As reported by Michele Ellson, at Tuesday night’s School Board meeting a group of parents and teachers presented the School Board with an application to turn Chipman charter.
So, full disclosure, I am a member of the Founding Board for the new charter school which will be named the Academy of Alameda. When I was asked to join the Academy board I wanted to be assure that – because, let’s face it, I tend to be skeptical about most charter schools – the critiques that I had of Nea/ACLC/NCLC would not be duplicated at the Chipman conversion charter. The major ones I had were (1) diversity reflective of the school district and (2) the charter not being a financial drain on the school district.
The main reason why Chipman is being turned charter is because there really are no other options for the school anymore. Chipman is entering into the fourth year of Program Improvement, which essentially means that certain populations that are statistically significant at Chipman aren’t meeting No Child Left Behind (NCLB) benchmarks. So the options were to (1) do nothing and hope that these populations of kids meet the testing standards again and risk getting taken over or shut down by the State, or (2) convert to school into a charter and essentially start afresh.
Educational and parent leaders at Chipman realized that even with the best intentions without a major overhaul of how Chipman was run because the population would essentially be the same and using the same tools would just end up with the same result. So, the Academy was born.
The resulting petition is a well researched educational program that will hopefully excite parents, community members, and other educators. The Academy will not be drawing the bulk of its population from other schools, but rather the intention is to retain the current Chipman population and do better by providing a curriculum that falls under four R’s: Readiness, Relevance, Relationship, and Rigor.
Readiness: students are expected to be mentally, physically and academically prepped to learn each and every day. These are all things big and small from ensuring the classrooms are not too cluttered and therefore overstimulating the students to creating an environment that is free from threat.
Relevance: learning happens best when students can continue to apply one skill they learn to multiple environments.
Relationship: students will be encouraged to connect with other students, teachers, and the larger community so that their mastery of a subject can be recognized and nurtured.
Rigor: above all, students will be expected to master standards but excel above and beyond those standards.
It’s hard to digest what will be different about the Academy, a lot of the petition is in educator-speak which reads like Greek, but when seen in action is so much more impressive. One of the main difference between Chipman and the Academy is there will be more time. More time for the kids who struggle and kids who excel and all the kids in between. Two and half more hours per day for the kids who may not get it and two and half more hours per day for kids who want to stretch themselves even further.
The big difference is that the Academy is trying to work with the School District to create the least impact on the District at large and attempting to create a model of how such a collaboration would work.
For those that have the time or the interest to read the petition — I warn you, it’s long — the piece on the education program is really not to be missed.
Did I mention the part about the uniforms?
” – the critiques that I had of Nea/ACLC/NCLC would not be duplicated at the Chipman conversion charter.”
“The major ones I had were (1) diversity reflective of the school district…”
I’m trying to understand your critique # 1. You do not want the Academy to reflect the diversity of the school district? Or is it that Nea/ACLC/NCLC diversity was not reflective of the school district but your Academy will be?
Comment by Jack Richard — October 29, 2009 @ 8:49 am
They gotta get rid of NCLB. Kids don’t learn by testing, and teachers can’t teach that way. All that BS we hear about “rewarding high performing teachers”, huh. Just an excuse not to pay teachers what they are worth and to beat up on schools that don’t conform.
What we gotta do is switch the whole thing so that high performing kids are rewarded, and we let teachers teach!
Comment by Jayne Smythe — October 29, 2009 @ 10:36 am
High performing kids are already rewarded, teachers always teach to tests and teachers are paid per their union contract.
The only switching that will occur will be for the worse. Color me realistic.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 29, 2009 @ 10:47 am
ugh, is another charter school really necessary? Arthur Anderson (or whatever its called now) has enough weird kids to go around already.
Comment by E — October 29, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Charter teachers probably not union.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — October 29, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Jayne- Thought you were speaking of “Public” public schools in your # 2. Charters aren’t held to the same restrictions as the other public schools, else why change. Some would say they’re not held to any standards…but like you say, let teachers teach. The chaff will eventually separate its self from the wheat in either venue.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 29, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
I hope the charter goes through and that their weird kids will give people like “E” a job.
Comment by id — October 29, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
The Academy of Alameda has made the appendixes referenced in the petition available:
http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/images/stories/pdfs/boemtg/academyofalamedacharterappendix.pdf
Comment by Mike McMahon — November 1, 2009 @ 10:15 am
I never understood the argument about NCLC not reflecting the diversity.
It uses a lottery for application, and any student living in Alameda is eligible. How is that not reflecting the school district or unfair? Everyone has the same chance, you just need to apply.
Compare this to e.g. Bay Farm/East End schools where the parents have to live in one of the more affluent areas of Alameda.
Racial and social diversity seems to me much larger at NCLC than most east end schools.
Comment by K S — November 6, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
9. It is a state law that charters reflect the racial make up of a district. The argument about NCLC is that because the families who apply to charters tend to be “activist” parents who are more proactive about education than the average student from an average family in the district, the outcome is that even among a lottery group of those who apply, the student pool at such charters is skewed because it is a effectively a self selected group of activists. I choose to use the term “elite” for such a group, though some take exception to that characterization.
On the other hand, neighborhood schools are neighborhood schools composed of kids from the neighborhood to which they are adjacent. What are the options for making them all precisely equal, reflecting the district at large, busing?
We could use one giant lottery for sorting attendance of all elementary schools where all children on the island end up in elementary schools arbitrarily. That could be considered fair, but how many people would go for it?
Comment by M.I. — November 6, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Mark, could you cite the state law that requires charters to reflect the racial diversity of the district? Only requirement I could find, cursory search though it may have been, is the Federal Title IX requirement that charters cannot discriminate against students of a particular race, color, or national origin, or against students with disabilities. Title IX has other requirements for schools within a jurisdiction with a duty to desegregate, but I don’t think Alameda’s schools are under such restrictions.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2009 @ 8:43 am
Thanks MI
California state law doesn’t require charter schools to be racially balanced, only that their programs are open to everyone.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
12. Cal Education code section
47605(b)(5)(G) requires a charter petition to contain “a reasonably
comprehensive description” of “the means by which the school will
achieve a racial and ethnic balance among its pupils that is
reflective of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the school district to which the charter petition is
submitted.”
Pardon me if that’s just a “standard” and not a “law”.
Comment by M.I. — November 9, 2009 @ 7:28 am
9. It is a state law that charters reflect the racial make up of a district.
13. Pardon me if that’s just a “standard” and not a “law”.
Pardon me but there’s a hell of a lot of difference between a “law” and a requirement for “a reasonably comprehensive description”.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 9, 2009 @ 8:22 am
14. o.k., so what exactly is the technical difference, or what is the difference to you? A law comes with punishment for violation? Rules are rules, as they say, so what is your objective in arguing this point, Jack?
Comment by M.I. — November 9, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
M.I., This goes back to the question I asked Lauren concerning her critique of ACLC/NCLC in my # 1… which she never responded to.
This is her statement in her post which I don’t think is clear: “The major ones (the critique of the ACLC/NCLC) I had were (1) diversity reflective of the school district…”
I asked her: “I’m trying to understand your critique # 1. You do not want the Academy to reflect the diversity of the school district? Or is it that Nea/ACLC/NCLC diversity was not reflective of the school district but your Academy will be?”
That brings up your # 10 in response to K. S.’s #9. If your answer in # 10 is correct it means the charters are in violation of state law. I asked if you could cite the law because you sounded like you were familiar with it but I couldn’t find it.
Well, now it turns out that the charters may be in violation (or maybe not) of the spirit of the goal but not in violation of the law. That, to me, is a big difference.
I’m not arguing, I’m trying to learn.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 9, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
16. O.K. I am trying to learn what you think the big difference is, what’s the significance in the difference? But really it doesn’t matter if a blogger with my lack of authority misspeaks on a code or standard being a law, because I think it’s apparent what the intent of my comment was in the context of answering #9. If you read the question in #9 you see my answer spoke to the spirit of the question and the misstatement of a code being law was a technicality.
You have me thinking about what the education code means and what teeth may or may not exist to enforce a “code” as opposed to a “law”. I believe if a charter does not meet the criteria of the code the charter can be revoked. It would be up to the body which authorized the charter ( district, county state) to determine a lack of conformance and to act on that.
Comment by M.I. — November 10, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Hi Jack: Apologies about not responding, sometimes I have every intention to and then forget to come back to it. The intention of the Academy is to ensure that the school is reflective of the current population at Chipman. Which is probably one of the most racially and economically diverse schools in Alameda.
One of my main critiques of Nea/ACLC/NCLC was/is that their population was/is not diverse, despite their requirement to have shown that they will make efforts to reflect the diversity of the district, if not the West End, where their school is housed.
Once a charter is approved, it is approved, that is why there is so much scrutiny of the application to begin with. I believe it is very difficult to have one’s charter revoked once it is offered. So, Nea/ACLC/NCLC is not breaking the law by not having a diverse population reflective of the school district where it is located. But remember that the first attempt to get the charter approved resulted in a 5-0 vote to deny the charter and one of the reasons that staff suggested denial was due to the lack of a comprehensive plan to show that they would attempt to reach that goal.
Fun fact though, at last night’s school board meeting — by the way school board meeting audiences are a lot more fun than City Council meeting audiences because of all the kids! — according to staff currently Nea has for their K – 8th program enrolled less than 90 students that were not AUSD students last year. About 30ish are Oakland residents, the remainder are a collection from Alameda including some from other public or charter schools, some previously home schooled, and some from private schools.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 11, 2009 @ 6:42 am
Thanks Lauren, Sorry this post seemed to get into a pissing contest about codes and goals but in reality it seems to me education, at least at the lower levels, has become so myopically focused on achieving racial diversity that it instead of education is the raison d’etre. Perhaps, as you imply in your # 18, multi-racial inclusion is an application illusion designed to get your foot in the door before reality sets in.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 11, 2009 @ 9:18 am