Cyber charter told to close and refuses

[annie]

Charter schools have long wait lists in part because they're allowed to cap their class sizes even lower than the district. (But, when district teachers fight for lower class sizes I've heard it said they just want their jobs to be easier and there to be more teaching positions). Charters don't have to accept students throughout the year and in a district with a large highly mobile population this makes a difference. Charters can require parents to sign a contract agreeing to criminal prosecution of the parent if their child is violent on the school's campus. Charters can require mandatory multi-day orientations for new students and parents. They can do testing to determine grade level and if the student is below grade level require the student to repeat a grade with many parents in that situation opting not to enroll in that charter. I could go on and have elsewhere.

It is something to consider with the district's policy of Renaissance charter schools taking over former district schools and acting as if they are equivalent to neighborhood district schools. There are some best practices that should be brought back to district schools, yes, but there also needs to be recognition that charters, even Renaissance charters are set up very different from district schools.

[seand]

Charter schools have long wait lists in part because they're allowed to cap their class sizes even lower than the district. (But, when district teachers fight for lower class sizes I've heard it said they just want their jobs to be easier and there to be more teaching positions). Charters don't have to accept students throughout the year and in a district with a large highly mobile population this makes a difference. Charters can require parents to sign a contract agreeing to criminal prosecution of the parent if their child is violent on the school's campus. Charters can require mandatory multi-day orientations for new students and parents. They can do testing to determine grade level and if the student is below grade level require the student to repeat a grade with many parents in that situation opting not to enroll in that charter. I could go on and have elsewhere.

And those virtually all (with maybe one exception) sound desirable to have in a school to me. Basically it mostly sounds like list of things every school should do anyway and if for that reason alone a reason to make more charters (provided they are responsibly run).

I'm not getting a negative there. If your perspective is "what simple things can make a school run better" those all sound like winners for parents as consumers of schools. Whose fault is it that regular schools don't force parents to sign such agreements and come to orientations? Is it the parents fault?

It is something to consider with the district's policy of Renaissance charter schools taking over former district schools and acting as if they are equivalent to neighborhood district schools. There are some best practices that should be brought back to district schools, yes, but there also needs to be recognition that charters, even Renaissance charters are set up very different from district schools.

So what stops adopting best practices? It sort of sounds like "Protect us from those charters that unfairly use things that better educate kids to a competitive advantage." Parents just want the better things that work and will go and push for schools where they can get them. Do you blame them?

It also sort of answers the "Why reinvent the wheel?" question. The "wheel" apparently won't let you do very simple things to make schools more effective and safer so from the perspective of a consumer, screw that wheel.

Two restaurants. Restaurant A has a policy they wont promise not to install a simple safety procedure to prevent spilling rat poison in the food. So I'm supposed to be mad at Restaurant B for its unfairly competitive practice?

[annie]

Sean, I think it has to do with education law and the legal right to free appropriate public education. A neighborhood district school can only require a birth certificate, evidence of residence in the catchment and immunization records to enroll.

Remember, even if the district expels a student permanently, if the parents do not find another school for the student, the district is required to and required to pay for it. (In theory, if a charter accepts a disabled student and cannot accommodate them, they are supposed to do the same rather than return the student to the district)

If you want to create a tiered system of education, be honest about it and recognize that the tier with fewer enrollment barriers is going to need more support as a result not less. If you want to remove public education as a legal right, recognize the repercussions. That's all.

[seand]

Sean, I think it has to do with education law and the legal right to free appropriate public education. A neighborhood district school can only require a birth certificate, evidence of residence in the catchment and immunization records to enroll.

Why? If they can require uniforms, why can't they require signing an agreement to pull a dangerous kid out and put them in a disciplinary school? Or to attend an orientation? What case law??

Remember, even if the district expels a student permanently, if the parents do not find another school for the student, the district is required to and required to pay for it. (In theory, if a charter accepts a disabled student and cannot accommodate them, they are supposed to do the same rather than return the student to the district)

If you want to create a tiered system of education, be honest about it. If you want to remove public education as a legal right, recognize the repercussions. That's all.

If by a tiered system you mean one where one tier is kids whose parents agree to reasonable safety standards and another with an appropriate number of disciplinary schools (which will cost more money to run) sounds constitutional, fair, and desirable. Still not seeing why that can't be the way things run by default, rather that the rules have been misunderstood/misapplied in "regular" schools, stymieing reform.

[annie]

Why? If they can require uniforms, why can't they require signing an agreement to pull a dangerous kid out and put them in a disciplinary school? Or to attend an orientation? What case law??

I will get right on preparing a brief for you.

And because I sit through such things, I know that the SRC recently passed a resolution authorizing the purchase of uniforms for indigent students.

If by a tiered system you mean one where one tier is kids whose parents agree to reasonable safety standards and another with an appropriate number of disciplinary schools (which will cost more money to run) sounds constitutional, fair, and desirable. Still not seeing why that can't be the way things run by default, rather that the rules have been misunderstood/misapplied in "regular" schools, stymieing reform.

No, I mean a tiered system as we already have it where:

while charters may have equivalent numbers of economically disadvantaged students (130-185% poverty guidelines), district schools have much higher numbers of the severely poor and highly-mobile
while charters may have equivalent rates of IEPs and disabled students overall, district schools have much higher numbers of the severely disabled students physically, mentally or emotionally
while some charters set up to specifically serve immigrant populations have large ELL populations, discounting those, the rate served is less than 1%, districts schools have an average of 8%

[seand]

Isn't the system better off targeting services for severely disabled or "highly mobile" students with a limited number of schools specialized for their needs anyway?

And yes, I can see how subsidized uniforms in a limited number of cases, just like in special cases waivers for orientation could be asked for applied on a case by case basis.

It still sounds like "Charters are unfairly doing what we should be doing anyway" to me.

Besides your quip about getting right on it, you have not really shown why "because we have always done it this way" is "thats the way it has to be legally", probably because its not the case.

[OldMama]

Sean, the federal law (IDEA) says that students with severe disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. In the special ed biz, these provisions are called FAPE and LRE. LRE is usually interpreted as being the most normal setting possible and special schools are not usually seen as the most normal setting possible. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, these students are educated in regular public schools where they can interact with non-disabled peers.

When "uniforms" were first introduced to the district, the rules were that the schools could mandate a style (i.e. "shirt with a collar") and color only. The uniforms were supposed to be clothing that could be purchased in any store, not specialty stores. Schools were not permitted to REQUIRE a logo or emblem. They could sell logo or emblem shirts as fund raisers or to boost school pride but they could not require parents to buy them. In this way, poor parents (or in my case, middle class parents) could go to Target or Forman Mills or K-Mart and get khaki pants and navy polo shirts for no more than we would have spent on non-uniform school clothing. Somehow this idea got lost along the way. Requiring logos can impose a financial hardship and they are unnecessary. Uniform colors works just fine.

Annie, your post about how charters can differ from the neighborhood school was great. I understand that, to a parent, the things a charter has freedom to do sound great. My caution is that it's unreasonable to compare a school that does have lower class size and does make demand of parents to a school that cannot. We have to admit that many charters have advantages that regular schools do not. That's all- admit that the playing field is not entirely level.

[seand]

Sean, the federal law (IDEA) says that students with severe disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. In the special ed biz, these provisions are called FAPE and LRE. LRE is usually interpreted as being the most normal setting possible and special schools are not usually seen as the most normal setting possible. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, these students are educated in regular public schools where they can intact with non-disabled peers.

Does this ever happen, even if there is a classroom dedicated in physically dispersed school buildings? Fair or unfair, it seems from my experience in school that the letter of this law might be followed, but nothing even close to its intent happens in practice. So instead you have a lot of half-ass programs for kids who don't interect with the rest of the population stuck in the corner of a whole bunch of geographically dispersed buildings, instead a really good centralized one.

I'm sure you are right, but it doesn't seem to do what its intent is in practice.

Annie, your post about how charters can differ from the neighborhood school was great. I understand that, to a parent, the things a charter has freedom to do sound great. My caution is that it's unreasonable to compare a school that does have lower class size and does make demand of parents to a school that cannot. We have to admit that many charters have advantages that regular schools do not. That's all- admit that the playing field is not entirely level.

Which still does not explain why the level playing field has to be made by lowering to the worse set of practices. And why criticizing charters for the better practices is ultimately a doomed political exercise - i.e. chastising parents for doing what they naturally will vote and vote with their feet for.

[Templeton]

Because the wheel is broken and parents hate the wheel and if given the option tend to run away screaming from the wheel more often than not. Because Wheel #2 already seems to be working better, be demonstrably, measurably more round in many instances.


So why do we have prioritize the publics producing lousy results instead of simply saying we should prioritize alternatives that are actually working. Full stop. Because you know better than parents? A charter is a public school.



You in fact keep saying that we should not give money to a particular brand of public education that works for lots and lots of parents. Why? Again charters are public education.

Do you mean its more important to you that teachers are union members than whether the kids are getting a good education because that sounds like what you are saying.


And the system we have includes charters, charters with long waiting lists of parents trying to enroll, more often than not. It sounds to me like you are explicitly trying to take away a choice a lot of parents explicitly say they want.



Only because you keep moving the goal posts and saying charters are not public education.


"Fixing" the kids and the parents. Depending on the context, that sounds eugenics or something equally heavy handed and attrocious to me.

No. I don't expect schools to "fix" parents or kids. I expect them to give all kids, regardless of their zipcode an equal opportunity to learn. You, so far, not so much.


Mmmm. Its not just by cherry picking. Many charters do seem to produce obstensibly better measurable results with the same economic level of kids. Others are scams. Also, if we only have so much money, shouldn't we just prioritize the schools that work, charter or no, that produce results. Charters by law cost no more to run per student.


No its you who keeps prioritizing something else, other than is the school producing results, as more important than education. I'm saying, charters, not charters -results first. You are saying charters never. That sounds like you have an agenda other than providing a quality education.

Wow, you seem a little hot under the collar on this issue. I don't know why you keep attacking me, and my motives "you keep moving the goal posts and saying charters are not public education (I did?), its more important to you that teachers are union members than whether the kids are getting a good education, No its you who keeps prioritizing something else, other than is the school producing results, That sounds like you have an agenda other than providing a quality education" I have no kids, no unions and no motive other than a discussion. I could make disaraging remarks about about your motives too, but choose not to. I thought since we agree on other things we could have a civil discussion. I guess not on this subject. Good day sir.
-Tempie

[seand]

My only agenda is that its ridiculous to say "X has an unfair advantage" when the "unfair advantage" is exactly what parents want for their kids.

As long as one bases their argument on that perspective, they will continue to lose the larger political fight, and for good reason.

[Lakey]

Why? If they can require uniforms, why can't they require signing an agreement to pull a dangerous kid out and put them in a disciplinary school? Or to attend an orientation? What case law??


If by a tiered system you mean one where one tier is kids whose parents agree to reasonable safety standards and another with an appropriate number of disciplinary schools (which will cost more money to run) sounds constitutional, fair, and desirable. Still not seeing why that can't be the way things run by default, rather that the rules have been misunderstood/misapplied in "regular" schools, stymieing reform.

I'm not sure what PA law has to say on these topics other than I do know that the state is required by commonwealth law to provide education for all children aged 6 - 17, even those who've been expelled. The heart of this issue is discrimination in education and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is often the governing law in such cases. All public schools are covered entities of Title VI. Specifically it prohibits discrimination by race, color or national origin by any entity receiving federal financial assistance. There is also relevant case law involving the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covering the mechanics of suspending and expelling students in public schools in addition to applicable state law. And as Old Mama mentioned there is case law associated with IDEA as well. IOW, there is plenty of case law as far as public schools are concerned.

What you are proposing is putting a larger number of black students in disciplinary schools than at present. The probability of that action attracting scrutiny from the Office of Civil Rights and advocacy groups is probably right around 100%. The district is required to report data by race, ethnicity and sex for suspensions and expulsions which is is monitored by DOE and can be passed on to OCR for review. The current data show that low-income, black males are disproportionately represented among the suspended and expelled students. SDP like other large urban districts is essentially already on shaky ground in this matter. Also, school districts around the country are under scrutiny to reduce the number of black children, boys especially, who are classified as disabled for reasons other than physical disabilities. OCR and plaintiff's counsel have successfully argued that the disproportionate enrollment of black children in special ed classes is a form of discrimination under Title VI. I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that the large scale transfer of black males to disciplinary schools is going to go unnoticed or unchallenged. And as you noted it would be expensive to do anyway.

Charters, at the moment anyway, seem to be under far less scrutiny from state or federal regulatory institutions when it comes to issues of discrimination. To my knowledge there are few, if any, precedents involving charter schools and discriminatory enrollment practices. The first wide-scale one that I know of is in the State of New York which is in general very aggressive about enforcing the language provisions of NY state law and those of Title VI. NY is discussing starting to hold charters accountable for under-enrollment of ELL students. In advance of this, the charter advocacy group in NYC did a self-study and they found (completely unsurprisingly) that NYC charters enroll proportionately fewer ELL students, fewer disabled students and that students enrolled in charters are less like to come from the lowest income families than their peers at traditional public schools.

[Dolemite]

We have to admit that many charters have advantages that regular schools do not. That's all- admit that the playing field is not entirely level.

So we should get rid of the Magnet and Special Admission schools too, I guess because of all the unfair advantages they have. I'm sure Lakey could point out the unfair racial composition of those student bodies as well.

[billy ross]

So we should get rid of the Magnet and Special Admission schools too, I guess because of all the unfair advantages they have. I'm sure Lakey could point out the unfair racial composition of those student bodies as well.

If you don't work hard to make sure that your organization, be it a neighborhood, a baseball team, a school, or a corporation, is in the most favorable position it can be in, you are doing something wrong. Who here doesn't think that the United States Marine Corps tries to give itself every advantage it possibly can? That's why the USMC is unstoppable. When they were bogged down in Iraq and things looked doubtful, they enlisted the former officers from the disbanded Iraqi army (their former enemies) and got them on their side. Unfair advantage? Maybe, but it accomplished the mission. If you aren't trying to be the best, if you aren't striving for excellence above and beyond your peers, what are you doing then? That's how the Syrian army operates (i.e. mediocrity is fine, getting your butts kicked by the Israelis is fine), but we're Americans. Americans believe in winners, and we believe in excellence. Americans may support underdogs, but we have never supported losers.