by Christopher Paslay
Outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, charter schools in Pennsylvania are virtually nonexistent. One reason is that socioeconomically disadvantaged children and their families are easier to manipulate.
Here are some basic facts about charter schools in the state of Pennsylvania. In 2011, only 54.7 percent made AYP under the No Child Left Behind Law. Stanford University’s CREDO report, which examined the performance of Pennsylvania charter schools from 2007 to 2010, concluded:
“Overall, charter school performance in Pennsylvania lagged in growth compared to traditional public schools. . . . Performance at cyber charter schools was substantially lower than the performance at brick and mortar charters with 100% of cyber charters performing significantly worse than their traditional public school counterparts in both reading and math. . . . Charter schools of all ages in Pennsylvania on average perform worse than traditional public schools, and charter school students grow at lower rates compared to their traditional public school peers in their first 3 years in charter schools, although the gap shrinks considerably in math and disappears entirely in reading by the third year of attendance.”
There are 3,096 public schools in Pennsylvania, yet only 142 of them—one half of one percent—are charters. Of these 142 charters, 80 of them (56 percent) are in Philadelphia, another 15 are in the Pittsburgh/Allegheny area, and the remaining 47 are sparsely scattered throughout the rest of the state. Outside of poor urban areas, charter schools are practically nonexistent.
If charters are the new fix for “failing” public schools, why haven’t they caught on in the suburbs? Why haven’t they caught on in rural areas or mountain regions? The answer is because charters are not better than traditional public schools, and there are heaps of data to prove this. Most families outside of urban areas understand this reality, which is why charters and their enterprising operators have been unable to successfully set-up shop there. Suburbanites don’t want charters, they don’t want business people with limited educational experience messing with their children and controlling their school resources (the head of the Philadelphia Parking Authority recently proposed opening a charter, if you can believe that). Why, then, are charters so widely accepted in Philadelphia?
One reason might be that 80.6 percent of families of public school children in Philadelphia are economically disadvantaged, and they are easier to take advantage of. Yes, they are being taken advantage of, and here’s how.
First, charters falsely advertise they are superior academically, despite all the research showing otherwise. Many urban poor are not in a position to access research on charter school performance, so they simply believe what they hear or are told; the propagandistic film Waiting for Superman is a case in point. In short, the urban poor are being misled.
Second, charter schools discriminate and play by their own rules. It is a documented fact that charter schools fail to serve the neediest population of children. KIPP charters (Knowledge Is Power Program) are a prime example. 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. As a result, these students are sent back to neighborhood schools. In addition, KIPP is criticized for not serving more English Language Learners and students with disabilities.
Although there’s yet to be any noteworthy litigation in Pennsylvania against charter operators (the key word is yet), parents of school children in Louisiana have filed a class-action lawsuit against the New Orleans school system, arguing that their charters exclude special-needs students. The Miami Herald recently wrote a series titled “Cashing In on Kids” which highlighted the fact that South Florida charter operators are getting rich on “school choice” by admitting very few special needs children and minorities into their schools. This discrimination is widespread and very real. I’ve personally met numerous parents whose children are on waiting lists to get into a charter—or have been removed from a charter—because they couldn’t pass the muster.
Third, charters take money away from struggling neighborhood schools. Interestingly, it’s not academics that attracts many urban parents to charter schools. The lure of charters seems to be the fact that many are cleaner, safer, and smaller than big, decaying neighborhood schools. This is true in some cases, but there’s a reason: charters weed out dysfunctional children and their struggling families, and siphon money away from traditional neighborhood schools that could be used for upgrade and repair.
This is a clear civil rights violation, and sets in motion a cycle of 21st century school segregation. As time goes on, as charters continue to expand, there will be more and more separation between charters and traditional schools, until the neediest 30 – 40 percent (made up of primarily English Language Learners, the disabled, and those children with social, emotional, and behavioral disorders) are left completely behind. In other words, despite the big promises, charters by their very nature will never help a large population of the urban poor.
And many socioeconomically disadvantaged parents don’t understand this. They view clean, neat, nifty new charters as a lottery ticket, and jump at it. Little do they know that there’s a good chance that their child won’t get into that school, that their son or daughter will be left behind in the forgotten neighborhood school, which has been further weaken by the existence of the charter. Sure, those lucky enough to get into a charter may have a cleaner, safer, more appropriate learning environment, but this is only achieved at the expense of the neediest 30 – 40 percent of children plagued with disorders who are weeded out and left behind. This might be acceptable in a private school using private funds, but it’s unconstitutional when it’s being done with public tax dollars.
If only urban parents could see that making a commitment to their neighborhood school—like parents do in most other parts of the state—would be a better solution in the long run. If only they could team up with elected officials to generate the resources needed to complete building renovations and repairs, upgrade materials, and invest in technology. If only they could convince educational policy makers to revamp curriculum to make it more individualized and authentic, and expand alternative schools and programs to remediate troubled youth. If only they could convince local leaders to invest in families and communities in order to create a culture of learning available to all children within the bounds of a neighborhood, instead of running away.
Although charters in Pennsylvania don’t outperform traditional neighborhood schools academically, they do turn a large profit. Privatization of public schools (and tax dollars) is a big business, and unlike the more advantaged populations of Pennsylvania, the urban poor are prime real estate.