Chartered Tour
From the Alameda Journal, evidently the charter school currently operating on the Encinal High campus is looking to expand and looking to two of the shuttered elementary schools: Longfellow and Woodstock on the West End to serve their needs, highlights:
The organizers of an Alameda charter school with more than 100 students on its waiting list are eyeing some of the city’s recently closed elementary schools as sites for a second campus.
…
Both sites are in the city’s West End and just blocks from the Alameda Community [Learning] Center, which state officials recently named a California Distinguished School.
…
“Taxpayers built them as schools, right? They were not meant to be used as closets or for storage,” the corporation’s Paul Bentz said about the Woodstock and Longfellow sites.
…
The proposal for a new charter school, however, also comes as trustees are wrestling with an anticipated jump in enrollment at some campuses and as they look for ways to absorb it while maintaining small class sizes and neighborhood schools.
Moreover, both Woodstock and Longfellow are not vacant, which could make winning approval for a new charter school difficult.
Woodstock houses the district’s special education program, plus a portion of the property has been set aside for the new Alameda Boys & Girls Club, district spokeswoman Donna Fletcher said.
The district’s food services department is based at Longfellow, along with family literacy and other programs, Fletcher said…
I have no problems with charter schools, let’s just say I am largely apathetic to them. I don’t intend to send my child to one, but I’m not going to protest if people want to get them started in Alameda. From what I understand about charter schools is they operate largely autonomous from the school district, but get the per pupil funding to help with operational costs. They are supposed to operate like a business, in fact some charter schools have turned into a businesses for some companies out there, running it for profit.
However, I am a little bewildered by the quote made by Paul Bentz about schools being built by taxpayers and not meant to be used as a closet or storage, my understanding — and confirmed by the article – was that neither site is being used as a closet or storage and in fact Woodstock was put to good use last year during the renovations at Haight Elementary. If charter schools want to run like a business separate from the school district and all the baggage that comes with it, eg. taking all kids as they are, then they need to not rely on the school district when it becomes convenient and ask for space at a school that may or may not need to be reopened but is currently being used to serve the needs of AUSD and, by extension, the students of AUSD. If ACLC wants to open a new campus and find the grant money to seed it, I say, more power to them, but you need to find your own digs like the Alameda Science and Technology Insitute (ASTI), seeded with money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ASTI operates out of portables on the College of Alameda campus. Or the Bay Area School of Enterprise (BASE) which operates out of a building on Alameda Point.
Also, it is my understanding, and maybe someone who has more knowledge about the funding mechanisms within the district can further explain, that it is often a struggle to find adequate operational dollars, as it is with the school district as a whole. While I was searching around for more info about ACLC I found this Editorial from the Sun that I must have glossed over the first time, I vaguely remembered it, but recalled it didn’t make an impact. The editorial stated:
…In January, ACLC won a $400,000 grant from the state to put together another charter school. The grant would not have financed operational costs for the school and the timeline for setting up the school — by September 2007 — was admittedly tight, but the opportunity was there.
…
One explanation for the snuffing out of at least giving the grant a fair shot is that district officials were too busy to handle a sizeable project at the same time as the budget cuts.
Another line of thought is that going public with intentions to sponsor a charter school amid financial woes may have been seen as political suicide for second-year Superintendent Ardella Dailey…
Or perhaps there was the realization that a $400K grant is just what it is. A grant. Not a secure, on-going funding stream. The editorial itself even mentioned that it would not have financed operational costs and given that at the time the editorial was written the school district was cut cut cutting programs left and right, trying to take on another project would not be “political suicide” it was have been ridiculous, even with a promise of $400K, which may not have even completely funded the start-up costs for the school itself.
So, if ACLC wants to create another sister school to educate K - 5th, bully for them, but they need to find and fund their own site or hey, maybe ACLC should have put in an application to be housed at the Carnegie as well. That certainly would have been an interesting use of the space.
I’ve met some of the kids who attend this school and I’ve been hugely impressed. They are very enthusiastic and proud of their school and moving on to great things from there. The ones I know are SMART. Hope they can keep growing.
Comment by Jack B — November 20, 2007 @ 8:04 am
More power to charter schools, they are doing something right. I hope the inept and inefficient folks at AUSD are watching and learning, instead of squandering public money and always looking for handouts!
Comment by Jack Spier — November 20, 2007 @ 8:36 am
Re. Chartered Tour
“Taxpayers built them as schools, right? They were not meant to be used as closets or for storage,”
Ha, ha that’s a good one. His comment possibly could be more appropriately aimed at the “non-closed” AUSD Elementary schools. But, setting that aside, the taxpayers paying for the AUSC buildings who have kids attending ACLC shouldn’t pay double to have their kids (if they so choose) educated in buildings they helped pay for. So I say make ACLC pay the same as AUSD pays for the buildings.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 20, 2007 @ 8:51 am
Re Jack Spier’s comment #2, there’s no real way to take issue with the extremely vague assertion that “charter schools . . . are doing something right.” Of course they are. So are regular public schools. As with “regular” public schools, there is significant variation in the contexts and practices of charter schools. It would be helpful if Mr. Spier were to be a bit more specific about “something.”
As Mr. Spier knows or should know, there are significant legal, financial, and other differences between charter schools and “regular” public schools. Before agreeing with Mr. Spier’s implications and conclusions about the relative merits of charter schools and “regular” public schools, it might be helpful to have answers to some basic questions. For example, how many special education services are charter schools required to provide and at what cost? What is the ELD population of charter schools in general or ACLC in particular compared to “regular” public schools and how might those differences affect “objective” test scores? More generally, are there any other significant differences in the socio-economic characteristics of charter school students and “regular” public school students that might be relevant to consider? Are there any unfunded mandates “regular” public schools have to meet from which charter schools are exempt? Do charter schools receive the same funding per student from the state as “regular” public schools?
Mr. Spier’s second sentence in comment #2 does achieve a very high score on the name-calling to factual/logical analysis ratio score, but I’m not sure which “folks at AUSD” he’s trying to condemn: the School Board, the Superintendent, administrators, teachers, staff, parents and/or students? Or did he really mean to direct his name-calling at the true policymakers in the world of public education: the government of the state of California (and to a lesser extent, the government of the U.S.)?
Who or what is inept? Who or what is inefficient? When did AUSD squander public money? What handout? In the absence of specific examples, Mr. Spier’s comments strike me as the rantings of an ideologue.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — November 20, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Re. # 4
Since Mr. Siltanen, has determined that Mr. Spier either knows or should know the significant differences between charter and regular schools, it must mean that Mr. Siltanen does know what differences there are. Would he be so kind as to answer the basic questions he raised or point out and expand on a few of the more significant differences? Differences that make this particular charter school appear to be doing something right. If not, could he point to a comparative study of the two methods of schooling?
Mr. Spier’s second sentence, though a tad acerbic, certainly reflects common public desire. That desire being; when public spending is applied to any project it must applied in the most efficient and competent methods possible. Maybe AUSD could learn some things from this charter school.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 20, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
re comment #5, I didn’t say that Mr. Spier knows or should know what all the significant differences between charter and regular schools are. I only said that he knows or should know that there are significant differences. I don’t know all the significant differences myself, never claimed to know all the significant differences, and don’t need to know all the significant differences to point out that I find Mr. Speir’s assertions unsupported and unpersuasive.
I suspect but don’t know that the answers to the questions I posed are, respectively: Little or no required special ed services (at no cost) at ACLC, much lower ELD population at ACLC, higher socio-economic status at ACLC, significantly fewer unfunded mandates at ACLC, and more funding per student at ACLC than at regular schools. I also suspect that most or all of the differences in test scores can be attributable to these factors rather than to what ACLC is or is not doing right.
I agree completely with the principle Mr. Richard states that public spending ought to be as efficient and competent as possible, but I didn’t see anything in Mr. Spier’s acerbic comment that demonstrated anything about that principle. If apples cost five cents to produce and oranges cost twenty five cents to produce, the fact that oranges cost more than apples to buy at the store really doesn’t tell me anything about the relative efficiency or competence of apple or orange farmers. Comparing the atypical population (and relative legal and financial freedom) of ACLC to that of AUSD is like comparing apples of oranges.
If fact-less argument of the sort Mr. Spier employed is the order of the day, I might ask whether the inept and inefficient folks at ACLC could stop squandering public money and stop looking for handouts and learn some things from AUSD since AUSD is doing something right. But I think that would be unsupported and unpersuasive.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — November 20, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Re. # 6
Perhaps, Mr. Siltanen inadvertently put his finger on one significant difference between chartered schools and regular schools when he drew the analogy of the two schooling methods with the price of apples and oranges. In his analogy the chartered schools have the luxury of a single product on which to concentrate. That being cheaply produced apples. At the same time, regular public schools have, not only apples, but oranges and a multitude of other products which they must spruce up and prepare for sale at the same price as the apples.
The analogy fails when it compares the production costs of apples and oranges and implies that the incoming fruit and kids have different production costs. Kids who show up at the school entrance don’t have different production costs. It’s the “sprucing-up” costs they require before sale that’s expensive. This may read as quibbling but I think there is a point to be made.
What may appear to many as the “squandering” of public money by regular public schools may in fact be “sprucing-up” costs placed on regular public schools by local/state/federal education regulators. The “sprucing-up” (or in current education-speak “equity of outcome”
requirements mean regular public schools must take a student-apple which may have significant “sprucing-up” requirements (costly) and prepare that student-apple for sale at an equitable price as any of the other apples. There-in lies the problem.
How does, in this politically-correct society we have constructed, address the fact that equity of outcome does not mean each kid inherently has the same learning ability as every other kid and all that is needed is a costly sprucing-up to compete equally in the market-place. I’ll tell you one way we address it. We have invented chartered and other type schools that have the relative legal and financial freedom to polish an already saleable apple and discard the high-cost fixer-upper apple-student into the regular school system for a journey to marketplace with few buyers.
It’s probably the only work-around currently possible but sooner or later charter schools will probably be deemed unfair (politically-incorrect) and be put under the same legal and financial umbrella as regular public schools and all the apples will again be the same.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 21, 2007 @ 9:52 am
Very well stated, Jack. But be prepared to get flamed….
Comment by Jack B. — November 21, 2007 @ 10:18 am
I agree for the most part with Mr. Richard’s extension and analysis of the apple-orange analogy. Though it may not be “politically-correct” to say, I agree (as should most reasonable people) with his premise that each kid does not have “the same learning ability as every other kid.” I too reject “politically-correct” assumptions that everyone or everything is or should be completely equal. That sort of thinking too often leads to the same style of fact-less, ideological ranting and policy prescriptions from “the left” as the style of fact-less, ideological ranting and policy prescriptions from “the right” which I saw in Mr. Spier’s unsupported accusations of AUSD’s ineptitude, inefficiency, squandering of public money, etc. in comment #2.
Still, while I agree that not all apples can be spruced up as easily as others, I disagree that it follows from that premise that we should “discard” high-cost fixer-upper apple-students to another system. A policy of “deal with difference by discarding” would likely have significant social, economic and other costs (and, of course, benefits for some). For now, I’ll leave it to others to consider those costs and benefits.
Despite their relative legal and financial freedom, I’m also unconvinced that charter schools really do better serve the “already saleable apples” compared to regular public schools. I know that Alameda High School and Encinal High School graduate bumper crops of really shiny, saleable apples every year that are purchased annually at the finest institutions of higher education in the country.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — November 21, 2007 @ 11:01 am
To provide some factual background for this post, here are the numbers for ACLC since 2002:
http://mikemcmahon.info/apibasedata.htm#12
For an overview of the charter movement in California, you can go here:
http://mikemcmahon.info/charteroversight.htm
As for the discussion regarding the vital relationships between public rhetoric and public policy in a democratic society, you can go here:
http://mikemcmahon.info/publicrhetoric.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — November 21, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Re. # 9
I’m certainly not disparaging Alameda regular public schools. My kids, each a product of Alameda “regular” public schools, sailed right through some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the country. But this isn’t about shiny saleable apples, it’s about polishing oranges in order to pretend they’re apples. The result is an orange who thinks it’s an apple but has no value in the apple marketplace.
The student who cannot, for whatever reason, become a candidate for an institution of higher learning should not be channeled through an academic pipeline which has the institutional goal of college admission. By the same token, academia should not be scored by percentage numbers of students who make it to the next level of academia. Perhaps, that non-college bound orange-student doesn’t belong in a academic setting who’s only goal is to send well polished apple-kids packing to the next level.
I believe that educating our kids to the best of our kids’ ability should be what schools are all about. No one would disagree with that. It’s that gray-matter “level of ability” we disagree on.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 21, 2007 @ 11:51 am
The human genome is a bit more complex than that of a kumquat.
There are all sorts of smarts and all sorts of intelligence.
The fact that Jack R’s kids sailed through school may only show that our public institutions cater to Jack R and leave other taxpayers wanting.
I do agree that a traditional four-year college education is not what is best for all students. All need basic 3R education, but the skilled trades are just as, if not more honorable than office jobs. In some ways teachers are responsible for the over-emphasis on college preparatory. We — I mean they — sometimes think that unless a child follows in their own footsteps, she is a failure. In some ways schools contribute to failure just as much as they contribute to success.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 21, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Re # 10
Thank you Mike for the interesting links.
Re # 12
Exactly, Mr. Alameda NayTiff, you’ve made my point. Though, my kids sailed through schools mostly because of their parents, our Alameda schools helped pave the way. And that’s the way it should be. However, neither do all kids nor do all parents spring from the same circumstances. If kids have the wherewithal to become a shiny apple instead of a kumquat or vice versa the 3R education they pay for should flex to their needs. After all, the schools work for us not the state or fed politicians.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 21, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
Instead of apple and orange analogies, cherry picking might be in order.
From #4 “More generally, are there any other significant differences in the socio-economic characteristics of charter school students and “regular” public school students that might be relevant to consider?”
Answer, yes.
A reason ACLC can have higher test scores is that the average student and parent who take serious interest are those who are motivated coming in, and anecdotally also seem not to be on the lower end of the socio-economic scale.
ACLC theoretically still for all comers, but as times has passed, the students who have come there with great hopes and low academic achievement have tended to be culled out, as opposed to be buoyed by the environment.
This is personal opinion, based on empirical evidence, not something derived from statistical review.
Another analogy might where a group of people are struggling to row a boat together while also keeping the hull caulked with meager means so it won’t sink. Because they can’t all quite agree on a cadence for rowing and some aren’t happy with the progress. So a small segment of the crew jumps ship because they want to take their share of the maintenance funding stream and launch their own boat partially build with parts of the old boat and supported with their portion of the maintenance supplies.
Fewer people are left to row the original boat….you see where this goes.
Comment by Kumquat — November 21, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
Re # 14
“ACLC theoretically still for all comers, but as times has passed, the students who have come there with great hopes and low academic achievement have tended to be culled out, as opposed to be buoyed by the environment.”
Mr. Kumquat, you use the term “culled out” for those ACLC students who leave the school because of low academic achievement. My understanding of “cull” is to select out. Are you suggesting that low academic achievers at ALCL are selected and forced to leave? Or is this “culling out” a passive process where underachieving students feel they’re not welcome or supported and leave of their own volition?
Also, concerning your second analogy, is the “old boat” meant to be analogous to the regular public school system and the small segment of crew jumping ship analogous to former regular public school teachers or students? Without using analogies and since you have empirical evidence could you expand on your final sentence?
Comment by Jack Richard — November 22, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Re. # 10
Mike, the Ellen Condliffe Lagemann “Public Rhetoric Responsibility, and the Public Schools”, link you provided deserves comment.
Her paper takes issue with three reports which castigate the performance of American public schools and each report offers solutions to the performance problem by reforming the academic process in various ways. While Lagemann does not disagree that there is a problem she differs in the mode of solution. Her take is that schools have not failed us but society as a whole is to blame of the educational problem and her solution lies in reforming society.
Wow, she has really taken a big reformation bite. Let’s see just what she suggests.
First, she takes issue with academic reliance on economic models which she says have skewed the process of education into a too narrowly defined outcome. The following is a theme of one of the reports she disagrees with which, I think, pretty much sums up the economic model:
“The United States takes deserved pride in the vitality of its economy,
which forms the foundation of our high quality of life, our national security,
and our hope that our children and grandchildren will inherit ever greater
opportunities.”
I personally take issue with this model as well. In my view, the foundation for all the above lies in the liberty and freedom embodied in our constitution.
But, let’s see what model Lagemann thinks will help solve society’s school problem. Well, other than offering a disjointed analogy with the U. S. military in Iraq contracting out certain functions which she has determined is undemocratic (for unexplained reasons), it appears she opts for a complete socialization of society. This is the core of her solution. Society has delegated the education of its children to schools when the rightful provider of education is society and society should talk about it. Her offering is “profound” public debate (perhaps a loud cow bell would help). Her’s is an education model for the public instead of the children and pretty thin gruel for the feverish degree of rhetoric.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 22, 2007 @ 12:05 pm