Charter Schools

As I write, I am listening to a teacher’s voice, on-line, conducting a live lesson intended to prepare a group of homeschooled fourth graders for their state testing. These children have been pulled out of the public school system for many reasons. Some are the children of free-spirited parents who are raising their children on their own terms; some are the children of parents who don’t want their children exposed to what they see as the evils in society; and some have parents who honestly believe that they can do a better job than can professional educators. But the child I tutor is unique.

But wait a minute! All children are unique! Christopher, however, has had experiences that have made it impossible for him to survive in a traditional classroom. When it comes right down to it, my take on the situation is that he’s simply brighter than the adults who have authority over him. Not “smarter” . . . not better informed . . . simply brighter. His mind works faster. He processes information in ways that his teachers cannot understand. His talents are not only not supported by the system, they are seen as downright disruptive. He is an individual. And as a particularly strong individual – at 10 years old – he won’t let the system force him into a mold that does not fit.

So here I sit. Listening to a recording in which a well-meaning teacher, a disembodied voice, is trying to calm the fears of a group of silent children, spread all over the state, so they will perform on the state test in a manner that will reflect well on the on-line school.

When I left classroom teaching in 1998, I did not see this coming. There were those, however, who did – and warned the rest of us that we in the public schools would need to improve our “customer service” in order to remain competitive. Parents were beginning to see that curriculum was becoming more and more standardized, the levels of stress and anxiety felt by adults in the system was causing stress and anxiety in their children, and ideas like “school choice,” “innovative and flexible charter schools,” and “home schooling” were making them question whether or not the public schools were best serving the needs of their children.

Even though I knew it was time for me to leave the classroom, I was fully aware that I was not ready to leave education. I had the opportunity to help write a National Blue Ribbon Award application for the school where I had been teaching, and I was excited about the possibilities for education in the coming years. I wanted to consult and write . . . and I believed that my voice could make a difference.

So, for the first time in my 30-year career as an educator, I began attending state and national educational conferences. I soon became aware of what President G.W. Bush had called the “Decade of the Brain.” It seemed to me that we were on the brink of a transformation that would positively impact education, society, and all future generations of learners. It was an exciting time for me. I had wonderful memories of my years of teaching, a beautiful vision for the future – and lots of time on my hands.

Over the next few years I attended conferences and workshops, bought books, and became familiar with the ideas of educators like Phil Schlechty, Eric Jensen, Bill Spady, Geoffrey and Renate Caine, Bob Sylwester, Robin Fogarty, Alphie Kohn, Marion Diamond, Spencer Kagan, Carla Hannaford, and many, many more. Their ideas inspired me to work with others who believed as I did that we were on the brink of true educational reform.

In 2001 I had the opportunity to work with some truly enlightened people on an educational model that was not only learner centered – but held at its core a deep respect for the child at the spiritual and emotional levels. That model was designed to encourage creativity, collaboration, and compassion in learners while developing competence in the concepts and skills they would need as productive members of society. In addition – and most important – was our focus on helping children become truly conscious of who they really are and the people they are becoming. For almost three years we were well funded by a visionary entrepreneur and our excitement ran high. Three schools on two continents were established and we all truly believed that the HeartLight model would transform education.

Unfortunately, our schools in this country had to close after the first year because they were not fully self-supporting. But did we fail? Or were we simply premature? I believe that in time, others will wake up to the reality that our children are more than what a test can measure. Models like ours will then begin to attract enough families (and entrepreneurs) to make them “cost effective.” (Which, we must admit, is the bottom line for any venture like this.)

After the HeartLight Learning Communities were closed, another opportunity came my way. This time I worked with a forward-thinking superintendent who helped me apply for a grant to start a charter school in our small community. Believing that any rational human being would realize that the best way to educate children is to honor the way they naturally learn, I set off to write the HeartLight model in language that would be accepted by traditional educators. At that time (2003) the criteria for such schools in our state were that they be innovative and flexible, community driven, and provide opportunities not available in the local public school system. Our grant was funded and Upper Chetco Charter School opened in September 2005 with 25 students, two teachers, and a great many excited community volunteers. But once again, the model was premature, our timing wrong – and within six months of opening, the newly hired staff fell back into a traditional, standardized, one-size-fits-all curriculum. Our dream of bringing an enlightened model of education to our little town was gone.

Disappointment ran high for those of us who were so committed to both of those projects. During the years that have followed public education has moved in an entirely different direction – even farther away from our dream. But I still don’t believe that either of these ventures failed. It sometimes feels to me like our vision has dimmed – but then I realize that the people who worked with us, the minds we opened, and the children we inspired will take what they learned, make it their own, and continue the journey toward a better future for themselves – and perhaps even for the world.

Several years ago I was involved with a group of people in Brookings who were very excited about what the Curry Coastal Pilot was to later call a “Grand Experiment.” Our firm belief was that it is possible to structure an educational system within which every child can learn and succeed. At that time there were a great many questions circulating around town about charter schools – so I was asked to speak to the Rotary Club on March 22, 2005 to answer the question “What is a Charter School, Anyway?”

Once again I’m beginning to hear that same question being asked – so perhaps it’s time to revisit the answer. The short answer is pretty simple: A charter school is an alternative public school that is based on a charter, or contract, between a group of people and a public school district.

Although that definition may sound simple – in reality it’s the root of the confusion and controversy. Since no two contracts, or “charters,” are alike – no two charter schools are alike.[1] Unfortunately, the community-driven charter schools that get most media attention are the ones that fail. That’s why the long answer to the question “What is a Charter School?” is so important. That answer must start with a three part history lesson that begins in 1892:

PART ONE: The Committee of Ten

Few people know about the Committee of Ten – although their decisions have shaped most of our lives. The Committee was appointed by the National Education Association in 1892 and was chaired by Charles Eliot, then president of Harvard University. Their task was to standardize high school programs across the country so that colleges could be certain that they were accepting students who could be academically successful. Their finished report would sound familiar to most educators today. To start with, it laid down two “tracks” for high school students: the “University Preparation Track” and the “Terminal Track.” Students who would never be considered for college were placed on the “Terminal Track.” In 1892 that had nothing to do with a person’s intelligence. It was usually because they were poor, the wrong color . . . or because they were women.

Other familiar aspects of the report included “Grade Levels,” a 1^st– 8^th grade “Grammar School,” a 9^th-12^th grade “High School” – and the familiar system of Carnegie Units that are needed in order to graduate.

This system worked well for the country throughout the first half of the 20^th century. Many students couldn’t meet the standards of high school and dropped out of school before they finished. But with two World Wars to fight – and an industrialized society to build . . . there was always plenty of work for these high school dropouts. My own grandfather was a perfect example. He only made it through the 6^th grade, dropping out to work on the family farm. In 1934 he brought his wife and young daughter to California. He got a job in the new Ford Motor Company factory in Long Beach and retired with a gold watch and enough Ford stock to start college funds his great-great grandchildren.

We can all tell similar success stories about young people who were not successful in school – but have been successful in life. Unfortunately, those days are over and it’s taken us the last half of the 20^th century to accept that we need to seriously question the work of the Committee of Ten. Children who can’t find success in school today are going to have a much harder time competing in the 21^st century marketplace.

PART TWO: The Factory Model

Most “Baby Boomers” will remember the I Love Lucy episode in which Lucy and Ethel get jobs on a candy factory assembly line. Up until the early 1950’s, little kids came to public school much like the chocolates on the conveyor belt in that episode. The value systems in most middle class American homes were about the same. Minorities were just that: minorities. They had very little voice in public policy making. The number of kids who started school every year remained about the same and schools were able to serve most students well. There was always work outside school for those who couldn’t – or didn’t want to – conform, and the system worked. Schools could handle the job easily and became quite complacent with the system the Committee of Ten had established over 50 years earlier.

Then came 1951. The “Baby Boomers,” some of whom had even been born in hospital hallways and waiting rooms in 1946 and 1947, arrived at the schoolhouse doors. And, like the chocolates on the conveyer belt on “I Love Lucy” . . . they kept coming and coming. I have heard that some first grade classes tripled in size from one year to the next. Since these kids had been around for six years, it’s pretty amazing that the schools weren’t prepared for them, but they weren’t. So, during the 1950’s and into the 1960’s, the standardization that began with the Committee of Ten in 1892 moved into full gear and schools adopted what has been called the “Factory Model.” Throughout those years schools had to look at ways to standardize the process more and more in order to educate the greatest number of kids.

From there, things kept speeding up until early civil rights advocates began to ask questions. They began to ask about the kids, who, like the candy on the conveyor belt, kept “flipping off the assembly line” when it began moving too fast. From my point of view as a student who did well in school in the 1950’s and 60’s, and then as a young teacher in the early 1970’s, those students didn’t impact my world very much. However, thankfully there were teachers, who did notice these young people – the ones who simply did not have a place in our schools.

As a result of the work of those advocates, the Federal Government passed a law in 1974 that again changed the face of American education forever. Public Law 94-142 stated that “every child has a right to a free, appropriate, public education in the least restrictive environment.” While teachers and parents of today may not be able to quote the exact wording of that law . . . it impacts them on a daily basis. A favorite professor of mine introduced the PL 94-142 with the following quote: “Every good idea starts with a poet – and ends with a policeman.” It feels to many of us that in the 40 years that have followed the passage of that most “poetic” idea into law, our schools have begun to crumble under the stress of trying to do what is right for ALL students.

PART THREE: The Promise of Charter Schools

Charter schools also had their roots in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s and early 1970’s. After PL 94-142 passed in 1974, educators could no longer think in terms of the “Terminal Track” that seemed so logical to the Committee of Ten in 1892. Not only was a “free, appropriate, public education available to the poor, to people of color, and to women, the law now required that it be made available to all children – regardless of any physical handicap or learning disability they might have.

Soon, however, many teachers began to realize that a large number of students who were not physically handicapped and could not be labeled learning disabled were still not finding success within the standardized system. Because so many students were unable, or unwilling, to conform, many schools – especially in large urban areas – were failing.

New England educator, Ray Budde, was one of the teachers who noticed the “invisible” kids – the ones who were not making it in school and were leaving early. In 1974 he suggested that small groups of teachers be given contracts or “charters” by their local school boards to explore new approaches within pre-existing schools to serve these students. Albert Shanker, former president of the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) promoted the idea of these charters as “schools within schools. The idea caught on during the next two decades and Philadelphia opened a number of new “Charter Schools” in the late 1980’s.

The idea took root, and in 1991 Minnesota became the first state to pass a Charter School. Federal money was made available to charters in states that had such a law. California’s law was passed in 1992 and, by 1995, 19 states had passed Charter School Laws. By 2003, 40 states had Charter School Laws in place.

Oregon’s law was passed in 1999. Charter School Laws have changed every year. In some cases those changes have improved charter schools as the “bugs” have been worked out over time. Other changes have been the result of political pressure to conform to the existing system. Overall, however, the promise of charter schools is that innovative and flexible models can be effectively utilized to provide opportunities for students who are in some way underserved in the traditional schools. The requirement of a charter school is that it must provide a program different from what is already available – and be open to all students, not necessarily just the ones who are considered to be “at risk.”

Charter school developers across the country are re-thinking the report of the Committee of Ten and continue to add opportunities for kids with special needs but who are not necessarily learning disabled. Every learner is unique – and charters can provide choices that are not possible in traditional public schools.

As our society is becoming more and more complex, parents are beginning to demand educational choices that are not currently available within traditional public schools. Many are opting to homeschool their children or to enroll them in private schools. A good charter school is a free, public alternative for these parents. In cases where more parents want to have their children in a charter school than spaces are available, a lottery system must be used.

Charter School Laws have become complex and are still “works in progress.” Since charters are intended to be innovative and flexible, developers must constantly be thinking “outside the box.” That, of course, is the only way they can hope to help kids who are definitely “outside the box” in their thinking! The most important thing to remember, however, is that since charters are public schools, their students are expected to meet the same high standards as all other students. There is no difference in what charter schools must teach; the difference is in how they teach it.

[1] Except, of course, for the new breed of “privatized” charter schools, or “charter chains” that are now receiving most of the media attention. Some of these were featured in the movie “Waiting for Superman.”

Tag: Charter Schools

A Vision Dimmed