Alt Ed, part two

Continued from Part one 

Another comment that sparked my interest was made by Alex B. sort of buried, but one that was addressed by SDR was the notion that somehow charter schools have “exceptional” students as compared to the regular public schools:

3. It would seem that some people disagree that the programs available for exceptional students should MIRROR the scope and funding for programs designed for students with weaker than average abilites. At either end of the spectrum there are students with “special needs”, both deserve to be supported equally.

To that end: I resent Barbara Mooney’s comment that it’s a special program on “her” dime. Many of the parents who are on the waiting list for ACLC pay a LOT of dimes into the public education system and their right to have the school of their choice shouldn’t be driven by one person who feels that it isn’t the best option for their children’s special needs.

I don’t think that anyone is disagreeing that an equal amount of money should be spent on “exceptional” students and programs that serve them.  Which is why it is important to have money to fund Advanced Placement classes and other programs that serve to educate kids who come in brighter than the average bear.  After all, those of us that are parents probably all collectively agree that our child(ren) is(are) THE smartest kid(s) we’ve ever met.   No one is so much of a martyr to actively support a proposition that will make their “exceptional” child lose out in the end.  No one.  

But Alex B’s comment is based on the supposition that the charter school is only for exceptional students to get more services, which is a great marketing job done by the folks at ACLC, but not the case.  The purpose of ACLC, as stated in their application, is not to provide the smartest with more programs, but is a “different” way to learn for all students.   While they reserve the option to “disenroll” students and a good 10% of their students “voluntarily” leave ACLC every year, to me this does not bode well for ACLC meeting the goal it set out in its application, which is to “bridge the achievement gap for African American and Latino students”   Could you imagine the outrage and uproar if Alameda High allowed 10% of its students to just leave each year?

From SDR:

…Beyond this, it would seem that the ACLC proposal speaks more to the idea that different children learn different ways, not that ACLC is a school for the “Bright” kids. (And who gets to decide which kindergarteners are the bright ones? Should we put that out to competitive bid? Sorry, couldn’t help myself.)

AUSD has programs for “gifted” kids, and a track record of both graduates attending premier institutions. AHS was just recognized for its academic excellence. How is it unfair to the bright kids in these programs to take money away from successful programs exactly?…

And to quickly answer Alex B.’s question, although it may have been rhetorical:

…Also, when did closing the achievement gap become the marching order for all public schools?…

Four words: No Child Left Behind.

I think what speaks most to the idea that somehow charter schools are providing additional services to bright kids is to simply look at how ACLC, in particular, provides Advanced Placement (AP) courses to their students.   AP classes, for those of us who remember it, is college level classes offered to high school students.   If you eventually pass the AP exam administered by the College Board, you can earn credits for college.   As mentioned by Barbara M., ACLC simply sends their kids to the Encinal classes for the coursework, but then take credit for the test scores earned by those students even though they were taught by Encinal teachers, not ACLC facilitators.

Would those ACLC students that tested so well that they earned ACLC a bronze rating from US News and World Report done as well in Encinal or Alameda High Schools?  Probably.   What is “weak” for me is evidence that charter schools somehow provide a superior education to students.  Even a report found charters to be a mixed bag, from the SF Chronicle:

…Now, a study by California researchers trying to learn at last which kind of public school works better — charter or traditional — has reached this Zenlike conclusion: It all depends.

For elementary schools, forget the charter. Go with traditional.

For middle schools, head to the charter.

For high schools, well, it’s a toss-up.

And for those who are dead-set on sending their children to a charter, the ones managed by a company or a nonprofit organization generally outperformed the ones run by local groups.

…

They found, on average:

– Despite having more disadvantaged students, 4,965 regular elementary schools outperformed 183 charter elementaries.

– Despite having fewer experienced teachers, 54 charter middle schools strongly outperformed 1,211 regular middle schools.

– Charter high schools were all over the map. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, the 119 charter high schools outperformed 946 traditional high schools on English tests, for example, but they fell behind on math tests…

To be continued…