Is Green Woods Charter a public school?

[annie]

Is it?

I know technically it is because as a charter school it receives public funds but in practice is it?

During Green Woods Charter's renewal before the SRC on Friday, it came out that the school's economically disadvantaged rate (<130% of the poverty guideline or $29,996 or less for a family of four) is 17%. The rate for the system as a whole (the PSD and the charters) is 80.6%

The premier catchment district schools that often get criticized as primarily serving the city's wealthiest (at least in terms of real estate value) have economically disadvantaged rates of close to or above 50%.

The CEO of Green Woods Charter was allowed to explain this low rate away by saying the school offered sibling preference and determines the rest by citywide lottery without more intense questioning from the SRC. Independence Charter, perhaps the city's charter school with the most clout, does the same yet has a rate of of close to 50%.

More disturbing, the Charter Office's own renewal report on Green Woods notes the following:

• Evidence suggests that an applicant may experience significant barriers to entry

The SRC gave Green Woods a slap on the wrist about this and told them to work on attracting students from catchments with school performance indexes of 4-10 (higher on the SPI is worse). But if there are significant barriers to entry that go unaddressed, how does this help?

If this isn't evidence enough, here are the words of a Green Woods parent:
Philadelphia School Search: Why I Chose Green Woods Charter: 2011-09-25 School Selection Report | Philly School Search

I still have greater philosophical issues with GWCS. Realizing that admission is a lottery process, the lottery itself and application process are far too complicated and non-transparent for my taste. Further, I think they could do a far better job with outreach to increase diversity. Many demographics are simply unable to apply to GWCS given the inaccessibility to the school itself by public transit as well as the convoluted process to even obtain an application. This does really bother me and it is my hope that as a parent I can work from within to make some relatively easy changes in these areas.

I realize it is a little unfair to pick on Green Woods so specifically as I know it is not the only charter school with enrollment barriers. However, I think the situation emblematic of some of the problems of charter schools without strict oversight and uniform application process. If the PSD is to increase charter enrollment to 40% in the next five years as planned, it must address these issues for there to be any equity in the system.

[seand]

You realize of course this thread might just boost transfer forms for Green Woods dramatically for all the exact reasons you are criticizing them for.

As a parent of one child, I'm not terribly critical of sibling preference especially at schools with some sort of "magnet" curriculum or charter because if you have two kids at two different elementary schools I know that can be a terrible hassle delivering your kids to two different locations across town from each other, basically at the same time in the morning.

Also I think I'd rather focus on the charter schools that seem to be all about enriching private politically connected operators, not the ones that legitiamately pursue a very specialized curriculum in a very sepcialized setting. Those types of schools are exactly why charters exist.

I have a friend who does some programming at Green Woods and from what I hear it is exactly what it says it is - a very specialized environmentally focused curriculum. And because of that its very desirable for some parents to go there. Criticizing them for being successful at what they aim to do is a little like saying Masterman should give up on academics and focus solely on being more racially and economically diverse. There should be special schools with special missions i.e. thats what charters are for - specifically.

I'm sort of more interested in the barely non-religious church run schools and politico-run-for-profit schools i.e. the ones where the "special mission" seems to consist of enriching the people running the school.

[annie]

You realize of course this thread might just boost transfer forms for Green Woods dramatically for all the exact reasons you are criticizing them for.

As a parent of one child, I'm not terribly critical of sibling preference especially at schools with some sort of "magnet" curriculum or charter because if you have two kids at two different elementary schools I know that can be a terrible hassle delivering your kids to two different locations across town from each other, basically at the same time in the morning.

Where was I critical of sibling preference? I was critical of the fact that there's no way that's the only reason for the low economically-disadvantaged rate and the Charter Office report says as much.

I'm not going to be silent on barriers to enrollment to a public school just because some people might be attracted to a school for those reasons. That's crazy.

Also I think I'd rather focus on the charter schools that seem to be all about enriching private politically connected operators, not the ones that legitiamately pursue a very specialized curriculum in a very sepcialized setting. Those types of schools are exactly why charters exist.

I have a friend who does some programming at Green Woods and from what I hear it is exactly what it says it is - a very specialized environmentally focused curriculum. And because of that its very desirable for some parents to go there. Criticizing them for being successful at what they aim to do is a little like saying Masterman should give up on academics and focus solely on being more racially and economically diverse. There should be special schools with special missions i.e. thats what charters are for - specifically.

Making it difficult for parents to obtain and submit an application to a publicly-funded school is not pursuing a very specialized curriculum, Sean.

[seand]

I guess if your mission in life is to eliminate unique learning environments and to turn every school into the same lowest common denominator but unless you have some specific proof of discriminatory practices, its seems petty to criticize a specialized evironmentally-themed school in the woods for . . . being the woods.

The point of mission-driven charters is to have a very defined curriculum focus. To me those those are precisely the best argument for charters as a substantive alternative, not merely as tactic to de-unionize teachers or do political favors for would-be private operators.

Basically this seems like criticizing Green Woods for being very desired by middle class parents for a very legitimate curriculum-driven reasons, which just sounds like sour grapes. Their success is precisely why more charters should be about a strongly defined curriculum focus, why if we increase the number of charters more of them should be like this to provide such specialized opportunities for more kids.

[annie]

I guess if your mission in life is to eliminate unique learning environments and to turn every school into the same lowest common denominator but unless you have some specific proof of discriminatory practices, its seems petty to criticize a specialized evironmentally-themed school in the woods for . . . being the woods.

It's not that it's in the woods since transportation must be provided once students enroll. It's that parents must pick up and drop off the application in-person during school hours in the woods.

Masterman has an economically-disadvantaged rate of 46%, by the way. If you don't understand that 17% and the words "significant barriers to entry" means something is seriously off, then I don't know how to get you to.

[seand]

If you got more on how their lottery process should be more transparent, thats fair. But again, the "big idea" of charters is they allow for specialized, unique curriculum approaches. I'm having a hard time seeing them as anything more than one of the most successful implementations of that "big idea" in practice.

[seand]

It's not that it's in the woods since transportation must be provided once students enroll. It's that parents must pick up and drop off the application in-person during school hours in the woods.

Masterman has an economically-disadvantaged rate of 46%, by the way. If you don't understand that 17% and the words "significant barriers to entry" means something is seriously off, then I don't know how to get you to.

And Masterman has been around for generations and its reputation is so well known that if anybody knows anything about Philadelphia schools at all they know that name.

Really the more we talk about this, the more I think you are making a great argument for why there should be a Green Woods II on Cobbs Creek Park somewhere. Its a great example of what a charter can be when it really is about a unique learning environment, unique curriculum focus.

[ShoshTrvls]

If you got more on how their lottery process should be more transparent, thats fair. But again, the "big idea" of charters is they allow for specialized, unique curriculum approaches. I'm having a hard time seeing them as anything more than one of the most successful implementations of that "big idea" in practice.

You are being intentionally blind.

Why do parents have to show up in person to pick up and drop off applications? What does that have to do with the "unique curriculum?" Why isn't application information made available as prominently and as easily accessible as the information for other schools? What does that have to do with the "unique curriculum?" I'm with Annie on this -- Green Woods is working its hardest to ensure the lowest possible minority and disadvantaged student enrollment as possible.

[seand]

I don't know maybe because the location of the school is a fundamental part of the mission of the school and they want to drive that home with perspective parents. That by signing up for this school you are signing up for a specialized mission, like you might have a maritime themed school on a boat and make parents come to the boat so they know what they are getting into. How is going to 440 during school hours dramatically more/less convenient than going to the school?

[raider.adam]

Based on what I am reading, I would assume that this is something that should be addressed higher up the chain. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a uniform application guidelines and lottery processes.

It would seem to me, the easy solution is that the state can mandate that any and all charters have to receive and acknowledge receipt of applications electronically as well as accept drop off apps.

I agree that sibling preference seems to actually be a good thing and not a negative.

I also wouldn't worry about the location of the school unless it can be shown that it is done intentionally to mess with enrollment. Sort of an "innocent until proven guilty" approach.

But overall, I would say it is a good idea to focus on the state level to create a bit of uniformity in the process. Paperwork and lottery seems perfectly reasonable.

[seand]

Based on what I am reading, I would assume that this is something that should be addressed higher up the chain. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a uniform application guidelines and lottery processes.

It would seem to me, the easy solution is that the state can mandate that any and all charters have to receive and acknowledge receipt of applications electronically as well as accept drop off apps.

I agree that sibling preference seems to actually be a good thing and not a negative.

I also wouldn't worry about the location of the school unless it can be shown that it is done intentionally to mess with enrollment. Sort of an "innocent until proven guilty" approach.

But overall, I would say it is a good idea to focus on the state level to create a bit of uniformity in the process. Paperwork and lottery seems perfectly reasonable.

I agree with every single point in this post. It just seems odd to start at "why does this charter have really high test scores" and step by step decide from there that they have to be subjected to punitive audits above and beyond other charters, which is very much the implication of annie's OP - to harrass and try to put mission driven charters that actually work out of business because middle class parents are slicker at gaming the system and searching out alternatives. Make those alternatives more widely available, don't try to badger them in particular with audits more punitive than other, far less reputable charters.

"People really want to get into this school with a really unique learning environment and as result the lottery is hard and the parents self-selecting have kids with high test schools. Lets try to put it out of business, instead of making what desirable about its approach more widely accesible." It just seems anti-education to me at its core.

[ShoshTrvls]

How is going to 440 during school hours dramatically more/less convenient than going to the school?

(a) Application to all other schools can be made by mail; I've never set foot in 440 N. Broad, and I suspect the majority of school district parents, including those with kids in Charters and Special Admit schools, haven't.
(b) Public transportation (as mentioned above).

[ShoshTrvls]

I agree with every single point in this post. It just seems odd to start at "why does this charter have really high test scores" and step by step decide from there that they have to be subjected to punitive audits above and beyond other charters, which is very much the implication of annie's OP - to harrass and try to put mission driven charters that actually work out of business because middle class parents are slicker at gaming the system and searching out alternatives. Make those alternatives more widely available, don't try to badger them in particular with audits more punitive than other, far less reputable charters.

"People really want to get into this school with a really unique learning environment and as result the lottery is hard and the parents self-selecting have kids with high test schools. Lets try to put it out of business, instead of making what desirable about its approach more widely accesible." It just seems anti-education to me at its core.

It's not the test scores that bring on questions -- Masterman, Central, SLC, Independence Charter, and a variety of all other schools have high test scores. What brings on questions is the diversity numbers, the lack of transparency, and the difficulty of the application process.

I assume you approve of poll taxes as well?

[seand]

The whole process is poorly advertised, confusing and very few of the other charters and special admit schools are widely known about by huge proportion of district parents.

[seand]

I assume you approve of poll taxes as well?

**** you. I make $28k a year. I do not need this lecture from a Queen Village lawyer.

[Dolemite]

Green Woods is in the process of building a new school that I believe will be much more accessible and they are also moving to a new site for the next 2 years 2 blocks from downtown Manayunk. Did they list what these significant barriers are? Is it just having to show up to put in an application?

The premier catchment district schools that often get criticized as primarily serving the city's wealthiest (at least in terms of real estate value) have economically disadvantaged rates of close to or above 50%.

Really? I thought Penn Alexander, Meredith, and Greenfield were closer to 25%. Where are you getting your stats?

Are there any significant barriers in getting into those schools?

[annie]

Really? I thought Penn Alexander, Meredith, and Greenfield were closer to 25%. Where are you getting your stats?

Penn Alexander
Greenfield
Meredith
Independence Charter

From the School District with the exception of Independence Charter. The site for Independence Charter I think is getting its information from the Philly.com report cards. Penn Alexander students must (in theory though there are exceptions) live in its catchment boundaries and doesn't take outside catchment transfers unlike Greenfield and Meredith which do as long as there is room.

[gren]

I agree with every single point in this post. It just seems odd to start at "why does this charter have really high test scores" and step by step decide from there that they have to be subjected to punitive audits above and beyond other charters, which is very much the implication of annie's OP - to harrass and try to put mission driven charters that actually work out of business because middle class parents are slicker at gaming the system and searching out alternatives. Make those alternatives more widely available, don't try to badger them in particular with audits more punitive than other, far less reputable charters.

"People really want to get into this school with a really unique learning environment and as result the lottery is hard and the parents self-selecting have kids with high test schools. Lets try to put it out of business, instead of making what desirable about its approach more widely accesible." It just seems anti-education to me at its core.

Kids from the bottom of the socioeconomic scale tend to come to school with vocabularies of about 5,000 words. Kids from more fortunate backgrounds tend to start school at age six with vocabularies of about 20,000 words.

Income, More Than Race, Is Driving Achievement Gap : NPR


I think she's arguing that they're trying to become a better school by selecting students based on socio-economic background, not that she's trying to penalize the school for somehow being good. It's much easier to be a good school when you're picking your students.

[ShoshTrvls]

**** you. I make $28k a year. I do not need this lecture from a Queen Village lawyer.

Right back at you. I bought my house in QV in 1992, and took my chances with gun shots ringing every night. I wanted to live in a diverse neighborhood, where my future childen (child, as it turns out) would not grow up in an obsessively sheltered environment.

[seand]

Income, More Than Race, Is Driving Achievement Gap : NPR


I think she's arguing that they're trying to become a better school by selecting students based on socio-economic background, not that she's trying to penalize the school for somehow being good. It's much easier to be a good school when you're picking your students.

But if you are a good school i.e. with a unique educational environment and curriculum, students with more vocabularies etc. self-select. There is also a bit of criticizing them for that as well. If you are saying that there shouldn't be environmentally-themed schools in "woods" envirnoments or that they should top the list for audits because they have a program that more middle class people seek out, you are in fact punishing them for being a "good school" rather than saying that there should be more and more varied "good school" opportunities for everyone.

Its a chicken and egg and if the policy you are calling for is putting the "good chickens" out of business that just means nobody gets to taste it all.