Let me be more specific.
When I say "models for school reform," I mean the reform of American universal public education. Although charter schools are technically "public" schools, they operate outside the system. That means, unlike traditional public schools, they are under no obligation to serve all students.
And they don't. Despite lotteries and laws that prohibit selective enrollment by charter schools, "creaming," as the skimming off of better students is called, is built into the charter school application process. Even to enter a lottery, parents must take the time and effort to "apply." They must show an interest in enrolling their child in an alternative to the assigned neighborhood school. That in itself narrows the range of students likely to enroll in a charter school.
How likely is it that children with parents who don't give a damn will become charter school students?
In a comment to the PPS Equity post "Charters and PPS", Rose cites other hindrances:
"The lottery system itself automatically excludes large populations:
poor families without fixed addresses ... foster kids, homeless families,
parents who are ELL or illiterate, and of course all those who are too
busy, overwhelmed, or not sophisticated enough to stay aware of
mandatory meetings, deadlines, and application processes."
As does Ken:
"Considering the lack of transportation to charter schools, parents must
either live within walking distance, drive their own children, or find
a carpool. This is simply impossible for many families: single mothers,
some working families, families without access to individual
transportation methods (cars), etc. Expanding charter schools would
almost necessarily leave these children behind... ."
Nationally, the problem of charter school "creaming" is more apparent. Two parent school activists from the San Francisco Bay area have written that charter schools "exclude the most challenging students" (and here):
"Enrollment at all charter schools is, by law, entirely by request.
No student is assigned to a charter school by default. That means 'self-selection' occurs at all of them, inherently, by definition.
"That is, parents who care about their kids' education enough to make
the effort to learn about and request a school are the ones whose kids
attend charter schools. Parents who don't have it together ...
do not choose charter schools. Thus their kids -- ...likely to
be the most challenged and challenging -- are left in the traditional
public schools."
In their second post they say that it's "...amply documented that charter schools all over the country... dramatically underserve special education students... ."
That's certainly true here in Portland.
Initial enrollment is only part of the problem with limiting the range of students in charter schools. There's also the issue of "attrition."
Caroline Grannan, one of the Bay Area activists, claims that the nationally renowned Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools, particularly the nine operating in California, lose a good chunk of their students each year, presumably their most problematic students:
"...any school that loses 77 percent of its most academically challenged
subgroup, its true target students, is not solving the problems of
public education. And any school that could keep 23 percent of a
subgroup and disappear the rest could easily see that subgroup's
achievement soar, no matter what pedagogical methods it used."
Grannan, citing an SRI International study, repeats the claim here:
"Sixty percent of the students who enter the Bay Area KIPP schools in
fifth grade leave before the end of eighth grade ... . And the study also confirms
what some might suspect -- it's consistently the lower performers who
leave."
So there you have it --"creaming" and attrition should be reasons enough to discount charter schools as models for reform.
Someone please tell Barack Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, both big fans of charter schools.
Recent Comments