| One charter critic even argued here for more charters, because he hopes it will result in charter kids failing academically (thereby "exposing the fraud").
* * *
The Gov
I've never met the Governor. No original insights. Heard him speak on this topic maybe 4 or 5 times. My sense from listening is he remains mixed on the wonkish pro/con charter arguments.
He almost always leads with something like "Charters are NOT the panacea."
Earlier, Opus wrote: I think many progressives (including Patrick) have become infatuated with charter schools as the panacea for education"
Well, that's the opposite of I've heard the Gov actually say.
Still, I also believe the Governor rejects the "charter people are frauds" narrative. Why?
One difference between him and most of the BMGers: he's met hundreds of black and Hispanic moms who talk about how their kid's charter school has changed his life. (Now, I realize that the "fraud" narrative means you think those moms are the tiny minority). The Gov also knows a bunch of liberal black lawyers and other professionals who volunteer at charter schools, and speak glowingly of what they've seen in the trenches. Again, you think they've been hoodwinked, too, fine. But it might explain why his view diverges from yours. Another reason is personal style. He's a positive energy guy. I don't think he sees many people on any issue in such a negative light.
* * *
The Law And The Numbers
There are 54 regular charters in Massachusetts. There are 7 Horace Mann (district-run) charters. There are 1,785 other types of public schools here.
Massachusetts charters have about 20,000 kids.
Districts have the other 939,000 kids.
207,000 of those kids are black or Hispanic.
Under the new law, charters will, over next several years, serve another 9,000 or so of those kids. Plus another 1,000 white or Asian kids. All of this growth is permitted only in cities. And the cities have to be in the lowest 10% of the state on MCAS.
In addition, Mayor Menino might open 3 district-run charters. So, depending on how you count them, maybe add another 1,200 kids to the list.
So charters will go from serving about 2% of Massachusetts kids to 3%. That's why even charter supporters, like me, don't think charters are a panacea. How could they be? Look at the market share.
(By the way, Paul Reville has proven prescient on this point. For years he's said at Rennie Center events that the charter school debate absorbs 75% of the media attention for 2% of the kids. So charter debate absorbed all the oxygen needed to move forward for the couple hundred thousand kids who have terrible education outcomes).
For the 20,000 kids in charters, there's maybe 800 teachers? (not sure)
All those teachers can unionize by card-check. This was a union sought provision, making it even easier than the normal way, which requires a secret ballot election. Gov Patrick signed it in 2007.
So far one charter has unionized. You can read about their teacher-created contract here. It eliminates seniority or coursework as pay considerations, for example.
Finally, a number of states have lifted charter caps in hopes of submitting a more competitive Race To The Top application. MA did same.
MA is by no means a cinch to win. But if we do, then about $200 million of federal money will flow to the traditional public schools.
* * *
Charter Perspective on the Law
For many charter supporters, the cap lift bill was a half loaf. The preferred outcome was a ballot initiative to eliminate all charter school caps.
We'd gathered all the signatures needed. The polling on it was really high. Part of the deal for the bill that passed was charter supporters would scuttle the ballot measure.
It wasn't that we wanted to flood MA with charters. Hardly. But the ballot measure would have allowed more charters outside the inner-cities. There are plenty of middle class kids out there who would benefit from a different school experience.
For example, BMGer DaveMB wrote: We have at least two good, legitimate, innovative charters in the (Pioneer) Valley -- a performing arts high/middle school and a Chinese immersion elementary school, who succeeded in the competition for the limited number of charters. We also have, if I recall the details correctly, a collapsing charter in Springfield that chose a convicted felon as its principal.
Does the cap force competition between charter schools that gets us better ones?
Yes and no. The new charter law does not help a Pioneer Valley school grow or replicate. The cap lift doesn't apply to any schools which serve middle class kids.
Nor does the law create growth by schools that are not "proven providers." So many charter schools do not, under the law, get any new opportunities to grow.
However, the law does force competition between charter schools.
For example, there might be 4 to 6 charters, like KIPP, that might want to establish networks of schools in, say, Boston. But even with the cap lift, there will not be enough seats to do this. So to some extent, even the highest-performing schools will somehow have to duke it out for the right to open schools.
Finally, MarkBail: the law does introduce a bunch of additional regulations, proposed by charter opponents, that apply exclusively to charters. These will create some operational headaches for us, but the details are fairly mind-numbing.
* * *
Moving Forward
DO YOU REALIZE that in the same law, the Governor just created a brand new in-district opportunity called Innovation Schools? And you (teachers and others) can start your OWN effort to help kids in your district, stay unionized, etc?
I'm still waiting for the call-to-arms "We can do this!" diary here on BMG. This is real.
Back in 1999, our history teacher was working in Attleboro. He and some colleagues tried to create the equivalent of an Innovation School. But there was no mechanism back then for in-district innovation. So he joined our charter school.
Interestingly, as the law was debated, there were 2 competing narratives floating on Beacon Hill about Innovation Schools.
The optimistic view went like this: "If you just give traditional schoolteachers and principals and parents and other citizens the opportunity to create a new program or even a whole new school in their district, they'll rise to the occasion and innovate!"
The pessimistic view went like this: "Look at what happened with in-district unionized Horace Mann charter schools. Nobody really stepped up to do that. Given a choice between doing something concrete to help kids, or complaining by educators, you'll get a ton of complaints and little action."
Patrick and Reville take the optimistic view.
By the way, if any of you DOES want to do an Innovation School, charter folks can and will help you.
Whatever your view, you probably believe at least that SOME folks have started remarkable charters (even if they're outliers). They'd love nothing more than helping you with your non-charter Innovation School venture. I can put you in touch with any of 'em. |
