Blogging Bayport Alameda

April 2, 2008

Admission Control

Filed under: Alameda, School — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 7:27 am

A while ago during one of the many discussions about Charter Schools and, more specifically, Alameda Community Learning Center (ACLC) someone asked about the graduation rates for students that enter in at 6th or 7th grade.   I thought that data would be valuable in assessing whether or not ACLC was really doing what they claimed they were doing which was teaching students how to Learn to Learn, so for weeks now I have been trying to find that information.   Luckily, a site I read SFSchools, which I have referenced here before, was touching on the subject of KIPP charter schools which can be found across the US, she mentioned that she had done an analysis of the attrition rates of KIPP charter school students and noted that the information was readily available and then provided instructions on how to get it.  So many thanks to Caroline for the how-to.  

I went to the State website and downloaded the information to a spreadsheet and then I used the data that I had to sort out basically a timeline for kids who “entered” ACLC during certain school years and then tracked that until graduation or as far as the available data would go.   The most interesting ones are the two that I have as complete data from 7th to 12th grade as I could get.  Those are the 2000-2001 7th grade entry and 2001-2002 7th grade entry.

Let me start out by saying that one could argue, and by one I mean me, that students that have reached 12th grade and I would even say 11th grade, have probably already developed pretty good studying habits.   If they are a good student they will continue to be a good student no matter where they are.  Which is why it is interesting that a pattern emerges among ACLC students that there is a spike of students around 8th and 9th grade, as there should be, but then ACLC slowly bleeds students in the next few years until graduation.   Then there is the strange, 12th grade enrollment or even 11th grade enrollment, for which some other school had been largely responsible for the schooling of that student over the years, but then ACLC gets to take the credit for that students graduation, final test scores, and college placement.   Seems a bit inequitable to me.

So with tha set aside, let’s get on to the data. Starting with 2001-2002 7th grade entry, in 2001 here is the population ACLC started with:

  • One Asian female
  • One Latino female
  • Five African American females
  • Six White females
  • One American Indian male
  • Three Asian males
  • One Filipino males
  • One Latino male
  • One African American male
  • Six White males

When the students move to 8th grade, this is how 8th looks, everything has stayed the same except for these changes:

  • Less one African American female
  • Less one White female
  • Add one African American male
  • Add five White males

In grade 9, this is the largest population of kids for this year of students with 32 students in this class, the changes that have now been made are:

  • Add one African American female
  • Add one Latino female
  • Less one White female
  • Less one American Indian male, no American Indian male left in population
  • Add one Filipino male
  • Add one Latino male
  • Less two White males

In grade 10, here is where students start “opting out” of the program, the changes are:

  • Less one Asian female, no more Asian females left in the population
  • Less one Filipino female, no moe Filipino females left in the population
  • Less two African American females
  • Less one White female
  • Add one Filipino male
  • Less one African American male
  • Less one White male

In grade 11, the changes are:

  • Less one Latino female
  • Less one African American female
  • Add three White females
  • Less one Asian male
  • Add one Filipino male
  • Less one White male

And finally in grade 12, the final tally ends up being tracking from 7th to 12th:

  • Asian female:                         1 -> 1 -> 1 -> 0 -> 0 -> 0
  • Filipino female:                      0 -> 0 -> 1-> 0 -> 0 -> 0
  • Latino female:                        1 -> 1 -> 2-> 2 -> 1 -> 1
  • African American female:     5 -> 4 -> 5-> 3 -> 2 ->1
  • White female:                        6 -> 5 -> 4-> 3 -> 6 -> 6
  • American Indian male:        1 -> 1 -> 0-> 0 -> 0 -> 0
  • Asian male:                            3 -> 3 -> 3-> 3 -> 2 -> 2
  • Filipino male:                         1 -> 1 -> 2-> 3 -> 4 -> 4
  • Latino male:                          1 -> 1 -> 2-> 2 -> 2 -> 2
  • African American male:       1 -> 2 -> 2-> 1 -> 1 -> 1
  • White male:                           6 -> 11 -> 9-> 8 -> 7 -> 7

In 12th grade there is only 24 students, so at its peak at 32 ACLC lost almost 25% of its population.  It is really puzzling how many students get enrolled into ACLC at the very tail end of the public school education, either 11th or 12th grade.  

54 Comments »

  1. Possibly they’re fed up with the drivel at the regular public schools and yearn for something a little different.

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 2, 2008 @ 8:58 am

  2. I count 26 in grade 7 and 24 in grade 12 for a net loss of 2 students, or a beginning to finish rate of 90.3%

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 2, 2008 @ 1:01 pm

  3. It’s a shame that the numbers can’t show how many of those who entered in grade 7 were still there in grade 12. The numbers seem to show that 17 students left during the period and 15 entered. That would seem to indicate that 9 students were there from 7th thru 12th – about 34%. However, students who left and were replaced by the students in the same category wouldn’t be reflected in these numbers.

    Comment by irish — April 2, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

  4. Frankly, I think the categorical breakdown needs tuning. For instance, what is an “Asian female” Japanese? Chinese? Thai? Pinay? Korean? Taiwanese? Cambodian? Lao? Viet? Indonesian?

    Let’s get this broken down further.

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 2, 2008 @ 7:54 pm

  5. Jack,

    while #4 seems totally sarcastic, irish makes the relevant assessment. Your 90.3% finish rate is meaningless. By the same formula they could have a 120% finish rate, yet have no original students if they had a load of new students enter in grade 12. That wouldn’t prove anything except a lot of kids made it through one year.

    Comment by Mark I — April 2, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

  6. Mark – Why do say #4 seems sarcastic?

    It is real, it is true. We feel comfortable referring to Europeans as French, Germans, English, Irish, Scottish, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese etc. We use these labels because we believe them to be meaningful; as in different parts of Europe equate to differences in the people from those countries. I believe it is our ignorance that leaves many Americans the ability to only use the label “Asian” because we are not as aware of the tremendous differences in so many Asian countries and cultures. Personally I have the same difficulty with many Slavic and middle eastern peoples. Somebody more attuned would be more aware of cultural geographies. Same could be said of Africans. Perhaps Jack R is being less sarcastic and more aware of our cultural ignorance.

    Comment by Dave Kirwin — April 2, 2008 @ 10:29 pm

  7. To me this looks like a pointless exercise Laruen. You make assumptions that students starting at ACLC in 11th or 12th grade have good study habits. Why ? What evidence do you have that it is good students with good study habit that transfer out of the standard AUSD system? Why would be the motivation?

    What IS your point?

    Secondly, I don’t see these “enrollment spikes’ you allude to…

    Comment by Dave Kirwin — April 2, 2008 @ 10:41 pm

  8. To answer one of Jack’s musings, Filipinos females (aka Pinay) have their own separate designation. The school district I believe takes the breakdown of Asian into the various sub groups, but on the state level they are lumped together. Since I used the state data, they are one group: Asian.

    To answer David’s question, why do this, because I have heard ancedotal stories about about ACLC “recruiting” good students in their last year of school. I recall what I did my senior year of high school. Absolutely nothing. And I was a “good student.”

    After you get your admission letter to college, school is pretty much just going through the motions. What kid wouldn’t be lured by the opportunity to kick back on couches all day long and come and go as they please?

    When I see 14% of 12th graders (98-99), 20% of 12th graders (99-00), 10% of 12th graders (00-01) join ACLC in their final year of school, red flags raise.

    Comment by Lauren Do — April 3, 2008 @ 7:35 am

  9. # 5

    Mark I, that was my point. Both Lauren’s loss of 25% and my finish rate of 90.3% have the same validity…none. As far as the Asian female breakdown, I realized, after I posted my comment, the redundancy of Pinay when the list already includes Filipino female. Which to me, underlines and makes apparent the absurdity of this constant artificial categorical breakdown of students. Aren’t these all American kids?

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 3, 2008 @ 8:35 am

  10. If only they were.

    Comment by MarkD — April 3, 2008 @ 11:15 am

  11. This looks like a desperate grasping at straws. Any respected statistician would find your little exercise laughable.

    “What kid wouldn’t be lured by the opportunity to kick back on couches all day long and come and go as they please?”

    Such myths are easily betrayed by a simple visit to the school. I encourage St. Lauren and all to visit the school for a day to see what really goes on.

    Comment by poguemahone — April 3, 2008 @ 1:03 pm

  12. “When I first came to the Center it was definitely a surprise, I saw a lot of kids sitting on couches and I saw a lot of group work going on, not very many classes were happening at the time, and I kind of thought, well maybe it’s recess right now…”

    “I started out with pretty bad grades, I was just kind of you know, I can do anything I want, you know. And I never did my homework and stuff. Part the Center is being able to sit around with your friends on the couches and goof off and do whatever you want. And then I kind of, I got my first report card, and it was…I realized what I had to do and I started learning how to manage my time. And how to get my work done.” [emphasis added, of course]

    Both quotes are at the beginning of the video.

    Comment by Lauren Do — April 3, 2008 @ 1:36 pm

  13. St. Lauren,

    So, is it imperative to always be sitting in hard uncomfortable chairs/desks, neatly aligned and facing a teacher and a wall and listenining rigid teacher led lectures, and rote learning methods in order to facilitate a quality education?

    You miss the point in the second quote in that the student quickly learned that sitting around with your friends on the couches and goofing off and doing whatever you want did not, does not work at ACLC. She learned independent time management which is how the real world, including college, works.

    Comment by poguemahone — April 3, 2008 @ 2:05 pm

  14. You implied that the sitting around on couches was a myth, the video shows that it is part of the culture at “the Center.”

    Time management is learned in traditional public schools as well. A student that is taking a full day’s worth of classes, playing a sport, and participating in school activities and clubs also must find the time to manage their schedule, find time to practice, and do their homework as well. Subsitute “playing a sport” with any variation on activities that you find young people doing: dance, playing an instrument, hobbies, etc…

    Does one need to sit on a couch and “goof off” and then be faced with the hard reality of a failing report card after a full school quarter to understand how to independently manage one’s time?

    Comment by Lauren Do — April 3, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

  15. St. Lauren,

    I implied that kicking back on couches all day long and coming and going as one pleases IS a myth and or misconception. If you were not so brainwashed you would clearly see that the video is an attempt at debunking that myth/misconception. It is a classic example of ill and preconceived notions about what constitutes learning and the learning environment.

    Time management among other things may be learned in traditional public schools, it’s just that other models of education may mimic and prepare students better for critically thinking in the “real world”.

    Comment by poguemahone — April 3, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

  16. According to this analysis, ACLC average class size in 7th through 12th grade was 26.8. Between 7th and 8th grade the percent attrition was 8%, rising to 13% between 8th and 9th grade, and to a high of 23% between 9th and 10th grade. Almost one quarter of students who entered 9th grade dropped out. Overall the average attrition – or drop out rate was about 19%. Why are in five “learners” dropping out of ACLC after only one year? Could it be that they are not meeting the “facilitators” expectations and thus are implicitly or explicitely encouraged to drop out? If public (non-charter) schools had similar drop out rates there would certainly be some scrutiny of the teaching methods or other program aspects. Thanks for an interesting and illustrative analysis, Lauren.

    Comment by greenleaf — April 3, 2008 @ 4:07 pm

  17. #16
    There is no evidence these students “dropped” out because they did not in fact drop out. Dropping out and moving to another school are two entirely different things. ACLC released info. that I have posted here that shows normal factors such as families moving, opting for other schools etc, as reasons why kids have left, not dropped out, of the school. Quit pulling quasi facts out of yer arse.

    Comment by poguemahone — April 3, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

  18. As far as I can tell the only valid information in this illustrative analysis is that African American females went on to other things and Filipino males took their place. Big deal.

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 3, 2008 @ 7:46 pm

  19. And also that students prefer to sit on someting comfortable when it is available.

    Comment by D Kirwin — April 3, 2008 @ 7:58 pm

  20. I think the point is stability. If the program had a lock on a certain type of kid who thrived in that program and accurately targeted those kids, you might expect more consistency. I can’t make any definitive conclusions but there seems to be a lot of flux. One could infer that it takes a lot of experimenting to determine if kids can thrive there. I know anecdotally from children who have left (NOT DROPPED OUT!) that education time can be squadered in that process.

    I infer from Jack’s remarks that he is completely and utterly indifferent to the ethnic make up but I think the data is important to examine because significant patterns may emerge which you would never see if you just didn’t look. I can’t make any conclusions at this point.

    Comment by Mark I — April 3, 2008 @ 8:37 pm

  21. Lauren – your opinions may be very misleading as contain little relevant information from which you draw your conclusions. You claim your concern is that lazy students that may be “good” students are leaving AUSD where they were ‘taught’ or at least thought to be good students. You opine that after getting accepted to college these students wanted nothing more from school but to laze around on couches and give ACLC the credit that AUSD deserves for being a good school system. And you state that the students transferring to ACLC in 11th & 12th grade is what alerted you to this scenario, which I think is just your imagination wandering.

    1. How many HS students get accepted to college in time to get on the waiting list for ACLC before registration for 11th grade? – I would think – NONE!
    2. How many HS students get accepted to college in time to get on the waiting list for ACLC before registration for 12th grade? – Again, I would think – NONE!
    3. How many of these “good” and “lazy” students transferred into ACLC for the last semester of their senior year after receiving acceptance letters from the college of their choice? – Again I would think – NONE!

    –You stated that you know from experience that after you get accepted into a college you can settle into ‘cruise mode’ – why would anyone want to leave their school and their fiends to change schools to kick back if they can do it anyway with their friends in a familiar enviornment?

    4. If you don’t want to rely on the info that has been posted on why kids transferred out of ACLC that was furnished by school records, it is just as plausible that the ACLC students that left in their latter years did so to start their own companies after learning how to learn, cope, and manage their time to get what they want for their lives.

    I think AUSD is still a great school district, and I don’t think ACLC detracts from that, nor does it cost AUSD additional funds, in fact it brings additional ADA dollars to Alameda because Charter school students are given a higher ADA rate than AUSD students are granted. From what Mike McMahon writes, the difference is from the state, it does not affect the balance of the AUSD student ADA $. In fact, perhaps AUSD BOE should consider creating AUSD as a “Charter District” since the change would bring an additional $10 MM to the district. If the AUSD state funding rate is $1000 per student below average.

    Comment by David Kirwin — April 3, 2008 @ 8:54 pm

  22. Lauren,
    As author of this blog you are entitled to write at your whim, I just toss out cautionary flags, because I want to believe your intent is to improve situations with open dialogue and honesty, not willful creation or slanting of realities.

    Comment by D Kirwin — April 3, 2008 @ 9:04 pm

  23. # 20

    Mark I, I conclude that your inferences are pointless.

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 4, 2008 @ 8:51 am

  24. I believe my position has been overstated in regardless to the fiscal impact of charter schools. Yes the state now pays for the difference for charter ADA of high schools but that does not mean that charter school do not cost AUSD. While AUSD recovers the maximum allowable dollars for oversight, that does not offset the net loss of revenue ($500K to $1M dollars annually)for the students attending a charter school.

    California has instituted bad public policy that allows the creation of charter schools in school districts where is there no educational need when reviewing the academic performances of school sites. Charter schools should be able when the school sites are demonstrably not providing quality education. That is not the case in Alameda.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 4, 2008 @ 11:45 am

  25. I am glad that Mike was able to clearly point out that Charter schools do result in the loss of revenue to the district and it is also true that a charter should be an option when the district does not offer quality programs. AUSD happens to have GREAT schools.

    While the state now gives the district the correct amount of money for charter ADA, I would like if Mike McMahon could let us know how much money AUSD had to give to ACLC during the years when they had to cover the difference by taking the money away from the rest of the schools that do not get the state average.

    Comment by sylvia kahn — April 4, 2008 @ 11:51 am

  26. # 24

    “The bottom line Charter schools should be able when the school sites are demonstrably not providing quality education.”

    # 25

    “…and it is also true that a charter should be an option when the district does not offer quality programs.”

    For Charter school choice supporters, two clarion calls to oppose the Parcel tax. Seems counterproductive to allow choice only at the diminishment of quality in either or both types of public schools.

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 4, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

  27. If the State of California wants to provide “choice” across the board regardless of quality, then State taxpayers have to pay for it. Absent that funding support from the State, local school districts must use parcel taxes to offset the costs of those charters.

    Once again, public policy that charter schools be established for “choice” is expensive and someone needs to pay for.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 4, 2008 @ 1:54 pm

  28. As for the cost to AUSD of ACLC I really do not have any good figures. The initial MOU between AUSD and ACLC was established in 2000 before I joined the Board. Therefore, I do not have any hard and fast numbers. However, when staff presented the new MOU in 2005, they estimated a $100,000 reductions in expenses to District, so one could infer that the five years cost the District approximately $500,000.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 4, 2008 @ 2:08 pm

  29. Mike,

    Has any consideration been given to chartering the whole district?

    Comment by Page — April 4, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

  30. The “cost” to AUSD is not a cost at all. AUSD just gets less money because they are teaching fewer students. AUSD still gets the same funding per student. Charters do not present a “cost” to the district. Isn’t this a more correct way of stating the lost revenue?

    Comment by David Kirwin — April 4, 2008 @ 2:40 pm

  31. Mike,

    Re: #24-
    Why not take into account ALL of the so called “net loss of revenue” by also including Alameda children who are home schooled, attend private schools or other alternatives outside of the district in your figures? They could just as well be going to schools within the district and brining in even more “lost revenue” in the form of ADA.

    “California has instituted bad public policy that allows the creation of charter schools in school districts where is there no educational need when reviewing the academic performances of school sites.”-

    This is a subjective opinion and as a public official I think you have an obligation to state it as such and not infer that it is fact.

    “Charter schools should be able when the school sites are demonstrably not providing quality education…..”-

    That is not the over all intent/mandate of charters as described in the Ca. State Education Code.-

    EDUCATION CODE
    SECTION 47600-47604.5 (for full text go to- http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=47001-48000&file=47600-47604.5)

    47600. This part shall be known, and may be cited, as the “Charter
    Schools Act of 1992.”

    47601. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this part,
    to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community
    members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently
    from the existing school district structure, as a method to
    accomplish all of the following:
    (a) Improve pupil learning.
    (b) Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special
    emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are
    identified as academically low achieving.
    (c) Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching
    methods.
    (d) Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including
    the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the
    schoolsite.
    (e) Provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types
    of educational opportunities that are available within the public
    school system.
    (f) Hold the schools established under this part accountable for
    meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and provide the schools with a
    method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability
    systems.
    (g) Provide vigorous competition within the public school system
    to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools.

    Comment by poguemahone — April 4, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

  32. I agree my statement is an opinion and I am surprised that it could be interpreted as fact because I am elected official.

    In the future I will be more careful to help readers distinguish between fact and opinion.

    Finally, as the others who opt out of AUSD, they are not subsidized by “bad public policy” with State taxpayers dollars.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 4, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

  33. By the way the reason CA charter law is “bad public policy” is not the stated objectives cited in the law (though I oould challenge a few) it is because is not funded properly thereby providing for the unintended consequence of penalizing existing high performing schools.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 4, 2008 @ 4:18 pm

  34. IF: “…the reason CA charter law is “bad public policy” is not the stated objectives cited in the law (though I oould challenge a few) it is because is not funded properly ”

    AND: In Alameda, Charter school students receive more ADA than traditional students. (Charter students get ADA = to State avg, but AUSD gets student ADA well below State avg)

    THEN: Logically it follows that Charter Schools are better public policy than traditional schools,
    OR the ‘amount’ of funding is not the relevant factor referred to as “improper funding”.

    In addition to post #30 answering post #24 about there being no “cost” to AUSD for the Charter schools, part of the reduced revenue that is balanced by the reduced student population is returned to AUSD by charter schools if/when the charter students utilize AUSD facilities and services.

    Comment by David Kirwin — April 4, 2008 @ 5:42 pm

  35. #32

    “Finally, as the others who opt out of AUSD, they are not subsidized by “bad public policy” with State taxpayers dollars.”-

    The problem in your logic is your assumption that the district is somehow, or should be exclusively entitled to those taxpayers dollars.

    Furthermore, because the district is not exclusively entitled to those funds, once a student opts out of the district run schools it is irrelevant as to whether any ADA dollars follow them or not.

    So what? How dare teachers, parents, pupils, and community
    members bypass the omnipotence of the Almighty AUSD!?

    Comment by poguemahone — April 4, 2008 @ 7:25 pm

  36. On a state level, public policy has determined the need for providing public education to its citizens. Citizens can opt out of the public education. The problem I am pointing out is that injection of charter schools in distribution of public funds is expensive. So if policy makers at the state level determine that charter schools are appropriate then simply fund without penalizing the existing public education system.

    This is not about AUSD it is about state public policy.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 4, 2008 @ 8:19 pm

  37. Mike ,

    Please explain how charter schools are expensive. It seems they are allowed to operate, by state law, in ways that make them more cost efficient than the rest of the district. I am surprised that they are eligible for the state avg of ADA funding. The fact that they do get more funds per student than the rest of AUSD means an overall increase in public school funding for Alameda coupled with extra efficiencies permitted by law.

    It seems that the state has done everything it can to not penalize the “host” district. It appears Charter school laws were designed to be win/win.

    Where do you see the problem with charter school laws – statewide and / or for Alameda?

    Comment by David Kirwin — April 4, 2008 @ 11:34 pm

  38. Another question. Let’s assume that every single school in Alameda went charter. If so, would AUSD need to exist? What function does the district play in charters and what is the cost of that function?

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 5, 2008 @ 6:51 am

  39. Charter schools must be authorized by a certain authority. Locally, it would be the City Unified School district. If every school in Alameda turned charter like ACLC, they would still be under the unbrella of AUSD.

    I believe the most recent MOU (2005) between ACLC and AUSD specifies that ACLC will now pay AUSD 3% of ACLC’s state revenues, but does not include things like grant money or lottery funds. (p. 6 of the reader). The 3% covers oversight and accountability services, listed under bullet 3.3. (p. 3 of the reader) Plus it looks like something new that was added (I assume it was new because it’s in an entirely different font than the rest of the MOU) was that ACLC agreed to purchase administrative and other services from the school district, the services are outlined in bullet 7.2. (p. 15 of the reader).

    Of course, keep in mind that this MOU was effective starting the 06-07 school year so this new payment formula to AUSD has only been in effect for two years. After only one year of reimbursing AUSD for these costs, ACLC decided that they needed to expand their program in the 07-08 school year.

    Comment by Lauren Do — April 5, 2008 @ 7:34 am

  40. #39
    It looks to me like the charter has essentially outsourced administrative functions to the district. What I cannot tell is the cost per student of those administrative fees.

    There are obviously administrative costs in running an educational institution (and those costs seem to have gone up in recent decades). Since every school has to fulfill certain minimum requirements, the smaller the school, the higher the per pupil cost. By using AUSD for administrative services, charters can lower their costs… but what are those costs? What is the true value of the services that AUSD provides to the charter, and is the charter paying the full cost of those services?

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 5, 2008 @ 8:03 am

  41. Sorry, more questions.

    Do charters provide their own counselors, librarians and school nurses? Do they provide their own labs, libraries, auditoriums, shops, sports facilities, etc?

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 5, 2008 @ 8:39 am

  42. The one cost that is not factored into the day to day funding of in CA public education is facilities. If you look at state by state comparison of per pupil funding you will see CA around $8500. Approximately $2000 of that funding is interest cost of statewide bond measures. At District level, the school district needs to pass a local bond measure to receive state funds. These overall costs of facilities does not match the rent charged. If you review the growth of charters until Prop 39 passed which forces District to provide existing facilities to charter schools, they were virtually non-existent.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 5, 2008 @ 8:48 am

  43. #42
    If a charter occupies district property, does the charter pay for repairs, maintenance, upkeep etc.? How are costs for building component replacement handled? If a building needs a new roof or electrical system, who pays? Buildings only have a certain life span. How is building replacement handled? How does the district determine what rent to charge the charter?

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 5, 2008 @ 11:43 am

  44. ANT –

    You still sound like there is an ‘us vs them’ between AUSD and alameda charter schools. It isn’t. It is us and us.

    All students whether at charter or traditional schools are from families trying to get a decent public education for their kids. If studies can be believed, then it has been found that traditional schools are not “working” for all students.

    I believe that AUSD is better than most, but the fact still holds that there are students for whom AUSD was not ‘working’. The State has developed laws regarding charter schools and tries to benefit everyone with the charter school laws.

    The only way I can see AUSD being “harmed” by more families trying a new teaching format that perhaps will work better for their situation, is that the ADA money will follow the students, – but that is balanced by having fewer students to teach.

    AUSD has several closed schools that should be utilized (They are publicly owned buildings that should not go to waste.) – BTW are these schools owned by AUSD or by the State of CA?

    #42 – Mike; Are charter students really paid so much more than the actual education costs? If so that is more reason to go “All Charter” for AUSD. (Or at least to the greatest degree possible)

    What is the downside of charter schools?

    Comment by David Kirwin — April 6, 2008 @ 4:52 pm

  45. #44

    There are several forces at work here. If parents perceive that their children will be advantaged by attending a charter school, then they will pursue that option. One can argue if that approach will harm those children who will remain in the traditional public schools.

    I think that what is being missed here is that if AUSD itself fails, then the charters associated with it also fail. I question as to whether or not the fees that charters pay to the district cover all costs. Any operation carries significant hidden costs. If those hidden costs are not reimbursed, then the district will eventually fail. Regardless if one’s children are on the upper or lower decks, a sinking ship will eventually carry all of them to their deaths.

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — April 6, 2008 @ 6:49 pm

  46. ANT #45
    “There are several forces at work here. If parents perceive that their children will be advantaged by attending a charter school, then they will pursue that option. One can argue if that approach will harm those children who will remain in the traditional public schools”. –
    HOW? Others would claim that removing the students for whom the system doesn’t work would improve the system for those it does work.
    “I think that what is being missed here is that if AUSD itself fails, then the charters associated with it also fail”.
    WHY WOULD AUSD FAIL?
    “I question as to whether or not the fees that charters pay to the district cover all costs. Any operation carries significant hidden costs. If those hidden costs are not reimbursed, then the district will eventually fail.”
    I am not sure that such logic follows as a true if/then statement, but is logical to question whether there are costs to AUSD that are not reimbursed. I have asked several times on this blog whether MM can name any.
    “ Regardless if one’s children are on the upper or lower decks, a sinking ship will eventually carry all of them to their deaths”
    Perhaps you should consider that the CA State board of education created the Charter schools as a lifeboat.

    Comment by David Kirwin — April 6, 2008 @ 8:07 pm

  47. Per pupil funding of charter schools is tiered to match grade levels. For simplicity, charter per pupil funding for grades K-8 is aproximately 2% to 7% below Alameda’s per pupil funding. For grades 9-12, charter school funding is 12% above Alameda’s per pupil funding. So if AUSD converted entirely to charters, AUSD funding would drop based on current AUSD student grade populations.

    As for your next question, why does not AUSD then convert its high schools to district charter(s), I would say that school districts have just begun examining the implications of what a “district charter” school would look like. In most cases, they are creating them as a result of NCLB sanctions.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 7, 2008 @ 6:53 am

  48. Looks like Los Angeles is beginning to feel the pain associated with having to squeeze charters schools into existing district space. Since they are practically state unto themselves with 500,000+ students, I am guessing the State legislature maybe examining this issue in the coming years.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-charter7apr07,1,269104.story

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 7, 2008 @ 11:31 am

  49. Mike, could you explain the LA Times article? I thought Districts were only required to provide / rent space to charters IF THEY HAD SPACE AVAILABLE.

    Perhaps the “school within a school” concept needs further definition. I am not too concerned with “charter students” sharing AP classes w/ traditional students, (where they abide by same rules/ conditions as traditional students) but “charter schools” based at the same schools makes me wonder …unless these campuses are so large they can actually keep the student populations separate.

    Comment by Dave Kirwin — April 7, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

  50. Based the news articles I have come across it looks like the courts are siding with charter schools:

    http://mikemcmahon.info/charterspace.htm#a

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 7, 2008 @ 6:26 pm

  51. # 50
    And perhaps the ripple affects of Rob S’s “earthquake” are just now beginning to be felt.

    Comment by Jack Richard — April 7, 2008 @ 7:47 pm

  52. The line I gleaned from these three articles, that seems forgotten in Alameda, but should really be held high is;

    “The district “must be ordered to treat the charter school students as if they were the District’s ‘own,’ rather than as unwanted stepchildren or second class citizens,” the lawsuit read. ”

    We all should remember that the charter schools in Alameda will also be serving OUR students.

    If a charter schools can offer an alternative teaching methods, styles or somehow aids students especially low achieving students, in a way which AUSD cannot, then that charter school should be embraced.

    In a school district as successful as AUSD charters should / must be required to either focus on the low achieving students, OR focus on moving achieving or motivated students from academia to successful employment, including through independent studies and mentoring.

    It does seem pointless to have a redundant publicly financed education system. Hopefully it is not the intent of these Charter school laws to create such significant exclusions to labor and credentialing requirements as to break down the unions.

    Comment by David Kirwin — April 7, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

  53. #43 I was finally able to get an answer regarding rent for charter schools. District are allowed by law to collect 3% administrative fee for their servies and must provide facilities virtually rent free.

    So as the true implemenation costs of the current charter law unfolds, I will stand by my “opinion” that it is bad public policy, especially given CA chronic under investment in public education.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — April 8, 2008 @ 10:32 pm

  54. #53 According to the articles you posted yesterday, “virtually free” means whatever the amount the facility costs the host district are passed on to the charter. The new laws just say the host district cannot make a profit by renting to the charters; and if the facilities are needed by a charter they must be rented at that non-profit but fully financed cost even if the district could have other profit making tenants.

    Comment by David Kirwin — April 8, 2008 @ 11:19 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.