by Christopher Paslay
Charter schools do not serve the neediest children—they weed them out.
Generally speaking, there are two ways to deal with a public school that is struggling to succeed. One—you could provide that school with the proper supports, such as doing building renovations and repairs, upgrading materials, and investing in technology. You could revamp curriculum to make it more individualized and authentic, treat teachers with respect and trust in their expertise, and expand alternative schools and programs to remediate troubled youth. In other words, you could invest in families and communities, and create a culture of learning available to all children within the bounds of a neighborhood.
Or two—you could deem the school a failure and turn your back on it. Throw up your hands and say, “This school isn’t worth saving.” You could do so by pinning all the complex challenges facing students in struggling neighborhoods solely on “lousy” teachers and “good-for-naught” principals, opting to take your resources elsewhere and start over by building a brand new school. Yes, you could funnel tax dollars away from the school you deemed “failing” and build a charter. You could hire new teachers (although many would come from the same pool of “lousy” teachers whose schools were shut down), you could set-up your admissions process so only students with educated parents could navigate the paperwork, and you could throw out those children who don’t follow your rules and send them back to the “failing” neighborhood school to rot with the rest of the children who couldn’t get into your charter.
You could deal with a struggling school by doing one of those two things. Fighting the good fight, or turning and running away. The school choice folks, those obsessed with charters, like to run. It’s easier that way. Finding alternative ways to educate America’s bottom third is no easy task. America’s bottom third is quite the pain in the butt, to put it bluntly. They are the ones with the family issues, and the health issues, and the addition problems. They’ve been exposed to domestic violence and often can’t manage their anger or peacefully solve problems. And charters, which have limited space and stricter rules, keep these students out.
KIPP charters (Knowledge Is Power Program) are a prime example. Touted as working wonders for poor and minority children, KIPP schools are indeed achieving good results on standardized tests. However, because KIPP schools have extended school days and hold classes on weekends, the student turnover rate is extremely high for Black males—over 40 percent dropout between grades 6 – 8. In addition, KIPP is criticized for not serving more English Language Learners and students with disabilities.
The real kicker is that despite the added advantage of weeding out struggling students, as a whole, charters still aren’t performing any better than traditional public schools. The CREDO study proves this reality point blank, as does the fact that in Philadelphia, only 54.7 percent of charters are making AYP under the No Child Left Behind guidelines.
This is most likely due to the fact that up to 60 percent of student achievement is based on nonschool factors. Noted education historian Diane Ravitch wrote about this reality in a review of the film Waiting for Superman that she published in The New York Review of Books:
“. . . teacher quality accounts for about 7.5–10 percent of student test score gains. Several other high-quality analyses echo this finding, and while estimates vary a bit, there is a relative consensus: teachers statistically account for around 10–20 percent of achievement outcomes. Teachers are the most important factor within schools.
But the same body of research shows that nonschool factors matter even more than teachers. According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income.”
So while the quality of a teacher and school are important, if the educational issues stemming from nonschool variables aren’t properly addressed—and most charters do not address them—academic progress and student achievement will be limited.
Tragically, school choice isn’t doing much to improve achievement. It is, however, giving parents a legal means of separating their children from the unwanted bottom third, and allowing school reformers and entrepreneurs to turn a profit at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised.