they are. I think they CAN show the way that schoolboard run public schools should go. Innovation. Smaller class sizes. Less redtape and bureaucracy. It's a wonderful thing. Too bad most schoolboard run public schools don't seem to be able to make those changes in a timely manner.

Unfortunately, there are MANY schoolboards that are staffed by rightwing republican racists who don't give a damn about minorities and poor people and they won't do a damn thing to help. So, what choice is left to those in that population, LWolf? Really. . . I think minorities and the poor have waited damn long enough for "Equality in Education" from their local schoolboard run public schools.

It's true, of course, that all 50 states are run differently. I've taught in 2 states, and communicate regularly with teachers in a dozen more. I've also, in both states, been recruited by charter schools, and worked with teachers in local charters on some in-common projects.

I also spent many years teaching in a district "school of choice;" set up like a charter school without a charter.

Here are some of the things local charters can do, which local schools cannot:

1. They can cap enrollment and avoid overcrowding. They tend to be much smaller than the average public school, which makes them more effective. Smaller is always more effective than larger, imo.

2. They can approve who attends, and "exit" students who are not a good "fit." Automatic sorting and filtering. That automatically affects test scores, regardless of what "innovative teaching methods" and "curriculum" they use. Falsely making their "innovations" look more "effective."

3. They do not have to work with the local teacher's union.

4. They can set their own calendar and their own hours.

5. As you already mentioned, as long as they abide by state standards, they can choose their own methodologies and materials.

6. While they have to test at least once a year, they don't have to prep and test all year long like district schools do when only one school in the district doesn't make ayp and has to come up with an "improvement plan." They are exempt from the district "improvement plans."

7. Most charters specialize in something. A population (more sorting, more tiers,) a methodology, a philosophy; while they can't turn away special needs students, they CAN limit enrollment by pointing out that, due to their specialized nature, they aren't as qualified to serve special needs students as "regular" schools. If you think this doesn't happen, all the time, you haven't looked closely enough. There are a few charter schools set up to serve special needs populations, of course. I don't like that either, since research shows that those students progress farther integrated into the general population as much as possible.

One of my primary objections to charter schools is that they are designed to privatize. To slip by district oversight, and to undermine teachers. The other is that they set up inequalities.

I'm not against the better aspects of charters; I just want them for ALL public schools. At which point, they aren't charters, are they?

I would like to see small districts, with local control of each school in the hands of the teachers and families. Admins would exist to: 1. Provide oversight and ensure accountability for mandates (like appropriately serving special ed, etc.) and to facilitate the decisions make by the ssc.

I would like to see all district schools be open to all families, so that they could choose the best "fit" for their children. That's a transportation nightmare, of course, and fully funding that kind of transportation would be costly.

I want every teacher to be protected by a local union, and I want every school to focus on high-level thinking, literacy, and numeracy. How they achieve those things should be up to each school.

I want every student to feel safe, welcomed, and respected, and to have the support needed to be successful.

I want every family to feel part of their school, and part of the process of educating their children.

I don't want some schools set up to succeed, and others restricted into failing. That's not a vision of public education in America I can support.

I don't think you really want different things than I. I just think that you don't understand the real, nitty-gritty, underground realities that charter schools and other efforts to privatize introduce. I'm not sure if you understand the forces behind the charter school movement.

On a completely off-topic note:

I notice you and I share the same avatar. Mine is there for 2 purposes; 1. To remember my friend nostamj, and hiw "question w" campaign; and 2. Because I also question the center-right direction my party is taking.

What about you?

some people are unable to see beyond their own experience.

just saying.

Yes, in Colorado, ours have to take CSAP. They don't do any better than any other school with their makeup. Many do worse. And that in spite of the fact that - after the pupil count day (here in Colorado we have a one-day count to determine funding), we see many, many kids from the charter school dumped on our doorstep. They are free to get rid of anyone who doesn't "fit the instructional model."

In my PUBLIC school district, we have three Expeditionary Learning Schools, a Montessori school, an IB school (K-12), a Global Academy K-12 where students learn Chinese, a Big Picture school, a Back to Basics school, a dropout recovery school, several CES schools, a preschool with Headstart, and several others. There are NO "default" schools, so no school is able to "counsel out" any kid that doesn't fit. My point being, public schools can make this work - charters aren't really necessary. There's nothing "innovative" about what charters are doing. Hell, half are retrograde - Core Knowledge bullshit.

And to top it off, very, very rarely is a charter formed here in my state to deal with at-risk populations. They are formed here mainly to support white flight. It's repulsive.

It was on the Bob Edwards Show. Perhaps it will give people a clear idea of how charter schools work. It starts at around 28 min.

http://podcast.com/episode/43706761/32910/?cp=1125

They have more freedom to teach the way they want to teach and I think they don't have to accept every child who applies or keep the child if there is a problem. This reminds me of Catholic schools. They didn't spend more money on the kids, the teachers were not necessarily highly qualified in terms of NCLB standards, the teacher pay was very low compared to public schools, and yet the children did consistently better. The big reasons were the freedom to remove disruptive students, as well as mandatory parental involvement.

while the charter funnels public money to its real estate investment arm for someone to rake off.

S-C-A-M.

American Federation of Teachers: ". . . In a landmark address in 1988, former AFT President Albert Shanker became one of the first education leaders to champion the concept of charter schools. . . In fact, the AFT represents charter school teachers and support staff in 10 states. Our largest affiliate, the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, operates two charter schools of its own and is partnering with innovative charter school operator Green Dot to run a third school in the fall of 2008.

Many teachers and staff in unionized charter schools report high levels of job satisfaction, noting that they benefit from the best of both worlds: the protections and rights of a union and the freedom and flexibility of a charter. . ." May 2008 http://www.aft.org/topics/charters/index.htm


Welcome to the Alliance of Charter Teachers & Staff

ACTS is a community of charter school employees organized by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The alliance’s goal is to mobilize charter school employees around issues of common concern, such as strengthening our profession, expanding professional development, improving the conditions of teaching and learning, and bolstering our voice in school-level decision making. As a community of educators , we also share best practices and professional resources , and speak out on public policy issues that affect our jobs.

. . . The AFT is proud to currently represent teachers and support staff in 80 public charter schools across 13 states.

. . . Does the AFT favor traditional public schools over charter schools?

Charter schools are public schools, so it makes little sense to pit one type of school against the other. We know there are excellent charter public schools and excellent traditional public schools. Likewise, there are charter and traditional public schools that fall short of expectations.

Instead of setting up a false competition between charter and public schools, we should be focusing on what we can learn from high-performing schools, be they charter or traditional public. And we should concentrate on how charter and traditional public schools can collaborate to share best practices, so our students benefit from this joint expertise.

The bottom line is that a school’s governance structure does not magically produce better or worse results. Regardless of the type of school, what happens in the school and in the classroom matters most. That includes making sure that school employees have a strong voice in school operations, and have the ability to make improvements for the good of their students.

Most people seem to think that all School-board-run-Public schools are Unionized. This is not true -

for example:
Georgia - 92.5% of the teachers are non-union,
South Carolina - 100% of the teachers are non-union
North Carolina - 97.7% are non-union

for more info: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009320_d1s_07.asp
State Collective bargaining1 Meet-and-confer2 No specific agreement3

United States 53.5 10.9 35.6

Alabama # 43.5 56.5
Alaska 80.9 13.1 6.0
Arizona 0.4 14.4 85.2
Arkansas 1.5 9.7 88.7
California 82.3 5.2 12.6 !

Colorado 28.7 20.4 ! 51.0
Connecticut 91.5 5.7 ! 2.8 !
Delaware 61.0 # 39.0
District of Columbia 10.3 ! # 89.7
Florida 90.2 7.4 2.5

Georgia # 1.2 ! 98.8
Hawaii 100.0 # #
Idaho 70.2 15.8 14.0
Illinois 88.7 6.0 ! 5.3 !
Indiana 80.1 15.1 4.8 !

Iowa 95.6 4.4 #
Kansas 58.0 32.9 9.1
Kentucky 6.4 8.6 85.0
Louisiana 10.5 6.8 82.6
Maine 93.0 7.0 #

Maryland 91.6 4.4 4.0
Massachusetts 83.1 5.2 ! 11.7 !
Michigan 66.4 4.2 29.4
Minnesota 45.7 34.9 19.4
Mississippi 1.3 ! # 98.7

Missouri 0.9 35.3 63.9
Montana 60.7 8.4 30.9
Nebraska 80.3 13.2 6.5
Nevada 100.0 # #
New Hampshire 94.4 # 5.6

New Jersey 80.8 13.6 ! 5.6 !
New Mexico 31.2 7.5 61.4
New York 81.0 9.1 ! 9.8 !
North Carolina 0.4 ! 6.0 ! 93.6
North Dakota 56.5 18.4 25.1

Ohio 75.5 2.6 ! 21.9
Oklahoma 22.7 11.2 66.1
Oregon 92.1 6.0 ! 1.9 !
Pennsylvania 75.3 9.0 15.7
Rhode Island 69.6 10.4 20.0

South Carolina 0.8 0.8 98.4
South Dakota 59.4 25.9 14.7
Tennessee 66.3 15.8 17.9
Texas # 2.2 ! 97.8
Utah 24.0 36.5 ! 39.4

Vermont 87.3 12.7 ! #
Virginia # 20.6 79.4
Washington 67.7 12.5 ! 19.8 !
West Virginia # 11.6 88.4
Wisconsin 88.6 11.0 0.5 !
Wyoming 1.8 42.1 56.1

From the NEA website:

Charter Schools
Definition

Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each charter school's charter.

NEA believes that charter schools and other nontraditional public school options have the potential to facilitate education reforms and develop new and creative teaching methods that can be replicated in traditional public schools for the benefit of all children.


The demographics of charter schools
Who attends charter schools? The following chart shows the percentage of different kinds of students who attend charter schools compared to regular public schools.

Percentage of students attending (figures rounded)2
Black Hispanic Native American/Alaska Natives Free/reduced Lunch IEPs ELLs
Charter schools 31 22 2 49 11 12
Regular schools 17 19 1 42 13 11

IEPs: Students with Individualized Education Programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
ELLs: Students who are English Language Learners


Who teaches in charter schools?
Some 30 percent of charter school teachers are racial or ethnic minorities, compared to 17 percent who teach in regular public schools. Charter school teachers tend to be slightly younger than their counterparts in mainstream schools, but not by as much as the stereotype of the “young and idealistic” charter school teacher might suggest. The average age of charter school teachers is 38; for regular public school teachers the figure is 43.


“There is much to learn from charter school success stories as well as charter school failures. Charter schools have the potential to be incubators of promising educational practices that can be replicated in mainstream schools. The key is to identify what is working that can be sustained and reproduced on a broad scale so that as many students as possible can benefit. We need to create more supportive learning environments for educators and students alike in all of our public schools. This is an essential part of fulfilling NEA’s vision of a great public school for every student. NEA President Dennis Van Roekel http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/mf_PB17_CharterSchools.pdf